Is it true?
Wolf
CVB413 wrote:
>
> I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
> newsgroup??
>
> thanks,
> c.
Of course they did C. And if you hang around long enough you'll quickly
learn that Scientology is a death cult with Y2K frenzy on their minds.
They alternatly spend millions hatching world domination plans, burning
babies, following their ex-members around the world, drowning family
pets, smashing windows, buying off the democratic party, black-mailing
everyone in Hollywood (everyone in Hollywood is gay, of course), they
shoot their ex wives, they demand total compliance and heavy tithes from
any member who owns a business, they have secret vaults all over
California that have a total cost in excess of what it took to build the
Hoover Dam.
Other things you'll learn while a member of the ARS cult is that no
Scientologist ever got anything but ripped off. All Scientologists are
mindless zombies. That any Scientologist is no more than fodder for
derisive jokes, name-calling and general mayhem. That their practices
are all fakery and that they only reason so many people are members is
that the world is full of really, really stupid people. In fact, the
only smart people left on the planet are ARS cultists. That's why they
ring bells, fire off cannons and hoot the hoot of hollow victory every
time they strike another death blow the totalitarian evilness that is
the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY!!!
Park your thinking cap at the door though C when you read this ng.
Despite the fact the all Scientologists are little more than zombie-like
followers, they somehow have the power to be evil and, my god!,
effective. Despite the fact that ARS regulars bleat endlessly about
*their* rights and how the laws ought to work for them, if you so much
as hint that CofS has equal access to the same rights you will be
mega-flamed (not to mention called a clam.... ooooh, how that must hurt
huh?).
Other little things you must hide from yourself in order to gain
acceptance in the ARS cult is the strange dichotomy of how such a
mindless group of brainwashed losers ever became powerful enough to
merit the attention of all your saviours on ARS. It must be a trick!
But you can be consoled in the good fight that ARS cultists are waging
to save you, C, the potentially mindless droid of an evil cult that is
more powerful even than Goldfinger, from the clammy fingers of
Scientology. They do this by reluctantly hauling their huge Dorito and
Pepsi filled bodies away from their pc's and trundling down to the
nearest org to assualt the dark forces with, with, it's too horrible...
with placards!!! Yes C! Placards. Flimsy signs and cheap dayglo flyers
that babble senselessly about such horrors as Xemu and dead dogs. The
valiant fighters then rush back to the safety of their rooms where they
immediatly post their own 'stats' so they can get the much needed
admiration and attention that gives them the strength to pick the phone
up and order in another pizza.
Did I forget the black helicopters? Excuse me.
But, if you're looking for the truth about Scientology, the least likely
place on this planet to find it is ARS. If you're looking for a
diversion and some good old hateful fun to be had at the expense of
others... then you found the place C.
Welcome aboard!
Wolf
Martin Hunt
In article <199805200102...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
cvb...@aol.com (CVB413) wrote:
>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>newsgroup??
In several ways:
* a massive spam attack to make the newsgroup unreadable.
* cancels of critical posts.
* an RMGROUP issued by cult whore, Helena K. Kobrin.
* a drawn-up (and leaked) plan to post "theta" in volumes to silence
all opposition by Scientologist.
* lawsuits against participants in an attempt to silence them.
The current "Pinky and the Brain" strategy is to launch 117,000
cookie-cutter webpages in order to just "drown out the SPs".
Well, we're dealing with a stupid, paranoid cult that believes
in implanted space aliens. Can we expect better? :-)
ttyl,
martin. [p/m]
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"If you mention the Holocaust one more time I'm going to break your
face in." - Scientology whore Sandy Rosen to Graham Berry at the
Keith Henson trial.
CVB413
I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
newsgroup??
thanks,
c.
EldonB123
>Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
>
>As you can see, it didn't work too well.
Oh, yes it did. This was just a sleepy little backwater newsgroup until
Scientology promoted it. They sure know how to make things expand!
wgert
On Wed, 20 May 1998 01:40:58 GMT, gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady
Ward) wrote:
>Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
>
>As you can see, it didn't work too well.
>
Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
Podkayne1
Word-clear "tried", honeychile ;->
--
The sum total of Heinleinism is "Think for yourself"
If you think that's a Scn belief, look at
http://www.xmission.com/~mirele/spam.html
Mark W Brehob
Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
: CVB413 wrote:
: >
: > I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
: > newsgroup??
: >
: > thanks,
: > c.
: Of course they did C.
Yep. They did. Anti-Cult just posted plenty of proof.
I get the impression that you were trying to be sarcastic
and imply that the rmgroup (remove group) for command for ARS wasn't
sent by a Scientologist, for the Chruch of Scientology.
I hope you realize that it really did happen.
[big clip]
One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
is still not a nice thing...
Oh Well.
Mark
: Wolf
Tommy_sp...@xs.net
> >
> >>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
> >>newsgroup??
> >>
> >>thanks,
> >>c.
> >
> >
> >As you can see, it didn't work too well.
> >
>
> Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
*BZZZZT*! Wrong!
He asked if $cientology TRIED to shut down this NG. The answer to
that is - true.
Do you really read these posts? Or is it just a case of someone whose
job it is ("hatted") to read them passing info on how to answer to
another rondroid whose job it is to post them? If so, it's no wonder how
the answers often seem non-sequitur or just stupidly wrong. Ever play
the party game where one person is hatted to read a printed statement,
then whisper it one time to another, who whispers it to another, and
another, etc.? By the time the statement gets to the end of the line
(however short), the statement doesn't make much sense anymore....
This would explain a lot of things.
Tommy
--
"The fact that Scientology or it's members may have done something
illegal
has no bearing on the Keith Henson case."
"I don't make the mistake of mixing my beliefs with reality.."
Keith (Gunbunny) posted to a.r.s.
Deana Holmes
On Wed, 20 May 1998 06:59:30 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 May 1998 01:40:58 GMT, gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady
>Ward) wrote:
>
>>On 20 May 1998 01:02:43 GMT, cvb...@aol.com (CVB413) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>>>newsgroup??
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>c.
>>
>>Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
>>
>>As you can see, it didn't work too well.
>>
>
>Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
mmm. I guess, wgert, that you can't read.
Kobrin did try to rmgroup this newsgroup. It failed UTTERLY.
That's different from "it's not true."
Deana
mir...@xmission.com
====================
Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning
16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District
Court's remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no
obstacle to Alabama's establishment of a state religion.
========================
Wallace V. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Michael T. Richter
CVB413 <cvb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199805200102...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down
this
> newsgroup??
Yes. And Helena Kobrin threatened to sue the entire Internet.
Tilman Hausherr
In <199805200102...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, cvb...@aol.com
(CVB413) wrote:
>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>newsgroup??
Yes! Here it is:
> Xref: netcom.com control:923876
> Control: rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
> Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.lotto.players,alt.lotto.players.ctl
> Path: netcom.com!hkk
> From: hkk@netcom
> Subject: cmsg rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
> Message-ID: <hkkD29...@netcom.com>
> Followup-To: alt.config
> Sender: h...@netcom.com (Helena Kobrin)
> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 22:52:23 GMT
> Lines: 17
>
> We request that you remove the alt.religion.scientology
> newsgroup from your site. The reasons for requesting its
> removal are: (1) It was started with a forged message; (2)
> not discussed on alt.config; (3) it has the name
> "scientology" in its title which is a trademark and is
> misleading, as a.r.s. is mainly used for flamers to attack
> the Scientology religion; (4) it has been and continues to be
> heavily abused with copyright and trade secret violations and
> serves no purpose other than condoning these illegal
> practices.
>
> Please confirm that you have removed this newsgroup from
> your system.
>
> Helena K. Kobrin
> Counsel for trademark
> and copyright owner
.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <199805200102...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, CVB413:
>newsgroup??
Yes. Two attempts were made on the whole newsgroup.
Once (in early 1995) $cientology lawyer issued an RMGROUP to get
the group removed from all new-machines that would listen.
Last summer for several months an attempt was made to drown
the newsgroup out with 10,000s of short bland book extracts.
Now, if you check out the posting stats, you will see the gabbiest
people are $cientology shills posting dozens of short stupid messages
supposed to disrupt communication. It isn't very effective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In art<35627f3a...@news.loop.com>, wgert <wg...@loop.com> writes
>>>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>>>newsgroup??
>>
>>Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
>>As you can see, it didn't work too well.
>
>Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
Erm, Gertie, could you just run that past me again?
(1) CBV asks whether Scientology tried to shut down this newsgroup.
(2) Grady confirms their lawyer attempted just that.
(3) You say this proves they never attempted it.
You're insane, yes? Ah. You're a clam; that explains it.
In article <356238...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> writes
>Of course they did C. And if you hang around long enough you'll quickly
>learn that Scientology is a death cult with Y2K frenzy on their minds.
>They alternatly spend millions hatching world domination plans, burning
>babies, following their ex-members around the world, drowning family
>pets, smashing windows,
And here is another loonie who thinks the world will go away if
he shuts his shell and wishes; despite the fact Kobrin admitted
in writing to the RMGROUP attempt, saying it had been "a mistake".
These loonies have a motto that "what's true is what's true for you".
Meaning, if you hold your breath and wish very hard, objective
facts will vanish in obedience to your will. Hmmm.
--
<__"-$ <__" <__" <__"
:_ : : :_
''''''''._____'-_....'"...-------''''''_ <__'
'. $CIENTOLOGY: ..''--- :.
; _ . . . - '''
. . ' ': ': ':
: .' the bridge to .~~>~~>:~~>:
:.' total madness ~~> ~~>
'
"it's the xemu rap..xemu rap, all the littul clams go snappity-snapsnap"
Wolf
> : > newsgroup??
> : > thanks,
> : > c.
>
> : Of course they did C.
>
> Yep. They did. Anti-Cult just posted plenty of proof.
> I get the impression that you were trying to be sarcastic
> and imply that the rmgroup (remove group) for command for ARS wasn't
> sent by a Scientologist, for the Chruch of Scientology.
>
> I hope you realize that it really did happen.
Sure do. I was here. I don't want to get to picky, nor do I care to
defend Korbin. But the harsh reality is this: the attempt to remove the
ng by one person does not condemn the entire group she belongs to. At
least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
quality of thousands of CofS's members. To think otherwise - defining an
entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
> [big clip]
>
> One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
> calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
> I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
> may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
> Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
> is still not a nice thing...
FWIW Mark, the way I see it is that ARS is home to many people who have
a 'need' to strike out and attack others. In order to de-humanize those
they are trying to hurt it's important that they not see them as real
people. Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
nigger, spic, kike or white trash. It's a mental trick that weak minds
use to allow their own internal failures to be vented against something
non-human. Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
Wolf
Starshadow
In article <356238...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> CVB413 wrote:
> >
> > I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
> > newsgroup??
> >
> > thanks,
> > c.
>
> learn that Scientology is a death cult with Y2K frenzy on their minds.
> They alternatly spend millions hatching world domination plans, burning
> babies, following their ex-members around the world, drowning family
> everyone in Hollywood (everyone in Hollywood is gay, of course), they
> shoot their ex wives, they demand total compliance and heavy tithes from
> any member who owns a business, they have secret vaults all over
> California that have a total cost in excess of what it took to build the
> Hoover Dam.
to use sarcastic humor here. But if you read the ng you will find out
that some of the above is true, they do follow ex-members that they fear
enough around the world, (per Stacy Young who they fear because she
successfully talked a person out of the cult), that they do have world
domination plans, (though at the rate they are shrinking they simply
won't happen, though harm is being caused to innocents, make no mistake
about it), they do use the "confessional folders" to blackmail members
who have something to hide whether it be being gay or other "crimes",
they do own some secret vaults that have their dead guru's writings
engraved on metal to last for eternity (will make a dandy scrap heap some
day, I suspect), they do orchestrate hiring of PIs to harass, they have
harmed pets or left dead animals on people's doorstep, they have done any
number of despicable things, and you can see many of them in action right
on this ng. Pay attention to how they handle critics, by trying to claim
that they are "bigots" who practice "copywrite terrorism" (which phrase
trivializes real terrorism) and accusing them of being child molesters,
Nazis, deadbeat fathers, pornographers, etc, all while refusing to answer
people's questions about their loony cult's beliefs and practices, and
going into paroxisms(sp?) anytime someone lists their spam web pages and
even links to them.
This of course is Scientology in action.
>
> Other things you'll learn while a member of the ARS cult is that no
> Scientologist ever got anything but ripped off. All Scientologists are
> mindless zombies. That any Scientologist is no more than fodder for
> derisive jokes, name-calling and general mayhem. That their practices
> are all fakery and that they only reason so many people are members is
> that the world is full of really, really stupid people. In fact, the
> only smart people left on the planet are ARS cultists. That's why they
> ring bells, fire off cannons and hoot the hoot of hollow victory every
> time they strike another death blow the totalitarian evilness that is
> the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY!!!
Notice that Wolf calls a newsgroup a "cult" as though he could make a
thinking person believe that all critics are somehow mind-controlled to
believe terrible things about his favorite real UFO cult. Notice, if you
read the ng long enough that while critics have and do criticize within
their own ranks when they think anyone is wrong, and admit mistakes, and
are careful not to characterize all Scientologists as Wolf claims above,
just the really stupid repetitive ones, that cult apologists will never
admit to mistakes (or very rarely, and then most of them add more ad.
homs around the apology) and that they never defend, they always attack.
>
> Park your thinking cap at the door though C when you read this ng.
> Despite the fact the all Scientologists are little more than zombie-like
> followers, they somehow have the power to be evil and, my god!,
> effective. Despite the fact that ARS regulars bleat endlessly about
> *their* rights and how the laws ought to work for them, if you so much
> as hint that CofS has equal access to the same rights you will be
> mega-flamed (not to mention called a clam.... ooooh, how that must hurt
> huh?).
Heh, some effectiveness. They manage enough damage by themselves but did
far better before the Net and before the whole world managed to see the
tech in action, the foot bullets like trying to rm group the newsgroup,
suing critics at the drop of a hat, and despite winning some battles,
losing in big judgements which they swear not to pay, putting out lots
and lots of identical cookie cutter web pages in a futile attempt to clog
search engines and drown out critics' web pages, and screaming and
whining about Nazis and international (mostly German) conspiracies, and
accusing in front of the world critics for all sorts of imagined crimes.
Incoherantly yet. I love the wgert account user who couldn't understand
using a brain to remember things no matter where someone was. It's a real
hoot to watch these supposedly "more able" people unable to even use a
computer and modem effectively, and is a big argument for any person
stumbling in here to avoid them like the plague.
>
> Other little things you must hide from yourself in order to gain
> acceptance in the ARS cult is the strange dichotomy of how such a
> mindless group of brainwashed losers ever became powerful enough to
> merit the attention of all your saviours on ARS. It must be a trick!
We just don't like people being locked up until they die, or committing
suicide after having their bank accounts drained, or children being
abused and neglected, or the courts being used to harass or people being
lied about. One person by him or herself can do a great deal of damage,
as you can see if you watch any of the court tv programs, but a large
group of people with the money they have bilked from thousands for a
useless technology for which they charge thousands, with which "help" you
will finally learn you are infested with space cooties you need to
exorcise (though they call it "auditing") for a cost of thousands more,
after which you too can demonstrate the superior reasoning these people
demonstrate. Thinking is not what they want their people to do, take a
look at the "personaL" web pages and check out the fact that these
personal pages leave you no way to contact the people who "own" them, if
you try, you will only contact the organization of $cientology. Is this
thinking?
> But you can be consoled in the good fight that ARS cultists are waging
> to save you, C, the potentially mindless droid of an evil cult that is
> more powerful even than Goldfinger, from the clammy fingers of
> Scientology. They do this by reluctantly hauling their huge Dorito and
> Pepsi filled bodies away from their pc's and trundling down to the
> nearest org to assualt the dark forces with, with, it's too horrible...
> with placards!!! Yes C! Placards. Flimsy signs and cheap dayglo flyers
> that babble senselessly about such horrors as Xemu and dead dogs. The
> valiant fighters then rush back to the safety of their rooms where they
> immediatly post their own 'stats' so they can get the much needed
> admiration and attention that gives them the strength to pick the phone
> up and order in another pizza.
If this is picketing campaign is so useless as Wolf likes to depict,
why then are there so many fits about it on this ng? Why do the culties
and cult apologists like to depict the picketers in such a way as above,
as somehow less than humans who have nothing better to do with their
lives than sit in front of a computer and consume junk foods (of course
he offers no proof that this is so, or whether it is so, it's another
attempt at degradation of the people who are critics about which he
really knows nothing of the kind)and why do the culties cancel
celebrations and hide in their buildings and under tarps frightened like
rabbits at the fearsome yet somehow flabby people with placards and
leaflets?
>
> Did I forget the black helicopters? Excuse me.
Feeble attempt at sarcasm continues.
>
> But, if you're looking for the truth about Scientology, the least likely
> place on this planet to find it is ARS. If you're looking for a
> diversion and some good old hateful fun to be had at the expense of
> others... then you found the place C.
> Welcome aboard!
You will find truth here despite the fact that the cult apologists try
to drown it out. The critics will point you to all sides, check out
http://www.xenu.net which will also lead you to the official sites of the
cult, as well as documented truths about it.
Do use your own critical thinking, C, decide after you've read all
sides. There are real abuses to be found and I leave it up to *you* to
decide where they are. It's an enlightening journey. The more you
uncover, the more you will find. It led me to outrage upon outrage, and
let me tell you I'd much rather not have to spend my free time on this
cult, but as long as the abuses continue, I will continue. If they really
want to get the critics off their cases, all they have to do is reform
and quit the abuses of people, the attempts at stifling free speech, the
hiring of PIs to harass people's elderly parents and grandparents, get
people fired at jobs, steal photographs under false pretenses.
And so on and so on.
Then we can all go on to other pursuits, can't we?
> Wolf
>
>
>
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
randf
Wolf wrote in message <356238...@micron.net>...
>CVB413 wrote:
>>
>> I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down
this
>> newsgroup??
>>
>> thanks,
>> c.
>
>Of course they did C. And if you hang around long enough you'll quickly
>learn that Scientology is a death cult
<snip>
>They alternatly spend millions hatching world domination plans,
<snip> following their ex-members around the world, drowning family
>pets, smashing windows, buying off the democratic party,
<snip>they
>shoot their ex wives, they demand total compliance and heavy tithes from
>any member who owns a business, they have secret vaults all over
><the southwest>that have a total cost in excess of what it took to build
the
>Hoover Dam. <snip>
>
>Wolf
>
>
Ah, that's so much better!
randf
Mark W Brehob wrote in message <6juk2o$fej$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
>: CVB413 wrote:
>: >
<snip>
>[big clip]
>
>One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
>calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
>I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
>may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
>Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
>is still not a nice thing...
>
>Oh Well.
>
>Mark
>
>
>: Wolf
>
>
All right, whatever you say.
Boohoo.
Lisa Chabot
Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote the one line immediately below:
>Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
.
. "It's a mental trick that weak
. minds use to allow their own
. internal failures to be vented
. against something non-human."
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
© Anti-Cult ®
On Wed, 20 May 1998 10:11:31 -0600.
Wolf <wolf...@micron.net>.
From: Micron Internet Services.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Is it true?:
>Mark W Brehob wrote:
>>
>> Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
>> : CVB413 wrote:
>> : >
>> : > I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>> : > newsgroup??
>> : >
>> : > thanks,
>> : > c.
>>
>> : Of course they did C.
>>
>> Yep. They did. Anti-Cult just posted plenty of proof.
>> I get the impression that you were trying to be sarcastic
>> and imply that the rmgroup (remove group) for command for ARS wasn't
>> sent by a Scientologist, for the Chruch of Scientology.
>>
>> I hope you realize that it really did happen.
>
>Sure do. I was here. I don't want to get to picky, nor do I care to
>defend Korbin. But the harsh reality is this: the attempt to remove the
>ng by one person does not condemn the entire group she belongs to. At
>least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
>quality of thousands of CofS's members. To think otherwise - defining an
>entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
>more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
>
>> [big clip]
>>
>> One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
>> calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
>> I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
>> may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
>> Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
>> is still not a nice thing...
>
>FWIW Mark, the way I see it is that ARS is home to many people who have
>a 'need' to strike out and attack others. In order to de-humanize those
>they are trying to hurt it's important that they not see them as real
>people. Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
>nigger, spic, kike or white trash. It's a mental trick that weak minds
>use to allow their own internal failures to be vented against something
>non-human. Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
>CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
>into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
>
>Wolf
>
How about wog, and raw meat you stupid scientology clam boy? You idiots
are surely not very bright are you? Accusing others of the actions you
and your criminal cult are doing...
Geeze, in other times people like you were locked up in mental
institutions. Sometimes, I regret that those days are gone, since it's
obvious that you belong behind closed doors.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure
the orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm **********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victimized by the Co$. "Deadfiled" in at least one Org. Seen too
much, heard to much, lived too much. Security Coded hard disks
too much. Have been reading NOTS too much. Having chronic
pneumonia. As Arnold said: I'll be back......
------------------------------------------------------------------
SP 1
wgert wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 1998 01:40:58 GMT, gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady
> Ward) wrote:
>
> >Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
> >
> >As you can see, it didn't work too well.
> >
>
> Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
Gertie, climb back under your rock. Kobrin did, indeed have an RMGROUP
performed. Like your Church's tech, it failed.
--
"Commodore" SP 1, and holding...
Wolf
> > Of course they did C. And if you hang around long enough you'll quickly
> > learn that Scientology is a death cult with Y2K frenzy on their minds.
> > They alternatly spend millions hatching world domination plans, burning
> > babies, following their ex-members around the world, drowning family
> > pets, smashing windows, buying off the democratic party, black-mailing
> > everyone in Hollywood (everyone in Hollywood is gay, of course), they
> > shoot their ex wives, they demand total compliance and heavy tithes from
> > any member who owns a business, they have secret vaults all over
> > California that have a total cost in excess of what it took to build the
> > Hoover Dam.
>
> In case you can't tell, C., Wolf is a cult apologist
Pay attention Starshadow. Your *bright blessings* keep clouding your
vision.
> they do follow ex-members that they fear
> enough around the world,
Other than heresay, prove this.
> that they do have world
> domination plans,
Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you?
> they do use the "confessional folders" to blackmail members
Prove it. Especially the *blackmail*
> they do own some secret vaults that have their dead guru's writings
Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you? If you could prove this one
I'd send you a six pack.
> they do orchestrate hiring of PIs to harass,
'orchestrate'? Is that a crafty way of saying you can't prove this?
> they have harmed pets or left dead animals on people's doorstep,
Aw... that was me, in 7th grade.. only it wasn't a dead animal, it was a
burning bag of animal shit... that wasn't your doorway was it?
Nonetheless, other than Dave Bird's mindless sig. line, you can't prove
this one either.
> they have done any
> number of despicable things,
My God! Lock and load folks, they must all die now!
>and you can see many of them in action right
> on this ng.
Starshadow... the only thing *in action* on this NG is yours and the
other ARS culties paranoia and conspiracy schemes.
> Pay attention to how they handle critics, by trying to claim
> that they are "bigots" who practice "copywrite terrorism" (which phrase
> trivializes real terrorism)
Hmmm. Well, you are a bigot, that is clear by not only your language,
but that of a good 25% of the Leadership of ARS.
> and accusing them of being child molesters,
Well, I'm sure there's a child molestor or two in any group, ARS being
no exception. But, to make a point, since LRH is 'known' as a child
molestor on this NG on heresay only, I can't imagine why you'd mind
having a few such unproven scumbags as your personal friends.
> all while refusing to answer
> people's questions about their loony cult's beliefs and practices,
I can't believe sometimes how dense you culties can be. I swear, you
make Sea Org members look like the enlightened few... The reason they
won't answer your inane questions is pretty basic -> they don't have to.
For that matter, what in god's name would they have to gain by sitting
down calmly and answering a host of loaded questions from a jibbering
crowd of mindless synchopants?
> going into paroxisms(sp?) anytime someone lists their spam web pages and
> even links to them.
Squeeky wheel gets the grease.. that's what ol' Wolf advises.
> This of course is Scientology in action.
As long as you believe that, they're winning. At least you're having fun
being righteous though.
> Notice that Wolf calls a newsgroup a "cult" as though he could make a
> thinking person believe that all critics are somehow mind-controlled to
> believe terrible things about his favorite real UFO cult.
Okay, ya got me there. Strictly speaking, ARS is not a cult. But then
neither is CofS. But since ARS culties have deemed (and redefined) their
target as culties, then you get like treatment. There's also the fact
that ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main
speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a
cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.
> read the ng long enough that while critics have and do criticize within
> their own ranks when they think anyone is wrong, and admit mistakes,
LOL!! Spelling mistakes sure. Hell, even a few grammer mistakes. But
mistakes? You're way under the ether.
> are careful not to characterize all Scientologists as Wolf claims above,
> just the really stupid repetitive ones,
Read your own ng. Go ahead... get PT's archives and read the difference
in Tilman's posts now and from 95... or Henson or any number of other
long term critics.
> that cult apologists will never
> admit to mistakes (or very rarely,
I thought we handled this... they don't answer your questions, therefore
they have no reason to admit anything. Besides which, did you think you
were talking to SCIENTOLOGY when you post those idiotic questions?
Whaddya think DM and the ghost of Hubbard are so concerned about the
*ars threat* that they read this ng? Where did you get your mirror
Starshadow... I want one that makes me feel more important too.
> and that they never defend, they always attack.
Well, pass. It's policy. A good one too, evidenced by the fact that
nobody has ever forced them to answer any questions.
> Heh, some effectiveness. They manage enough damage by themselves but did
> far better before the Net
Ooops... there's that mirror at work again. As if you'd know anything
other than what you learn on this NG.
> and before the whole world managed to see the
> tech in action,
You really are overwhelmed by your involvement in this cult.. Being on
the net hardly qualifies as involving the *whole world* in your
business. I know, those who have trouble getting attention in the
non-virtual world sometimes lose track of just how few people really
give a shit about them online too... but if you wanna think the world is
watching, who am I to de-program you?
> suing critics at the drop of a hat, and despite winning some battles,
Ooohhh... nice spin job. Down play your loses, turn them into victories.
> losing in big judgements which they swear not to pay,
So? Would you? Sheesh, just how insulated a life do you lead anyway?
> We just don't like people being locked up until they die,
Well goddamnit Starshadow! I'd hurry up and book a ticket to Africa, SE
Asia, China or any number of places on our fair planet where people are
being locked up, starved, beaten, tortured and brutalized each and every
minute of the day. Are you a man (woman?) or a mouse? If you really
care, I mean really, as in this isn't just a diversion so you can pump
your own diminished ego up, then go find some real brutality and do
something about it. If not, then I guess you're just paying lip service
from a safe distance huh?
> or committing
> suicide after having their bank accounts drained,
ZZZZZ... Mr. Mustard did it in the kitchen...
> or children being
> abused and neglected,
Yeah, I hate parents that abuse and neglect their kids, whether they're
Scientologists, ARS androids or whatever. For example, I would have
never joined the Sea Org and let them underfeed and overwork my own
kids. Nor would I have then whined about how "they made me do it" on the
net either. Good parents don't neglect their kids. Bad parents do, plus
they always blame someone else for their own abuse. Sound familiar? It's
one of your ARS Cult Leaders.
> If this is picketing campaign is so useless as Wolf likes to depict,
> why then are there so many fits about it on this ng?
Who has fits? I haven't seen any fits. WTF are you talking about?
> Why do the culties
> and cult apologists like to depict the picketers in such a way as above,
> as somehow less than humans who have nothing better to do with their
> lives than sit in front of a computer and consume junk foods (of course
> he offers no proof that this is so, or whether it is so,
I do too have proof. Photos. On the net. Massive bodies. Corpulent
picketeers huffing and heaving around with their cheap placards. Unless
there's some strange fat virus running around affecting only people with
online access, I'd bet these folks are huge because they have poor
eating habits. Of course, I really don't have proof about the Doritos
and Pepsi... it could be Mountain Dew and Ho-Ho's for all I know.
> it's another
> attempt at degradation of the people who are critics about which he
> really knows nothing of the kind)
It's funny, that's why. I love it when people start acting all
high-and-mighty and holier-than-thou. It makes me laugh... finally
seeing the faces and also watching the deterioration of the ARS OL's.
Now I'm not religious, but I think old Jaysus was a pretty sharp guy,
especially that part about "he who is without sin".
> and why do the culties cancel
> celebrations and hide in their buildings and under tarps frightened like
> rabbits at the fearsome yet somehow flabby people with placards and
> leaflets?
I dunno. All the CofS material I see shows large groups of people and no
flabby picketeers... you don't think they'd violate your rights and
ignore you do you? Of note, In trips over the last year to LA, Portland,
Phoenix, Seattle and San Francisco, I haven't had any problems finding
the missions/orgs if I chose to drive by. Personally the reason I think
most ARS picketeers never see many Scientologists is they're too stupid
to find the damn orgs in the first place.
> You will find truth here despite the fact that the cult apologists try
> to drown it out. The critics will point you to all sides, check out
> http://www.xenu.net which will also lead you to the official sites of the
> cult, as well as documented truths about it.
You know Starshadow, what you and all the other androids here seem to
have overlooked is that you're pushing your own version of the truth
just as furiously as you accuse CofS of doing. I don't claim to know the
truth and anyone who does, especially on this NG, is someone I'd lend
$20 to and hope they avoided me for the rest of their life. I have never
posted a recommend on ARS for anyone to check out CofS, nor would I
suggest a Scientologist check out ARS. The hypocritical posts of many on
this NG and the blind accepetance of any news (no matter how
questionable) really ought to give regular posters and readers of ARS
cause to think about exavctly what the agenda of many ARS culties is.
I have read many of your posts and I think you too are becoming more
frantic in your assertions about the evilness of CofS. Just my opinion,
but if you save your own posts, go back and reread a few, see if you
weren't more rational and free-thinking months ago.
Wolf
Rob Clark
On Tue, 19 May 1998 19:56:11 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>CVB413 wrote:
>> I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>> newsgroup??
>> thanks,
>> c.
>Of course they did C. And if you hang around long enough you'll quickly
>learn that Scientology is a death cult with Y2K frenzy on their minds.
>They alternatly spend millions hatching world domination plans, burning
>babies, following their ex-members around the world, drowning family
>pets, smashing windows, buying off the democratic party, black-mailing
>everyone in Hollywood (everyone in Hollywood is gay, of course), they
>shoot their ex wives, they demand total compliance and heavy tithes from
>any member who owns a business, they have secret vaults all over
>California that have a total cost in excess of what it took to build the
>Hoover Dam.
wolf. you are brilliant. this is the funniest damn thing i've read on this
newsgroup since i don't remember when. if scientology had just a few more like
you, ars would be doomed.
and for some reason they don't have you. for which i have eternal gratitude. i
would quake in fear if OSA and the sea org were even remotely
of your calibre.
luckily they have gertie and justin instead.
rob
Cat O'Blivion
First, cvb...@aol.com (CVB413) wrote:
>>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>>newsgroup??
Then, gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady Ward) responded:
>Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
>
>As you can see, it didn't work too well.
And the latest wgert to hit the newsgroup sniped back:
> Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
Proving once again, that Scientology really does destroy a person's critical
reading and thinking abilities...
If you can't bother even trying to communicate, perhaps you should relinquish your
account to the next 'bot in the line and slink to the back of the room with all
the other failed wgerts.
Next, please...
Cat
SP4, KoX
heretic-at-large
"I am the concierge, chez-moi, honey. Won't let ya in for love or money..."
Wolf
Lisa Chabot wrote:
> Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
> "wog".
Very well done Lisa. Now here's the next question on this quiz:
If Johnny jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
Be careful... it's a trick question.
Wolf
Wolf
> > Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
> >CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
> >into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
> >
> >Wolf
> >
>
> How about wog, and raw meat you stupid scientology clam boy? You idiots
> are surely not very bright are you? Accusing others of the actions you
> and your criminal cult are doing...
Well said. Especially the 'clam boy' part. I like your logic too -> they
did it first...Waahhhh.
> Geeze, in other times people like you were locked up in mental
> institutions. Sometimes, I regret that those days are gone, since it's
> obvious that you belong behind closed doors.
Oooh. He's a mean one this Anti-Cult. When are you running for dictator?
Thankfully, whatever days you're you're referring to that are 'gone',
are gone. As for me, I'm just a po' boy from Texas. And guys like you
were always fun to kick around on the playground.
You're now free to continue obsessing about locking up those you blindly
hate forever.
Wolf
© Anti-Cult ®
On Wed, 20 May 1998 06:59:30 GMT.
wg...@loop.com (wgert).
From: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Is it true?:
>On Wed, 20 May 1998 01:40:58 GMT, gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady
>Ward) wrote:
>
>>On 20 May 1998 01:02:43 GMT, cvb...@aol.com (CVB413) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>>>newsgroup??
>>>
>>>thanks,
>>>c.
>>
>>Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
>>
>>As you can see, it didn't work too well.
>>
>
>Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
>
Once again, the stupid Wgert OSA operative have lost all memory. Once
again OSA and Scientology have forgotten that the truth is here to find,
all over the Internet. This is an obvious problem that the criminal
organization of Scientology have. There's no use in lying, when it is so
easy to prove that you're wrong scientology/OSA. No lies in the world
will erase already written articles. At least not as long as Scientology
haven't gotten the power on this planet to do so. However, if the
criminal organization of thieves and thughs ever took control of this
planet (which they really are trying to do), they would start erasing
every single file, and burn every single book and paper that in any way
was critical against their insane cult. Not to mention what they would
do against critics like me and others.
Now wgert moron, it's time for a showdown when it comes to the rmgroup
issue. Read and weep criminal OSA thug. Learn not to challenge facts, or
I'll get after you again idiot.
Let's first look at the media article in which Kobrin admitted that she
issued the rmgroup message, and then we'll have a look at the rmgroup
message itself:
Westword October 14, 1995
SHOWDOWN IN CYBERSPACE
By Alan Prendergast
...
"We were kind of new to dealing with the situation," Kobrin says
now. "People were providing so-called bright ideas, and somebody
suggested that was the way to approach it. Apparently, it was not the
way to handle the problem."
...
And now to the rmgroup command itself:
> Control: rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
> Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.lotto.players,alt.lotto.players.ctl
> Path: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!hkk
> From: hkk@netcom
> Subject: cmsg rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
> Message-ID: <hkkD29...@netcom.com>
> Followup-To: alt.config
> Sender: h...@netcom.com (Helena Kobrin)
> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 22:52:23 GMT
> Lines: 17
> Xref: uunet control:1568915
We request that you remove the alt.religion.scientology
newsgroup from your site. The reasons for requesting its
removal are: (1) It was started with a forged message; (2)
not discussed on alt.config; (3) it has the name
"scientology" in its title which is a trademark and is
misleading, as a.r.s. is mainly used for flamers to attack
the Scientology religion; (4) it has been and continues to be
heavily abused with copyright and trade secret violations and
serves no purpose other than condoning these illegal
practices.
Please confirm that you have removed this newsgroup from
your system.
Helena K. Kobrin
Counsel for trademark
and copyright owner
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
LRonsScam
>From: Wolf <wolf...@micron.net>
>Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 12:11 EDT
>Message-id: <356300...@micron.net>
>> : >
>> : > I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down
>this
>> : > newsgroup??
>> : >
>> : > thanks,
>> : > c.
>>
>>
>> Yep. They did. Anti-Cult just posted plenty of proof.
>> I get the impression that you were trying to be sarcastic
>> and imply that the rmgroup (remove group) for command for ARS wasn't
>> sent by a Scientologist, for the Chruch of Scientology.
>>
>> I hope you realize that it really did happen.
>
>Sure do. I was here. I don't want to get to picky, nor do I care to
>defend Korbin. But the harsh reality is this: the attempt to remove the
>ng by one person does not condemn the entire group she belongs to.
You are right but this is only one thing in many that I have a problem with.
At
>least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
>quality of thousands of CofS's members.
Thousands is the key word.
To think otherwise - defining an
>entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
>more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
I believe that I am always reffering to Hubbie's words or senior management.
The problem is really in the philiosophy but who's counting.
>
>> [big clip]
>>
>> One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
>> calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
>> I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
>> may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
>> Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
>> is still not a nice thing...
>
>FWIW Mark, the way I see it is that ARS is home to many people who have
>a 'need' to strike out and attack others.
Gee how fortunate that you are so evolved that you noticed that. I hear there
are 20,000 groups out there and this is the only one I am involved in.
Hmmmmmmmm, interesting.
In order to de-humanize those
>they are trying to hurt it's important that they not see them as real
>people. Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
>nigger, spic, kike or white trash.
Or WOG. You are right about the clam but I conceive it as a joke and as a
repercussion of Wog entheta.
It's a mental trick that weak minds
>use to allow their own internal failures to be vented against something
>non-human. Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
>CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
>into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
I do not hate you Wolf or your group. I am not prejudiced either. Remember I
was almost one of you. I can use any or your words or concepts and it still
doesn't change your thoughts toward me. That is what what must make up a
cult: When you leave you are tarnished by the stigma and aren't believed by the
unbelievers and the believers don't believe you because you are cencored and an
opostate with malicious intent.
>
>Wolf
Wolf, wolf.
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
>
>W
.
.
__
LRonsScam
In Xenu We Trust
A does equal A, does equal A, does equal A. What was Hubbie trying to say?
" Life is a cartoon." Howard Stern while referring to Lisa Marie Presley's
involvement with Co$.
LRonsScam
>From: Tommy_sp...@xs.net
>Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 09:06 EDT
>Message-id: <3562D5...@swbell.net>
>
>wgert wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 May 1998 01:40:58 GMT, gr...@promisecreepers.org (Grady
>> Ward) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down
>this
>> >>newsgroup??
>> >>
>> >>thanks,
>> >>c.
>> >
>> >
>> >As you can see, it didn't work too well.
>> >
>>
>> Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
>
>
>
> He asked if $cientology TRIED to shut down this NG. The answer to
>that is - true.
>Do you really read these posts? Or is it just a case of someone whose
>job it is ("hatted") to read them passing info on how to answer to
>another rondroid whose job it is to post them? If so, it's no wonder how
>the answers often seem non-sequitur or just stupidly wrong. Ever play
>the party game where one person is hatted to read a printed statement,
>then whisper it one time to another, who whispers it to another, and
>another, etc.? By the time the statement gets to the end of the line
>(however short), the statement doesn't make much sense anymore....
> This would explain a lot of things.
Agreed. This seems the most appropriate answer. " What is true for you is true
for you"........as long as I say what is true for you and you seek no other
answers ( third party ) you and I will get along........
I think this says it all.
>
> Tommy
>--
>
>
>"The fact that Scientology or it's members may have done something
>illegal
>has no bearing on the Keith Henson case."
>
>"I don't make the mistake of mixing my beliefs with reality.."
>
> Keith (Gunbunny) posted to a.r.s.
></PRE></HTML>
Starshadow
In article <35634B...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> Starshadow wrote:
> Pay attention Starshadow. Your *bright blessings* keep clouding your
> vision.
Whatever, Wolfie.
>
> > they do follow ex-members that they fear
> > enough around the world,
>
> Other than heresay, prove this.
>
Hey, I'm not in a court of law. I believe Stacy Young's post. She has
credibility. You don't.
> > that they do have world
> > domination plans,
>
> Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you?
There's that fabulous tek in action. You idiot, I'm a *witch*. Not a
sub-genius. Not a droid, either.
>
> > they do use the "confessional folders" to blackmail members
>
> Prove it. Especially the *blackmail*
Hey, I've seen things posted on *this* newsgroup from people's
confessional folders! If you need help on this, do a Deja News search. I
ain't doing your research for you, I have enough on my plate. Unlike you,
I have a real life.
>
> > they do own some secret vaults that have their dead guru's writings
>
> Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you? If you could prove this one
> I'd send you a six pack.
Unless it's six pack of Dr. Pepper (Diet) I'm not interested. But again
this has been posted.
> > they do orchestrate hiring of PIs to harass,
>
> 'orchestrate'? Is that a crafty way of saying you can't prove this?
Geeze, do you need a dictionary to understand words of more than two
syllables? I didn't stutter.
>
> > they have harmed pets or left dead animals on people's doorstep,
>
> Aw... that was me, in 7th grade.. only it wasn't a dead animal, it was a
> burning bag of animal shit... that wasn't your doorway was it?
> Nonetheless, other than Dave Bird's mindless sig. line, you can't prove
> this one either.
Yap, yap. The posters that have talked about this have some integrity,
I have believed them. If you don't, that's your problem, not mine.
> > they have done any
> > number of despicable things,
>
> My God! Lock and load folks, they must all die now!
>
> >and you can see many of them in action right
> > on this ng.
>
> Starshadow... the only thing *in action* on this NG is yours and the
> other ARS culties paranoia and conspiracy schemes.
Yeah, real paranoia. It isn't the critics who scream "German
conspiracy" everytime a news article comes out that details abuses.
Or is that Minton-German-evil-psyche-lord-Nazi conspiracy?? I forget,
it's so hard to keep them straight.
> > Pay attention to how they handle critics, by trying to claim
> > that they are "bigots" who practice "copywrite terrorism" (which phrase
> > trivializes real terrorism)
>
> Hmmm. Well, you are a bigot, that is clear by not only your language,
> but that of a good 25% of the Leadership of ARS.
Yeah, Wolf. I'm a bigot. I really hate cults which lock up people until
they die. I want to see them stopped from killing any more people. I'm
just such an eeevil bigot.
>
> > and accusing them of being child molesters,
>
> Well, I'm sure there's a child molestor or two in any group, ARS being
> no exception. But, to make a point, since LRH is 'known' as a child
> molestor on this NG on heresay only, I can't imagine why you'd mind
> having a few such unproven scumbags as your personal friends.
Now that has been stated once or twice and then refuted by numerous
people, some of them critics. I don't believe LRH was a child molester. A
wife and child abuser, a bigamist, a paranoid shizophrenic, a liar, a
sometime decent pulp-writer, charismatic and entertaining outside of his
cult, that I'm sure of. I heard from his own lips that he started the
whole thing as a scam. I guess that he was lying, though, or maybe I was
lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
him say the same thing.
The rest of your sentence makes no sense since you know nothing of me
or my personal friends, none of whom are child molesters.
> > all while refusing to answer
> > people's questions about their loony cult's beliefs and practices,
>
> I can't believe sometimes how dense you culties can be. I swear, you
> make Sea Org members look like the enlightened few... The reason they
> won't answer your inane questions is pretty basic -> they don't have to.
> For that matter, what in god's name would they have to gain by sitting
> down calmly and answering a host of loaded questions from a jibbering
> crowd of mindless synchopants?
Quit looking in that mirror while typing, Wolf. It's warping your mind.
>
> > going into paroxisms(sp?) anytime someone lists their spam web pages and
> > even links to them.
>
> Squeeky wheel gets the grease.. that's what ol' Wolf advises.
>
> > This of course is Scientology in action.
>
> As long as you believe that, they're winning. At least you're having fun
> being righteous though.
>
> > Notice that Wolf calls a newsgroup a "cult" as though he could make a
> > thinking person believe that all critics are somehow mind-controlled to
> > believe terrible things about his favorite real UFO cult.
>
> Okay, ya got me there. Strictly speaking, ARS is not a cult. But then
> neither is CofS. But since ARS culties have deemed (and redefined) their
> target as culties, then you get like treatment. There's also the fact
> that ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main
> speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a
> cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.
Right, we are all in a cult. You know about as much of that as you do
about me, hence you defining me as a "subgenius". Who do you think is
*our* noble cult leader? Xenu? Minton? The Evil Zombie Psyche Lords?
Oh, well, at least we don't have to spend thousands to get rid of space
cooties.
>
> > read the ng long enough that while critics have and do criticize within
> > their own ranks when they think anyone is wrong, and admit mistakes,
>
> LOL!! Spelling mistakes sure. Hell, even a few grammer mistakes. But
> mistakes? You're way under the ether.
Bullshit. You are lying. As usual.
>
> > are careful not to characterize all Scientologists as Wolf claims above,
> > just the really stupid repetitive ones,
>
> Read your own ng. Go ahead... get PT's archives and read the difference
> in Tilman's posts now and from 95... or Henson or any number of other
> long term critics.
>
> > that cult apologists will never
> > admit to mistakes (or very rarely,
>
> I thought we handled this... they don't answer your questions, therefore
> they have no reason to admit anything. Besides which, did you think you
> were talking to SCIENTOLOGY when you post those idiotic questions?
> Whaddya think DM and the ghost of Hubbard are so concerned about the
> *ars threat* that they read this ng? Where did you get your mirror
> Starshadow... I want one that makes me feel more important too.
You obviously already goddit, Wolfie. Another legend in your own mind.
>
> > and that they never defend, they always attack.
>
> Well, pass. It's policy. A good one too, evidenced by the fact that
> nobody has ever forced them to answer any questions.
It sure makes showing their idiocy easier. Non-confront and all that.
>
> > Heh, some effectiveness. They manage enough damage by themselves but did
> > far better before the Net
>
> Ooops... there's that mirror at work again. As if you'd know anything
> other than what you learn on this NG.
>
> > and before the whole world managed to see the
> > tech in action,
>
> You really are overwhelmed by your involvement in this cult.. Being on
> the net hardly qualifies as involving the *whole world* in your
> business. I know, those who have trouble getting attention in the
> non-virtual world sometimes lose track of just how few people really
> give a shit about them online too... but if you wanna think the world is
> watching, who am I to de-program you?
yap yap. If it is so unimportant why the all the attention the cult
pays critics??
>
> > suing critics at the drop of a hat, and despite winning some battles,
>
> Ooohhh... nice spin job. Down play your loses, turn them into victories.
>
> > losing in big judgements which they swear not to pay,
>
> So? Would you? Sheesh, just how insulated a life do you lead anyway?
>
> > We just don't like people being locked up until they die,
>
> Well goddamnit Starshadow! I'd hurry up and book a ticket to Africa, SE
> Asia, China or any number of places on our fair planet where people are
> being locked up, starved, beaten, tortured and brutalized each and every
> minute of the day. Are you a man (woman?) or a mouse? If you really
> care, I mean really, as in this isn't just a diversion so you can pump
> your own diminished ego up, then go find some real brutality and do
> something about it. If not, then I guess you're just paying lip service
> from a safe distance huh?
I don't happen to live in those places. I live in a country where this
kind of thing is supposed to be illegal. And if you don't know anything
about who I am or what I've done or what volunteer time I've served or
who I may have assisted or fed or clothed, etc, then why should I tell
you? I'm not here to bang my own drum, I'm here to stop your cult's
criminal actions. You don't like that and you will try to claim anything
nasty you can dig up on me. Go ahead. I don't care.
>
> > or committing
> > suicide after having their bank accounts drained,
>
> ZZZZZ... Mr. Mustard did it in the kitchen...
>
> > or children being
> > abused and neglected,
>
> Yeah, I hate parents that abuse and neglect their kids, whether they're
> Scientologists, ARS androids or whatever. For example, I would have
> never joined the Sea Org and let them underfeed and overwork my own
> kids. Nor would I have then whined about how "they made me do it" on the
> net either. Good parents don't neglect their kids. Bad parents do, plus
> they always blame someone else for their own abuse. Sound familiar? It's
> one of your ARS Cult Leaders.
>
> > If this is picketing campaign is so useless as Wolf likes to depict,
> > why then are there so many fits about it on this ng?
>
> Who has fits? I haven't seen any fits. WTF are you talking about?
Wgert, Justin, you, et al, getting your panties all in a knot.
>
> > Why do the culties
> > and cult apologists like to depict the picketers in such a way as above,
> > as somehow less than humans who have nothing better to do with their
> > lives than sit in front of a computer and consume junk foods (of course
> > he offers no proof that this is so, or whether it is so,
>
> I do too have proof. Photos. On the net. Massive bodies. Corpulent
> picketeers huffing and heaving around with their cheap placards. Unless
> there's some strange fat virus running around affecting only people with
> online access, I'd bet these folks are huge because they have poor
> eating habits. Of course, I really don't have proof about the Doritos
> and Pepsi... it could be Mountain Dew and Ho-Ho's for all I know.
I'm fat. So what? Does this make me a bad person? Does it make anyone
who is fat a bad person? I've noticed people of all sizes picketing. WTF
does it have to do with anything except your own bigotry against fat
people???
>
> > it's another
> > attempt at degradation of the people who are critics about which he
> > really knows nothing of the kind)
>
> It's funny, that's why. I love it when people start acting all
> high-and-mighty and holier-than-thou. It makes me laugh... finally
> seeing the faces and also watching the deterioration of the ARS OL's.
> Now I'm not religious, but I think old Jaysus was a pretty sharp guy,
> especially that part about "he who is without sin".
Yeah, right. You really are one fine ethical person, aren't you?
>
> > and why do the culties cancel
> > celebrations and hide in their buildings and under tarps frightened like
> > rabbits at the fearsome yet somehow flabby people with placards and
> > leaflets?
>
> I dunno. All the CofS material I see shows large groups of people and no
> flabby picketeers... you don't think they'd violate your rights and
> ignore you do you? Of note, In trips over the last year to LA, Portland,
> Phoenix, Seattle and San Francisco, I haven't had any problems finding
> the missions/orgs if I chose to drive by. Personally the reason I think
> most ARS picketeers never see many Scientologists is they're too stupid
> to find the damn orgs in the first place.
Yeah, it's obviously just a coincidence that the buildings have signs
which read "Church of Scientology" on them. And that a street which was
closed off for a birthday event never had the event happen because the
culties were hiding inside.
>
> > You will find truth here despite the fact that the cult apologists try
> > to drown it out. The critics will point you to all sides, check out
> > http://www.xenu.net which will also lead you to the official sites of the
> > cult, as well as documented truths about it.
>
> You know Starshadow, what you and all the other androids here seem to
> have overlooked is that you're pushing your own version of the truth
> just as furiously as you accuse CofS of doing. I don't claim to know the
> truth and anyone who does, especially on this NG, is someone I'd lend
> $20 to and hope they avoided me for the rest of their life. I have never
> posted a recommend on ARS for anyone to check out CofS, nor would I
> suggest a Scientologist check out ARS. The hypocritical posts of many on
> this NG and the blind accepetance of any news (no matter how
> questionable) really ought to give regular posters and readers of ARS
> cause to think about exavctly what the agenda of many ARS culties is.
You are full of it, aren't you? I'm not speaking here of The Truth with
a capital T, Wolf, but the truth about the abuses of this cult you defend
so mightily. If you cannot understand that , well, that is your head up
your ass.
> I have read many of your posts and I think you too are becoming more
> frantic in your assertions about the evilness of CofS. Just my opinion,
> but if you save your own posts, go back and reread a few, see if you
> weren't more rational and free-thinking months ago.
>
> Wolf
>
Heh, I'm always free thinking. I try to be rational, but I'm an
emotional sort. I have ups and downs, and I get pretty riled when I think
people are being abused. I don't like abuses like what I hear about from
many people not even on this ng openly, and not on the Net in general.
I've heard a lot from a number of people. You know, if it is a bad thing
to get "frantic" about abuses, well, I guess I'm just going to have to be
guilty, and the hell with it.
I'm speaking my mind, and if you don't like it, don't read what I write.
Or ignore it. Or refute it, if you can. Whatever yanks your chain. This
is Usenet, do what you want.
But for one who claims to have read a number of my posts and yet still
makes a fundemental mistake like thinking (for one) I'm a Sub-Genius, you
aren't looking as rational as you'd like.
© Anti-Cult ®
On Wed, 20 May 1998 16:49:57 -0600.
>© Anti-Cult ® wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 May 1998 10:11:31 -0600.
>> Wolf <wolf...@micron.net>.
>
>> > Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
>> >CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
>> >into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
>> >
>> >Wolf
>> >
>>
>> How about wog, and raw meat you stupid scientology clam boy? You idiots
>> are surely not very bright are you? Accusing others of the actions you
>> and your criminal cult are doing...
>
>Well said. Especially the 'clam boy' part. I like your logic too -> they
>did it first...Waahhhh.
>
> > Geeze, in other times people like you were locked up in mental
>> institutions. Sometimes, I regret that those days are gone, since it's
>> obvious that you belong behind closed doors.
>
>Oooh. He's a mean one this Anti-Cult. When are you running for dictator?
>Thankfully, whatever days you're you're referring to that are 'gone',
>are gone. As for me, I'm just a po' boy from Texas. And guys like you
>were always fun to kick around on the playground.
>
>You're now free to continue obsessing about locking up those you blindly
>hate forever.
>
>Wolf
>
The only ones kicked around here clamboy, is you and your deluded cult
morons. Cowards and weaklings, that's all you are. I bet you were the
one kicked around on the playground too, and just had to find a cult to
belong to, in order to get more kicking:-)
Masochist, are we?
Geeze, what a pathetic little cultist from the land of evil cults...
wgert
IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
wgert
Mark Styles
wgert wrote:
> IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
Your opinion is wrong then. With regard to newsgroups the two terms are,
for all intents and purposes, synonymous.
--
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation.
Religious Tolerance is an oxymoron.
Zinj
In article <3563f26a...@news.loop.com>, wg...@loop.com says...
>
>
>IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
>
>
That's One Humble Opinion you total moron
Zinj
--
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Tilman Hausherr
>IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
Yes, like there is a difference between "attempted murder" and "murder".
In <3563f395...@news.loop.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>>>Tilman! What did you do with your girlfriend?
>>
>>What all boyfriends do with their girlfriends.
>And where is she now?
Where she wants to be. Use your OT powerz to find the exact location.
(Or, alternatively, "postulate" it).
© Anti-Cult ®
On Thu, 21 May 1998 09:22:54 GMT.
>
>IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
>
>wgert
>
...
...
> Control: rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
> Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.lotto.players,alt.lotto.players.ctl
> Path: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!hkk
> From: hkk@netcom
> Subject: cmsg rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
> Message-ID: <hkkD29...@netcom.com>
> Followup-To: alt.config
> Sender: h...@netcom.com (Helena Kobrin)
> Lines: 17
> Xref: uunet control:1568915
practices.
your system.
Helena K. Kobrin
Counsel for trademark
and copyright owner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Richter
wgert <wg...@loop.com> wrote in article
<3563f26a...@news.loop.com>...
> IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
The fact that you are uneducated and clueless doesn't mean there's a
difference between the two words.
--
Michael T. Richter
m...@ottawa.com
http://www.igs.net/~mtr
Mark W Brehob
Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
: > : > newsgroup??
: > : >
: > : > thanks,
: > : > c.
: > : Of course they did C.
: >
: > Yep. They did. Anti-Cult just posted plenty of proof.
: > I get the impression that you were trying to be sarcastic
: > and imply that the rmgroup (remove group) for command for ARS wasn't
: >
: > I hope you realize that it really did happen.
: Sure do. I was here. I don't want to get to picky, nor do I care to
: defend Korbin. But the harsh reality is this: the attempt to remove the
: ng by one person does not condemn the entire group she belongs to.
Do you really think she took that action without talking to anyone
else first? You are correct, it doesn't condemn the entire CoS. It
does however say a lot about the _management_ of the CoS.
: At
: least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
: quality of thousands of CofS's members. To think otherwise - defining an
: entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
: more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
Really? I'd say that when someone who works for you does something
wrong it _does_ reflect on you. Especially if you continue to
employ that person. Your use of the words "hate", "hater" etc. are
unneeded. I do not hate the CoS. In fact if there was reform to
the point that:
* No one else died for the same reasons Lisa M. died
* The CoS _stopped_ claiming to be compatible with
Christianity. (Or at least explained that LRH discounted
the existence of Christ.)
* Stopped harassing their critics.
* Stopped "protecting" its members from the real world.
(The web agreement folks must to put up the "I am a Scientologist"
web pages for example.
I would almost certainally cease to be a critic of the CoS. In my mind
I have a responsibility to protest, yell and scream about those things
that can harm others. Be it poorly handled meat at the supermarket or
anything else.
: > [big clip]
: >
: > One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
: > calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
: > I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
: > may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
: > Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
: > is still not a nice thing...
: FWIW Mark, the way I see it is that ARS is home to many people who have
: a 'need' to strike out and attack others.
I agree. There are folks like that, on both sides of the fence.
You can tell by the "DA" packs, or the general name-calling.
I'll cite Enzo and Russ labeling Ron and Berry (respectively)
as child abusers.
: In order to de-humanize those
: they are trying to hurt it's important that they not see them as real
: people. Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
: nigger, spic, kike or white trash. It's a mental trick that weak minds
: use to allow their own internal failures to be vented against something
: non-human.
Agreed. And as such I don't use it. I would point out, as others
have, that the CoS is just as guilty of this. Both on this
newsgroup and in RL. "Wog", and "raw meat" being a start. Posting
details about folks personal lives being another point. It isn't
right for either side. To expect "the other side" to reform
before your side has is a bit silly. (I personally am more
worried about the critics doing this than the CoS folks.)
: Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
: CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
: into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
It is a forum for that, again on both sides. However it is also
a forum for thoughtful discussion; valid criticism, and other
good things. Newsgroups are that way. Everyone has a voice.
Even you.
: Wolf
Mark
Always take the high ground, whether in war or debate.
Mark W Brehob
randf (Rand...@aol.com) wrote:
: Mark W Brehob wrote in message <6juk2o$fej$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
: >Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
: >: CVB413 wrote:
: >: >
: <snip>
: >[big clip]
: >
: >One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
: >calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
: >I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
: >may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
: >Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
: >is still not a nice thing...
: >
: >Oh Well.
: >
: >Mark
: >
: >
: >: Wolf
: >
: >
: All right, whatever you say.
: Boohoo.
If you'd like to disagree, feel free.
What is a _good_ reason to call someone names? Like Clam,
Wonderfool, or whatever else. It makes the speaker look
like a 3rd grader and takes your credibility down a number
of notches.
One goal people have stated for ARS is to make it easy for
others to learn about the CoS. Do you think an unbiased
observer will really think that name calling helps your
crediblity? Doesn't it make the "hate" label that various
CoS folks toss around _sound_ possible?
Mark
Mark
Pimoty
> > they do use the "confessional folders" to blackmail members
> Prove it. Especially the *blackmail*
Oh come on, you must be new to ARS.
From Yanny's affidavit. Yanny was a Scientology Lawyer, until he left and was
harassed.
70. Plaintiff is aware that during the course of counseling sessions
provided by these defendants, the ounselor took written notes of
confidential information imparted during the alleged counseling sessions. The
confidential information was collated in documents known as Pre-Clear
Files" (PC Files") and "Ethics Files."
71. In violation of their fiduciary duty to maintain the confidentiality of
material gained during the counseling sessions, these defendants, through
their agents, servants, counselors and employees, have attempted to disclose
the confidential material to third parties, and are likely to continue to
engage in such unethical conduct.
72. These defendants in furtherance of a common scheme and plan, have also
attempted to acquire information and to unlawfully intrude upon the private
affairs of Plaintiff Yanny in unreasonable and malicious manner, including
but not limited to the use of obtrusive as well as surreptitious
surveillance, private investigators, and spies. By reason of said acts, and
others, these defendants have tortiously invaded plaintiff's right of
privacy.
Or read the Budlong memo detailing the culling of PC-folders.
Corydon: Later, however, Nancy Dincalsy testified that she personally culled
pre-clears' folders daily and sent "overt" lists to B-1 of the Guardian's Omce,
per standard orders. She also said that she worked as an auditor alongside
Lymon Spurlock for many months, and that she observed him also "culling" PC
folders for the G.O. daily.
And: It was not an RFP as it later became when Gerry [Armstrongl was
there. I was put into Coventry for five weeks and nobody was allowed
to talk to me.
Q. Are you familiar with the culling of PC files at winter headquar-
ters and summer headquarters at the Special Unit in 1977 and 1978?
A. Yes.
0. And what did you see with regard to the culling of PC folders?
A. I have culled PC folders myself. I have seen other staff members
culling folders.
Q. For what purpose?
A. To be sent to B-1.
Q. And B-1 is what?
A. Guardian Omce Intel.
Q. And were you personally familiar with his health history?
A. Yes.
COurt Ruling: The court is satisfied that he did not unreasonably intrude
upon Mrs. Hubbard's privacy under the circumstances by in effect simply
making his knowledge that of his attorneys.
It is, of course, rather ironic that the person who authorized G.O.
121669 should complain about an invasion of privacy.
The practice ofculling supposedly confidential "P.C. folders or files" to
obtain information for purposes ofintimidation and/or harassment is repugnant
and outrageous.
The Guardian's Office, which plaintiff headed, was no respecter of anyone's
civil rights, particularly that of privacy. . . .
For additional info:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.entheta.net
Pimoty
Wgert: IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".>>
And you portrayed yourself as a "sysadmin" ? Wordclear RMGROUP dear Wgert....
Zinj
<lotsa clips>
>
>If you'd like to disagree, feel free.
>
>What is a _good_ reason to call someone names? Like Clam,
>Wonderfool, or whatever else. It makes the speaker look
>like a 3rd grader and takes your credibility down a number
>of notches.
>
>Mark
>
There is a difference of opinion about the word clam. I'll come back to that.
I don't call Russ Wonderfool because I've found him to be amazingly able to
converse for a scientologist. I know there are people who flat out despise him,
but face it, while he has his problems (non-confront, handling, etc.) he's the
best we've got. It's rare to find a scientologist without a total
sense-of-humoridectomy.
I've always thought that 'his' page is disgusting, but also very useful for
critics. I tend to send newbies who want to know about scientology there.
I think Russ has been deluded in letting his name be used for it. I doubt in
the extreme that he wrote any of it. He's a better writer.
At the same time, there is responsibility.. so I don't think Berry's libel suit
is at all off the mark.
While I don't want to see Russ destroyed by it, he has always said that he's
willing to defend everything on that page line by line.
This is his chance.
Non-confront and changing the subject won't pull much weight in a courtroom
Russ. I hope you get together with Graham and settle on a public apology before
it goes to the extreme. Very obviously to me at least your page is full of
libel.. Unfortunately the church libeled someone who could fight back.
If there is no settlement, and it does go to court I will definitely be on
Berry's side. Sometimes the schoolyard bully runs into a threshing machine.
And yes.. I call rondroids like wgert, justin, rod etc. morons.
They obviously are, if not by nature, then by training.
And yes.. I use the term clam.
There is a reason for that. In general scientologists are pompous assholes who
consider that they are the best and brightest and are worthy of controlling the
world. And yes that's a generality.
Poking holes in pompous assholes is a goodness in itself. Pointing out the lack
of the emperor's new clothes is a time honored tradition.
I'll probably misquote.. but someone said 'the tyrant fears the cartoonists pen
more than the sword'.
If Scientologists choose to hold Hubbard's words up as divine revelation they
are subject to being ridiculed.
They can make fun of me too. I'll even help if they want.
The major difference is I lay no claim to divine infallibility or right to
'clear' any planet.
I look forward to the day when I can say 'Some of my best friends are clams'
Wolf
Gregg Hagglund wrote:
>
> In article <356238...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net wrote:
> A good example of Co$ tactics is the 'invalidation' tech sample
> below. The post below tries to depict
> ARS as a comic-opera of misinformation posted by childish and jealous
> hysterics.
At least you got that part right.
> Actually, upon analysis and with some experience on ARS
> and the various sobering critics webpages you will visit, you will come
> to realise, I think, just who the spiteful jealous and childish posters to
> ARS are. Just look below, and enjoy.
Hey, hey! Who you calling childish? I'm not the one yelling clam
everytime I run across a person who makes eye contact.
<snip my own rant>
> Oh, one last note here C.
> You might have caught a little bitterness in "wolf"s final
> paragraphs.
Not me bub. I'm the least bitter person I know. Now if you want bitter,
read anything posted by Arnie Lerma or Dennis Erlich, they're the King
and Queen of bitterness.
> Wolf has boasted of pouring millions into the Co$
> Coffers by selling the Co$ airware Hubbardspew.
Nah, I wasn't boasting. Somebody asked me and I answered. Pretty simple.
I have also sold millions of dollars worth of Mercedes automobiles,
which we all know from Princess Diana's unfortunate demise to be nothing
more than German deathtraps.
> "Wolf' knows countless lives and fortunes were wasted
> by those duped by him/her/it.
You trying to me me feel guilty or something?
> Wolf excuses this as just 'good business', but I suspect,
> not so far below the surface, "wolf" knows and regrets
> his/her/its weakness at participating in the Co$ fraud.
You do huh? You must be a college graduate or something.
> IMHO Wolf resents others for being strong enough to stand up
> to the Cult of Greed and Power and is jealous of their willingness
> to take the risks long associated with standing infront of the
> litigation freight train and professional character assassins
> funded by the Co$.
Let's see if I can follow this logic. Having no axe to grind with CofS,
and also failing to declare myself a victim and shunt off all personal
responsibility for my own life on CofS, I'm now supposed to be jealous
of a bunch of jobless losers who couldn't find their own ass with both
hands and a map and are too stupid to get out of the way of a freight
train? If that's your concept of valor then I'd suggest you go spend a
wad of cash on Scientology, run away and cry when they mistreat you,
post a bunch of copyrighted materials on the web and then martyr
yourself in a simpering and degraded fashion in front of thousands of
virtual onlookers.
> Maybe one day "wolf' might have the guts to openly Picket
> against the Criminal Cult. I hope so, then he/she/it will begin
> to heal.
I wouldn't fit in, I'm not fat enough.
> Time will tell.
Tell what?
Wolf
Wolf
LRonsScam wrote:
> >Mark W Brehob wrote:
> >>
> >> Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
> >> Yep. They did. Anti-Cult just posted plenty of proof.
> >> I get the impression that you were trying to be sarcastic
> >> and imply that the rmgroup (remove group) for command for ARS wasn't
> >> sent by a Scientologist, for the Chruch of Scientology.
> >>
> >> I hope you realize that it really did happen.
> >
> >Sure do. I was here. I don't want to get to picky, nor do I care to
> >defend Korbin. But the harsh reality is this: the attempt to remove the
> >ng by one person does not condemn the entire group she belongs to.
>
> You are right but this is only one thing in many that I have a problem with.
Give her an 'A' for effort and an 'F' for tact. That's about it. It was
dumb, but then there's plenty of dumb people around.
> At
> >least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
> >quality of thousands of CofS's members.
>
> Thousands is the key word.
Just a guess. Nobody here or even in CofS knows how many current paying
members there are. Probably many more than ARS wants to believe and many
less than Heber wants to believe. In order for Flag to earn $90-100 mil
per year my educated guess would be in the 100,000 range around the
globe.
> To think otherwise - defining an
> >entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
> >more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
>
> I believe that I am always reffering to Hubbie's words or senior management.
> The problem is really in the philiosophy but who's counting.
A bit garbled, but if I follow, you're not disputing the philosophy,
just the management. If so, we are in agreement.
> >> [big clip]
> >>
> >> One point wolf made in the above "big clip" is that
> >> calling folks names (like clam) just isn't a nice thing.
> >> I know it has been discussed in this group before, but
> >> may I suggest that he is right? It serves little purpose.
> >> Although it has meaning if you are "in the know" it
> >> is still not a nice thing...
> >
> >FWIW Mark, the way I see it is that ARS is home to many people who have
> >a 'need' to strike out and attack others.
>
> Gee how fortunate that you are so evolved that you noticed that. I hear there
> are 20,000 groups out there and this is the only one I am involved in.
> Hmmmmmmmm, interesting.
Just trying to make a point using a few generalities and murky blanket
accusations. Reading ARS has tuned up my skills at demonization, ad hom
attacks, hyberpole and bigotry. The real masters are the ex-SO pukes and
meddling dilletantes who haunt the ng spewing blame and pointing fingers
in all direction but theirs.
> In order to de-humanize those
> >they are trying to hurt it's important that they not see them as real
> >people. Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
> >nigger, spic, kike or white trash.
>
> Or WOG. You are right about the clam but I conceive it as a joke and as a
> repercussion of Wog entheta.
It's a talking point, that's all. But replying that the use of Wog by
some (not all) CofS staffers clears the path for the use of clam in a
similarly bigoted fashion is just plain dumb. Not that you personally
are doing that. But I do assume that you have used clam as a joke, also
racial stereotypes, lawyers and others. It's merely my POV that using
clam as a derog on Scientologists loses one as much credibility as when
a staffer uses the term wog earnestly and in a demeaning fashion.
> It's a mental trick that weak minds
> >use to allow their own internal failures to be vented against something
> >non-human. Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
> >CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
> >into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
>
> I do not hate you Wolf or your group.
I don't have a group. I dislike them. They always insist that one lower
one's own standards before becoming a member.
> I am not prejudiced either. Remember I
> was almost one of you. I can use any or your words or concepts and it still
> doesn't change your thoughts toward me. That is what what must make up a
> cult: When you leave you are tarnished by the stigma and aren't believed by the
> unbelievers and the believers don't believe you because you are cencored and an
> opostate with malicious intent.
I re-read this several times and, to a degree, I think you make a good
point. The problem with the current ARS rah-rah on deprogramming and the
brainwashed state of CofS members is that the only ex-Scn most of you
ever get acquainted with are the ones harping about it. But IMO there is
much more to a cult than what you suggest. Your description of what
makes a cult could be applied to grade school trauma for some people,
speaking in public for others or being the victim of a violent crime.
Here's what I do know, there are at least as many ex-Scn as there are
current ones, probably many more. I know hundreds of them and have, over
the last 16 years, maintained contact or run into many of them. For
every Erlich or Lerma or Young, I know 20 more who were in just as long
or longer who are at best, only mildly interested in what is currently
going on in the CofS. They are alternately successful or failures, busy
or retired, rich, poor and just about anything else you could imagine.
For the most part what I see on ARS is ex-Scn who, for whatever reason,
are demanding that Scientology somehow repay, apologize or make it all
better. My own mother was involved in Scientology every day of her life
from 1957 until 1983. As staff. As an auditor. She's still what she
always was, a highly skilled and productive person who laughs, loves her
grandkids and hoots with laughter at the goings on in ARS. Where's the
trauma? Where's the stigma? Where is it in the thousands upon thousands
of other people who joined up, did what they wanted to and then moved on
with no regrets or recriminations?
I don't post on this ng to defend Scientology, just to point out how
tunnel-visioned most of the regulars are and how poisened the thoughts
of many good critics have become.
Whatever you or other critics believe, Scientology _IS_ a way of life
for many members. That's the facts. Whether it's hokey picketing you're
doing or endless, boring reiterations of 25 year old GO plots, none of
that is going to change the mind of someone who views it as their way of
life. I think it's a gross mis-characterization to assume an advocate
and member of CofS is somehow less bright because of that choice.
My own personal criticism of Scientology boils down to the SO and the
ludicrous concept of Hubbard as being the source of anything other than
an effective selling team. The CofS has many of the attributes of any
group you'd care to examine closely, be it your church, school,
workplace or whatever. Certainly some of the members and attributes are
less than wholesome, just like your town. You want to force them to
change? You want to see that DM goes to jail? You want vengence for
McPherson? Then you have to do a whole lot better than blabbering about
clams and Xemu and operation Snow White.
But then, what do I know? According to the more lunatic fringe I'm
merely a cult apologist.
Wolf
Nico Garcia
In article <199805200102...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
CVB413 <cvb...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
>newsgroup??
Yup. An "rmgroup", a note from Helena Kobrin (a cult lawyer) to sys-admins,
and many hundreds of Megabytes of spam designed to bury the newsgroup.
They've eased off these tactics, sensing (*FINALLY*) that their illegal
censorship brought in dozens if not hundreds of Internet civil rights
activists who made exposing their fraud and criminality a hobby....
--
Nico Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
Cat O'Blivion
wgert wrote:
> IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
Wow... They don't even bother with giving you guys an "Introduction to
Usenet" briefing anymore, do they?
Free clue to the poster(s) known as wgert: You'd probably be a lot more
effective here if you understood how the medium worked.
HAND.
Cat
SP4, KoX
heretic-at-large
"Is there a hungry heart you need to feed?"
Wolf
> > > they do follow ex-members that they fear
> > > enough around the world,
> >
> > Other than heresay, prove this.
> >
> Hey, I'm not in a court of law. I believe Stacy Young's post. She has
> credibility. You don't.
Of course I have credibility... just not with you. BTW, I'm not accusing
Stacey of lying, I'm merely suggesting she has edited the actual events
in whatever fashion she deemed appropriate to support her claims.
> > > that they do have world
> > > domination plans,
> >
> > Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you?
>
> There's that fabulous tek in action. You idiot, I'm a *witch*. Not a
> sub-genius. Not a droid, either.
Yikes! A *witch*! But hang in there Granny, if I'm an idiot then you
have to be a droid. Them's the rules.
> > > they do use the "confessional folders" to blackmail members
> >
> > Prove it. Especially the *blackmail*
>
> Hey, I've seen things posted on *this* newsgroup from people's
> confessional folders! If you need help on this, do a Deja News search. I
> ain't doing your research for you, I have enough on my plate. Unlike you,
> I have a real life.
What you've seen are things posted on this ng that have been claimed to
be from peoples folders. Common sense (of which I have copious amounts)
would tell you that after millions of hours of auditing, somebody,
somewhere is bound to scan a few folders looking for dirt. It happens in
Law offices, psychiatric offices, doctors offices all the time. But to
make a point: *Scientology* does not utilize the confidental contents of
pc folders for blackmail.
> > > they do own some secret vaults that have their dead guru's writings
> >
> > Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you? If you could prove this one
> > I'd send you a six pack.
>
> Unless it's six pack of Dr. Pepper (Diet) I'm not interested. But again
> this has been posted.
Okay. I'll post this: Tilman Hauser is a direct genetic descendant of
Ghengis Khan, Martin Hunt is actually a plant - a strange hybrid of
pinto beans and basmati rice - and Starshadow is not really a witch,
she's a Loyal Officer. Using your logic it's all now true. Unless, of
course, you can prove otherwise.
> > > they do orchestrate hiring of PIs to harass,
> >
> > 'orchestrate'? Is that a crafty way of saying you can't prove this?
>
> Geeze, do you need a dictionary to understand words of more than two
> syllables? I didn't stutter.
Well? Apparently you can't prove it. Except that 'it's been posted'.
<snip dead dog chat>
> Yap, yap. The posters that have talked about this have some integrity,
> I have believed them. If you don't, that's your problem, not mine.
In other words, you can't prove it.
> > Starshadow... the only thing *in action* on this NG is yours and the
> > other ARS culties paranoia and conspiracy schemes.
>
> Yeah, real paranoia. It isn't the critics who scream "German
> conspiracy" everytime a news article comes out that details abuses.
> Or is that Minton-German-evil-psyche-lord-Nazi conspiracy?? I forget,
> it's so hard to keep them straight.
The Minton-German-evil-psyche-lord-Nazi one is different than the
evil-deathcult-world-takeover-OSA-helicopter one. You gotta remember to
keep your conspiracies straight.
> > Hmmm. Well, you are a bigot, that is clear by not only your language,
> > but that of a good 25% of the Leadership of ARS.
>
> Yeah, Wolf. I'm a bigot. I really hate cults which lock up people until
> they die. I want to see them stopped from killing any more people. I'm
> just such an eeevil bigot.
Me too. Thankfully no such cults exist in our fair land.
<snip>
> Now that has been stated once or twice and then refuted by numerous
> people, some of them critics. I don't believe LRH was a child molester. A
> wife and child abuser, a bigamist, a paranoid shizophrenic, a liar, a
> sometime decent pulp-writer, charismatic and entertaining outside of his
> cult, that I'm sure of. I heard from his own lips that he started the
> whole thing as a scam. I guess that he was lying, though, or maybe I was
> lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
> him say the same thing.
Wow. At least he wasn't a child molester!
<snip>
> > > going into paroxisms(sp?) anytime someone lists their spam web pages and
> > > even links to them.
> >
> > Squeeky wheel gets the grease.. that's what ol' Wolf advises.
> >
> > > This of course is Scientology in action.
It's the way of the world. That CofS employs the methods they do doesn't
make them Scientology methods. But it must smart to feel so
self-righteous and keep getting your collective butts kicked by them
terrible people.
> > > Notice that Wolf calls a newsgroup a "cult" as though he could make a
> > > thinking person believe that all critics are somehow mind-controlled to
> > > believe terrible things about his favorite real UFO cult.
> >
> > Okay, ya got me there. Strictly speaking, ARS is not a cult. But then
> > neither is CofS. But since ARS culties have deemed (and redefined) their
> > target as culties, then you get like treatment. There's also the fact
> > that ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main
> > speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a
> > cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.
>
> Right, we are all in a cult. You know about as much of that as you do
> about me, hence you defining me as a "subgenius". Who do you think is
> *our* noble cult leader? Xenu? Minton? The Evil Zombie Psyche Lords?
Right now Starshadow, there is a power struggle in the ARS Cult. Erlich
has seemingly lost ground because he can't get a job and Wollersheim has
been found out to be what many of us knew all along, an attention-mooch.
Tilman has fallen victim to the clam-meme virus and Rob has proven
steadily that he's too intelligent to buy into _all_ the rants and spew
of this cult. RVY and his bride are angling to fill the vacuum by
planning and staging daring GO type operations and rescuing fair maidens
in the nick of time, but who can trust a couple of ex-GO button men?
Barwell would love to be leader but he *plonks* anyone who says anything
that isn't exactly what he wants to hear. Henson has the smarts, but the
RTC left tread marks on his checkbook. I don't think you want the job...
so... that leaves Dave Bird, He's the only ARS cultie here who has
consistently been looney enough to dribble his garbage out in an
on-policy, 100% standard fashion. Plus there's the added bonus of his
giant beard and bohemian appearance. I vote for Dave!
> Oh, well, at least we don't have to spend thousands to get rid of space
> cooties.
This from a *witch*? Pot=Kettle?
> > > read the ng long enough that while critics have and do criticize within
> > > their own ranks when they think anyone is wrong, and admit mistakes,
> >
> > LOL!! Spelling mistakes sure. Hell, even a few grammer mistakes. But
> > mistakes? You're way under the ether.
>
> Bullshit. You are lying. As usual.
Why would I lie? If I had any compassion (according to Monica P I don't)
my little feelings might be hurt by that remark. If I'm misinformed I'll
take it like a man. But calling me a liar proves nothing.
<snip>
> > > and that they never defend, they always attack.
> >
> > Well, pass. It's policy. A good one too, evidenced by the fact that
> > nobody has ever forced them to answer any questions.
>
> It sure makes showing their idiocy easier. Non-confront and all that.
I disagree. There's a world of difference between failing to confront
something and stonewalling. Witness our current President if you want to
observe a true master. It's effective, produces results and has been the
preferred weapon of our civilization since language evolved. You want
answers? They say nope. Now what ya gonna do? Shoot them? That's life.
> > You really are overwhelmed by your involvement in this cult.. Being on
> > the net hardly qualifies as involving the *whole world* in your
> > business. I know, those who have trouble getting attention in the
> > non-virtual world sometimes lose track of just how few people really
> > give a shit about them online too... but if you wanna think the world is
> > watching, who am I to de-program you?
>
> yap yap. If it is so unimportant why the all the attention the cult
> pays critics??
I wish you ARS cultists would get it through your skulls... wgert,
gunny, whip and the rest aren't major assets of the CofS. They're
grunts. Foot soldiers. They don't know dick about what the RTC is up to.
The threat of any enemy can be determined by the quality of the assets
sent against it. Erlich, Henson, Wollersheim did, at one point, present
a threat. That's why bigger guns were brought into play. You guys get
wgert. Which shows how much impact ARS has had in the last four years.
> > > We just don't like people being locked up until they die,
> > Well goddamnit Starshadow! I'd hurry up and book a ticket to Africa, SE
> > Asia, China or any number of places on our fair planet where people are
> > being locked up, starved, beaten, tortured and brutalized each and every
> > minute of the day. Are you a man (woman?) or a mouse? If you really
> > care, I mean really, as in this isn't just a diversion so you can pump
> > your own diminished ego up, then go find some real brutality and do
> > something about it. If not, then I guess you're just paying lip service
> > from a safe distance huh?
>
> I don't happen to live in those places. I live in a country where this
> kind of thing is supposed to be illegal. And if you don't know anything
> about who I am or what I've done or what volunteer time I've served or
> who I may have assisted or fed or clothed, etc, then why should I tell
> you? I'm not here to bang my own drum, I'm here to stop your cult's
> criminal actions. You don't like that and you will try to claim anything
> nasty you can dig up on me. Go ahead. I don't care.
True. But I suspect you see my point. Demonizing Scn and falsely
creating a threat that doesn't exist does little or nothing if you
really intend to manipulate a change in the way they treat SO members.
This appears to be way too sophisticated for the ARS clam-crowd to
comprehend. I'll happily explain it though to anyone who cares to drop
the pretense of being the heroic saviours of our children and inspect
what is really going on inside CofS members heads.
> > > If this is picketing campaign is so useless as Wolf likes to depict,
> > > why then are there so many fits about it on this ng?
> >
> > Who has fits? I haven't seen any fits. WTF are you talking about?
>
> Wgert, Justin, you, et al, getting your panties all in a knot.
Oooh. Wgert got upset... there's a stat for ya!
<snip Wolf's remarks about weight gain, pc's and Ho-Ho addiction>
> I'm fat. So what? Does this make me a bad person? Does it make anyone
> who is fat a bad person? I've noticed people of all sizes picketing. WTF
> does it have to do with anything except your own bigotry against fat
> people???
Actually I didn't know you were sporting any extra poundage. But we all
have been witness to the repeated remarks about good ol' Ron and his
paunch. You folks set the rules on this one, not me. As an aside, Erlich
was the first one I recall really making a big deal about El Lardo and
constantly referring to his tubbiness. Having not seen Erlich for 15
years at the time I didn't think much of it. Imagine my suprise when I
saw his ugly mug splatted across Wired and then on the net... woah! He
ain't missed many feedings himself, despite being out of work.
> You are full of it, aren't you? I'm not speaking here of The Truth with
> a capital T, Wolf, but the truth about the abuses of this cult you defend
> so mightily. If you cannot understand that , well, that is your head up
> your ass.
Well, I yam what I yam. But you must know by now that defending the CofS
is beyond my capabilities. Nor do I care to defend them. OTOH, you folks
here could definitly use a tune-up when it comes to fighting for
something you believe in. Think of me instead as sort of a free
consultant to ARS. Being basically immodest it's easy for me to state
that I was one of the best players the CofS had. They know it too. The
caliber of folks they assign to recover me is way over the level of the
goons they assign to ARS. So here's my free consulting advice to you
meatheads today -> hysterical ranting and raving coupled with cries of
"Clam!" and "Xenu!" will net you the big zero. That crapola is for
mouth-breathers like anti-cult and zinj and butt kissers like Martin.
You people are not likely to destroy Scientology, so why not consider
the possibility that you could continually change it for the better. Get
a plan.
> I'm speaking my mind, and if you don't like it, don't read what I write.
> Or ignore it. Or refute it, if you can. Whatever yanks your chain. This
> is Usenet, do what you want.
> But for one who claims to have read a number of my posts and yet still
> makes a fundemental mistake like thinking (for one) I'm a Sub-Genius, you
> aren't looking as rational as you'd like.
Now I never said *I* was rational, just that my thought processes are. I
obviously like what you write, why else would I be here?
Wolf
Zinj
In article <35635E...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
>
>
>Oooh. He's a mean one this Anti-Cult. When are you running for dictator?
>Thankfully, whatever days you're you're referring to that are 'gone',
>are gone. As for me, I'm just a po' boy from Texas. And guys like you
>were always fun to kick around on the playground.
>
>You're now free to continue obsessing about locking up those you blindly
>hate forever.
>
>Wolf
>
>
Believe it or not Wolf, it's this ever repeating engram of schoolyard bully
that makes many of us critics.
I never did have much love for them, and it's a real pleasure to see the
schoolyard, lunchmoney-stealing, sand-in-your-face Cult-of-the-let's-beat up on
someone who can't fight back religion get it's comeupance.
Hah Hah!
Lisa Chabot
>>> Calling someone a clam is no different than calling someone a
>
>Very well done Lisa. Now here's the next question on this quiz:
>
>If Johnny jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
>
>Be careful... it's a trick question.
Go directly to the point, 'K ?
.
. also, remember to keep your attributions clean
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
Tommy_sp...@xs.net
Wolf wrote:
> You're now free to continue obsessing about locking up those you blindly
> hate forever.
>
> Wolf
Is this another RPF reference?
Christopher Leithiser
Cat O'Blivion wrote:
>
> wgert wrote:
>
> > IMHO there is a big difference between "shut down" and "remove group".
>
> Wow... They don't even bother with giving you guys an "Introduction to
> Usenet" briefing anymore, do they?
>
You know, there's a business opportunity here: they could "hat" some
poor slob to handle USENET, then charge 'em for the "Introduction to
USENET" course. Since they run so many different individuals through
each username/account, this could be a real moneymaker for them. Might
make up for some of the raw meat the Xenu story scares away.
Wolf
<snip-rm group chat>
> : Sure do. I was here. I don't want to get to picky, nor do I care to
> : defend Korbin. But the harsh reality is this: the attempt to remove the
> : ng by one person does not condemn the entire group she belongs to.
>
> Do you really think she took that action without talking to anyone
> else first? You are correct, it doesn't condemn the entire CoS. It
> does however say a lot about the _management_ of the CoS.
Could be either. No one on this NG knows the facts of whether Korbin
acted alone or with approval. You are correct though in that it does say
something about CofS mngmnt.
> : At
> : least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
> : quality of thousands of CofS's members. To think otherwise - defining an
> : entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
> : more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
>
> Really? I'd say that when someone who works for you does something
> wrong it _does_ reflect on you. Especially if you continue to
> employ that person.
Such things are a constantly shifting landscape. The potential for
idiocy and criminality amongst the ranks of any organization rises in
direct proportion the amount of members. CofS is no exception, not is
the company you work for or the church or any groups you belong to.
Straw man. This is an argument for grade schoolers.
> Your use of the words "hate", "hater" etc. are
> unneeded. I do not hate the CoS.
Provoking discussion of what, IMO, has become a seriously negative
aspect of otherwise valid ARS criticism is much needed.
> In fact if there was reform to
> the point that:
> * No one else died for the same reasons Lisa M. died
Apparently this is an isolated case. The eventual trial will bring out
the facts. Are we forgetting that the justice system in America does
indeed apply to Scn as well as the rest of us?
> * The CoS _stopped_ claiming to be compatible with
> Christianity. (Or at least explained that LRH discounted
> the existence of Christ.)
Ain't going to happen. Not in the forseeable future.
> * Stopped harassing their critics.
Why would they do that? This is the Scorpion and the Frog Mark. Despite
the claims that they have discovered they are thetans, not humans, they
are chained to the realities of their natures. As are you and I.
> * Stopped "protecting" its members from the real world.
Huh? What is that supposed to mean? Your real world? Mine?
> I would almost certainally cease to be a critic of the CoS. In my mind
> I have a responsibility to protest, yell and scream about those things
> that can harm others. Be it poorly handled meat at the supermarket or
> anything else.
Seems reasonable to me. Within that statement lies some fo the logic as
to why I vote, despite knowing I'll eventually be betrayed by my
candidate.
<snip>
> : Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
> : CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
> : into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
>
> It is a forum for that, again on both sides. However it is also
> a forum for thoughtful discussion; valid criticism, and other
> good things. Newsgroups are that way. Everyone has a voice.
> Even you.
Yep. But then, your enemies would indeed look pretty foolish if they
were the only ones acting like lunatics.
> Always take the high ground, whether in war or debate.
Unless the low ground is cheaper, faster and more effective :~D
Wolf
The Goblin Wizard
> >
> >>I'm a newcomer to the group. Is it true Scientology tried to shut down this
> >>newsgroup??
> >>
> >>c.
> >
> >Helena Kobrin issued a RMGROUP command on January 11, 1995
> >
> >As you can see, it didn't work too well.
> >
>
> Or in other words: what you heard is *not* true.
FLUNK starrate checkout. He said tried, not succeeded.
Check for MU's.
Cheers,
the wiz
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <MPG.fcd7f4f6...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
Starshadow <stars...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>... I heard from his [LRH's] own lips that he started the
>lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
>him say the same thing.
I first saw this statement from StartAtShadows years ago on a small
bulletin-board network. I questioned it then and got nothing but smoke.
It is a unique claim I have seen nowhere else and she has never presented
the slightest proof or corroboration.
Hubbard would never have stepped up to a podium at a public event and
declared Scientology a scam. Had he done so it would have made front page
news.
The obvious conclusion is that StirredShadows is lying. God knows she
hasn't the capacity for self-examination it would take to admit she was
ever wrong. And she probably conceives that her witness to this historic
incident provides her a status boost amongst her fellow armchair bigots.
A possible alternative is that Hubbard uttered some characteristic jest at
which the whole crowd chuckled except some beady-eyed, literal-minded gal
near the back who was, I humorously imagine, too busy fingering Tarot
cards and muttering malevolent incantations to think it through.
- Whippersnapper
"If your mind's gone blank, I have some suggestions!" -- Calvin
rgonnet
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.fcd7f4f6...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
> Starshadow <stars...@mindless.com> wrote:
> >
> >whole thing as a scam. I guess that he was lying, though, or maybe I was
> >lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
> >him say the same thing.
Yes , and his own kin allegated it. See the affidavit of
Junior, if you don't believe it.
R
Rob Clark
On 24 May 1998 14:10:15 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>In article <MPG.fcd7f4f6...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
>Starshadow <stars...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>... I heard from his [LRH's] own lips that he started the
>>whole thing as a scam. I guess that he was lying, though, or maybe I was
>>lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
>>him say the same thing.
>I first saw this statement from StartAtShadows years ago on a small
>bulletin-board network. I questioned it then and got nothing but smoke.
unless she recorded it, what the hell was she supposed to produce, you
moron? spirit recordings?
>It is a unique claim I have seen nowhere else and she has never presented
>the slightest proof or corroboration.
it is by no means unique.
you are a liar.
From: lin...@esl.cs.colorado.edu (Don Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: non-scientologist faq on "Start a Religion"
Date: 25 Aug 1995 02:37:22 GMT
Summary: L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said
"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."
L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a
million
dollars is to start a religion." There are also variant rumors. For
some reason, this is often mentioned on Usenet. Evidence is discussed
below, but the short answer is that it's almost certainly true.
The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to
court
for printing this story. _Stern_ won (see below).
One form of the rumor is that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet with
Robert
A. Heinlein. This is definitely not true. It's uncharacteristic of
Heinlein, and there's no supporting evidence. There is, however,
inconclusive evidence that Robert Heinlein suggested some parts of the
original _Dianetics_.
Another variant is that Hubbard talked of starting a religion to avoid
taxes. Jay Kay Klein reports that Hubbard said this in 1947.
The Church's media guide tells reporters that the rumor is confused,
and
that it was George Orwell who said it. In 1938, Orwell did write "But
I
have always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new
religion...". However, Robert Vaughn Young, who was Scientology's
spokesman for 20 years, says that Hubbard learned about the Orwell
quote
from _him_. Young further states that he met three people who could
remember Hubbard saying more-or-less the famous quote. Nor did
Hubbard
write a rebuttal of the rumor -- Young claims to have ghost-written
the
rebuttal in the Rocky Mountain News interview.
I found the following in books about Hubbard and Scientology:
"Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say
that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a
religion."
-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in _Bare Faced Messiah_** p.117
from 1986
interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall
1945.
** _Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard_, by Russell
Miller (N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co., 1987) ISBN 0-8050-0654-0. $19.95
London:
Michael Joeseph Penguin Book Ltd, 1987. See the Access FAQ for
reviews.
"I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money - he used
to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult."
-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the _Thrilling_ SF magazines:
quoted in _Bare Faced Messiah_ p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of
1946/47.
"Around this time he was invited to address a science fiction group
in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. `Writing for a penny
a word is ridiculous,' he told the meeting. `If a man really wanted
to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his
own religion.'
-- _Bare Faced Messiah_ p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug
78.
Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.
"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion
when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association
in Newark, New Jersey in 1947:
`Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect,
he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word
was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million,
he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"
-- _Messiah or Madman_***, p.45. No reference given. Yes, the
spelling
of Sam's name differs: this book got it wrong, it has a "k". I
don't know why the two books disagree by two years.
(Oddly, the same misspelling occurs in _The dangerous new cult of
Scientology_, by Arlene and Howard Eisenberg, Parents Magazine, June
1969, pages 48-49 and 82-86. From this and other similarities, it
seems likely that Corydon is quoting the Eisenberg article, rather
than quoting Moskowitz directly.)
*** _L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?_ -- by Bent Corydon and L. Ron
Hubbard Jr. a.k.a. Ronald DeWolf.(Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1987)
ISBN 0-8184-0444-2 In 1992, from Barricade Books, dist. by Publishers
Group West, $12.95 See the Access FAQ for reviews.
_The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction_ lists Sam Moskowitz as the
first
good historian of science fiction [among other things]. In 1994
Moskowitz wrote an affidavit which states: "After speaking for about
an
hour at the meeting, Mr. Hubbard answered questions from the
audience. He made the following statement in response to a question
about making money from writing: `You don't get rich writing science
fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'"
The affidavit states that this was the 7 Nov 1948 meeting of the
Eastern
Science Fiction Association, of which Moskowitz was the director.
Now, there is a problem with the three Moskowitz reports.
Specifically,
the Church obtained affidavits in 1993 from David A. Kyle and Jay Kay
Klein. Both names are well-known in science fiction, and both say
that
they went to the 7 Nov 1948 talk by Hubbard. Both say that they
didn't
hear any such statement. Puzzling.
I believe that these dueling affidavits have met in court. _Stern_, a
German magazine, was sued by the Church, and the suit was thrown out
of court after they obtained the Moskowitz affidavit.
On 9apr94, jit...@gumby.cs.caltech.edu (Mike Jittlov) posted:
<about a conversation with Theodore Sturgeon>
>Back in the 1940's, L. Ron Hubbard was a member of the Los Angeles
>Science Fantasy Society (when its old clubhouse was just north of
>Wilshire Blvd). Ted vividly recalled being a few yards from Hubbard,
>when he became testy with someone there and retorted, "Y'know, we're
>all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta
>make _real_ money, you gotta start a _religion_!
>
>Though I didn't ask, I think Ted would've mentioned it if the second
>person was Heinlein or another author of note. He had an extremely
>accurate memory, and I'd trust Sturgeon over anyone else's account.
Reportedly Sturgeon also told this story to others. Theodore Sturgeon
was one of the truly great science fiction writers, and someone whose
word and memories were trusted. (John W. Campbell commented that
Sturgeon should have written the definitive history of SF fandom.)
Mike Jittlov is a respected Hollywood filmmaker and stopmotion actor,
and can be found on the net at "alt.fan.mike-jittlov".
Lloyd Arthur Eshbach was a science fiction writer and publisher
between
1929 and 1957. His autobiography, _Over My Shoulder: Reflections of
the
Science Fiction Era_ ( Oswald Train: Publisher, Phila. 1983, limited
edition) says on pages 125 and 126 (about the events of 1948 and
1949):
I think of the time while in New York I took John W. Campbell
Marty Greenberg, and L. Ron Hubbard to lunch. Someone
suggested
a Swedish smorgasbord, and I had my first--and last--taste of
kidney. Yuck! Afterward we wound up in my hotel room for
related conversation.
The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one
statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he
did I can't recall--but in so many words Hubbard said:
"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"
Eshbach based his autobiography on detailed records and dated diary
entries, and is therefore likely to be quite accurate on this point.
Harlan Ellison is a science fiction author and movie scriptwriter. In
an interview ****, he has said such things as "I was there the night
L. Ron Hubbard invented [Dianetics]". However, I have decided not to
give Ellison's version of the famous Hubbard quote, nor am I counting
Ellison in my witness list. I respect Mr. Ellison, but after much
discussion on "rec.arts.sf.written", it became clear that some
well-informed science fiction fans do not take Mr. Ellison's words
literally. He does not necessarily keep history and storytelling
separate.
**** _The Saturday Evening Wings_, Nov-Dec 1978, p.32. Reportedly
Ellison also said similar things in _TIME OUT_, UK, no. 332.
Reportedly, a Vonnegut biography mentions the Hubbard quote. If anyone
can find an exact reference, I would appreciate email. Similarly,
L. Sprague de Camp is reported to have said something in his handbook
on writing science fiction. Randall Garrett also supposedly talked
about this. Again, I would appreciate email.
To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam
Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three
unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and
doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via
Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his
autobiography; and one reported in an affidavit. The reports describe
different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in
five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's
official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.
Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once).
Pimoty
WHippersnapper: The obvious conclusion is that StirredShadows is lying.
WS: I first saw this statement from StartAtShadows years ago on a small
bulletin-board network. >>
Why the name calling dear Whipper, after all if Starshadows is lying, should
you not need the ad-hominem fallacy ?
+++
For additional info:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.entheta.net
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/yanny.html
Hud Nordin
Regarding multiple documented occurences of such as:
"Whenever [Hubbard] was talking about being hard up he often used to say
that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a
religion."
-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in _Bare Faced Messiah_** p.117 from 1986
interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall 1945.
In article <3568655c...@news.mindspring.com> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) writes:
>To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam
>Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three
>unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and
>doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via
>Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his
>autobiography; and one reported in an affidavit. The reports describe
>different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in
>five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's
>official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.
As the Haikumatic once put it:
Start a cult; get rich.
Hubbard not only said it --
He also did it.
>Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once).
Further conclusion: He definitely did it (Thankfully, just once).
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California
Rob Clark
On 24 May 1998 19:28:28 GMT, pim...@aol.com (Pimoty) wrote:
>WHippersnapper: The obvious conclusion is that StirredShadows is lying.
>Why the name calling dear Whipper, after all if Starshadows is lying, should
>you not need the ad-hominem fallacy ?
well for the obvious reason. it is not starshadow that is lying.
whapper is, as usual, lying his ass off like the cultist clam he is.
"Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say
that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a
religion."
-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in _Bare Faced Messiah_** p.117
from 1986
interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall
1945.
** _Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard_, by Russell
To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam
Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three
unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and
doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via
Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his
autobiography; and one reported in an affidavit. The reports describe
different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in
five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's
official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.
William Barwell
In article <6k9nq7$b...@examiner.concentric.net>,
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.fcd7f4f6...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
>Starshadow <stars...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>
>>... I heard from his [LRH's] own lips that he started the
>>whole thing as a scam. I guess that he was lying, though, or maybe I was
>>lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
>>him say the same thing.
>
>the slightest proof or corroboration.
Numerous SF authors have also heard Elron babble this same
sort of sentiment, a habit Hubbard started in college, as
an old college roommate has mentioned.
It was a stock Hubbardism.
No smoke, just the stark truth.
Elron scammed you and you still don't get it.
He tells the world for decades he wants to make
a million bucks and you don't get it.
He wrote that Scientology's 'religous status' is
a matter for "accountants and solicitors only" and you
still don't get it.
He calls his scam "The Bridge" and you buy it.
Obnosis isn't your strongest ability, is it?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Mark W Brehob
Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
: <snip-rm group chat>
<and more snip.>
: > : least not in my mind. Nor does her attempt define the intentions and
: > : quality of thousands of CofS's members. To think otherwise - defining an
: > : entire class of people by the actions of a few - is mere prejudice and
: > : more a reflection of the haters intentions than the hated.
: >
: > Really? I'd say that when someone who works for you does something
: > wrong it _does_ reflect on you. Especially if you continue to
: > employ that person.
: Such things are a constantly shifting landscape. The potential for
: idiocy and criminality amongst the ranks of any organization rises in
: direct proportion the amount of members. CofS is no exception, not is
: the company you work for or the church or any groups you belong to.
: Straw man. This is an argument for grade schoolers.
I made no reference to _my_ place of work or _my_ church. I made
a general comment about having resposiblity for those that work for
you. I see no straw man.
: > Your use of the words "hate", "hater" etc. are
: > unneeded. I do not hate the CoS.
: Provoking discussion of what, IMO, has become a seriously negative
: aspect of otherwise valid ARS criticism is much needed.
Agreed.
: > In fact if there was reform to
: > the point that:
: > * No one else died for the same reasons Lisa M. died
: Apparently this is an isolated case. The eventual trial will bring out
: the facts. Are we forgetting that the justice system in America does
: indeed apply to Scn as well as the rest of us?
No I'm not forgeting that. The problem is that the CoS has
not admitted any guilt in the matter. They have not said
"we screwed up". Thats a problem. If they told the
rest of their membership "Don't do this, it is wrong" then
I would be much happier.
: > * The CoS _stopped_ claiming to be compatible with
: > Christianity. (Or at least explained that LRH discounted
: > the existence of Christ.)
: Ain't going to happen. Not in the forseeable future.
Agreed. So it seems unlikely I'll be going away anytime soon.
: > * Stopped harassing their critics.
: Why would they do that? This is the Scorpion and the Frog Mark. Despite
: the claims that they have discovered they are thetans, not humans, they
: are chained to the realities of their natures. As are you and I.
Perhaps. However other religions and individuals behave _much_ better
than the CoS. Are you are saying that this behavor comes from
their religion? Or are you claiming this behavor is part of human
nature?
: > * Stopped "protecting" its members from the real world.
: Huh? What is that supposed to mean? Your real world? Mine?
Sorry. A good example might be the web-page agreement
they ask their members to sign. They are then required to use
a "web-filter" which keeps them out of anti-CoS sites...
: > I would almost certainally cease to be a critic of the CoS. In my mind
: > I have a responsibility to protest, yell and scream about those things
: > that can harm others. Be it poorly handled meat at the supermarket or
: > anything else.
: Seems reasonable to me. Within that statement lies some fo the logic as
: to why I vote, despite knowing I'll eventually be betrayed by my
: candidate.
*LAUGH*
:
: <snip>
: > : Whatever value ARS does have in reforming or changing the
: > : CofS is seriously limited by the fact that this NG has itself evolved
: > : into a forum for blind displays of hatred and prejudice.
: >
: > It is a forum for that, again on both sides. However it is also
: > a forum for thoughtful discussion; valid criticism, and other
: > good things. Newsgroups are that way. Everyone has a voice.
: > Even you.
: Yep. But then, your enemies would indeed look pretty foolish if they
: were the only ones acting like lunatics.
I know. I wish it were so.
: > Always take the high ground, whether in war or debate.
: Unless the low ground is cheaper, faster and more effective :~D
: Wolf
Mark
Starshadow
Okay, I finally get enought time to answer this.
(see, I have this real life thing, and...)
Anyway, onward and downward, as they say...
In article <35650A...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> Starshadow wrote:
> >
> > In article <35634B...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
>
> > > > they do follow ex-members that they fear
> > > > enough around the world,
> > >
> > > Other than heresay, prove this.
> > >
> > Hey, I'm not in a court of law. I believe Stacy Young's post. She has
> > credibility. You don't.
>
> Of course I have credibility... just not with you. BTW, I'm not accusing
> Stacey of lying, I'm merely suggesting she has edited the actual events
> in whatever fashion she deemed appropriate to support her claims.
>
In that case so do we all. I think that what was done amounts to
following and harrassment, and restraining orders have been gotten for
lesser proof than this.
> > > > that they do have world
> > > > domination plans,
> > >
> > > Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you?
> >
> > There's that fabulous tek in action. You idiot, I'm a *witch*. Not a
> > sub-genius. Not a droid, either.
>
> Yikes! A *witch*! But hang in there Granny, if I'm an idiot then you
> have to be a droid. Them's the rules.
Granny is my attribute. Name is Starshadow.
I'm not a droid, even if you were an idiot. You aren't. I was just
calling the statement idiotic by way of you. Common failing, but I
apologise because in this case it is obviously untrue.
> > > > they do use the "confessional folders" to blackmail members
> > >
> > > Prove it. Especially the *blackmail*
> >
> > Hey, I've seen things posted on *this* newsgroup from people's
> > confessional folders! If you need help on this, do a Deja News search. I
> > ain't doing your research for you, I have enough on my plate. Unlike you,
> > I have a real life.
>
> What you've seen are things posted on this ng that have been claimed to
> be from peoples folders. Common sense (of which I have copious amounts)
> would tell you that after millions of hours of auditing, somebody,
> somewhere is bound to scan a few folders looking for dirt. It happens in
> Law offices, psychiatric offices, doctors offices all the time. But to
> make a point: *Scientology* does not utilize the confidental contents of
> pc folders for blackmail.
I do not believe that. And I assure you that in the above professions,
confidentiality is taken very seriously. It's been proven to my
satisfaction (others who were higher up in the org than you, for example)
that this is *exactly* what happens in this "church".
>
> > > > they do own some secret vaults that have their dead guru's writings
> > >
> > > Hey... you're a subgenius droid aren't you? If you could prove this one
> > > I'd send you a six pack.
> >
> > Unless it's six pack of Dr. Pepper (Diet) I'm not interested. But again
> > this has been posted.
>
> Okay. I'll post this: Tilman Hauser is a direct genetic descendant of
> Ghengis Khan, Martin Hunt is actually a plant - a strange hybrid of
> pinto beans and basmati rice - and Starshadow is not really a witch,
> she's a Loyal Officer. Using your logic it's all now true. Unless, of
> course, you can prove otherwise.
Hey, Wolf, believe what you want to. Whatever twists your panties, or
yanks your chain. Far be it from *me* to burst your bubble.
>
> > > > they do orchestrate hiring of PIs to harass,
> > >
> > > 'orchestrate'? Is that a crafty way of saying you can't prove this?
> >
> > Geeze, do you need a dictionary to understand words of more than two
> > syllables? I didn't stutter.
>
> Well? Apparently you can't prove it. Except that 'it's been posted'.
>
Grady Ward's mother was called on by Ingram who stole photos of her
son. There are lots of others so harassed right here on this ng, why not
ask them??
Oh, I forgot. We are all droids and bigots, can't trust us.
>
> <snip dead dog chat>
>
> > Yap, yap. The posters that have talked about this have some integrity,
> > I have believed them. If you don't, that's your problem, not mine.
>
> In other words, you can't prove it.
>
> > > Starshadow... the only thing *in action* on this NG is yours and the
> > > other ARS culties paranoia and conspiracy schemes.
> >
> > Yeah, real paranoia. It isn't the critics who scream "German
> > conspiracy" everytime a news article comes out that details abuses.
> > Or is that Minton-German-evil-psyche-lord-Nazi conspiracy?? I forget,
> > it's so hard to keep them straight.
>
> The Minton-German-evil-psyche-lord-Nazi one is different than the
> evil-deathcult-world-takeover-OSA-helicopter one. You gotta remember to
> keep your conspiracies straight.
It's so difficult when they change so often. One month I'm paid in
German marks, the next in prozac by the barrel, the next it's Minton-bux.
What's an evil bigot to do??
>
> > > Hmmm. Well, you are a bigot, that is clear by not only your language,
> > > but that of a good 25% of the Leadership of ARS.
> >
> > Yeah, Wolf. I'm a bigot. I really hate cults which lock up people until
> > they die. I want to see them stopped from killing any more people. I'm
> > just such an eeevil bigot.
>
> Me too. Thankfully no such cults exist in our fair land.
Lisa McPherson killed by application of the Introspection Rundown.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Now that has been stated once or twice and then refuted by numerous
> > people, some of them critics. I don't believe LRH was a child molester. A
> > wife and child abuser, a bigamist, a paranoid shizophrenic, a liar, a
> > sometime decent pulp-writer, charismatic and entertaining outside of his
> > cult, that I'm sure of. I heard from his own lips that he started the
> > whole thing as a scam. I guess that he was lying, though, or maybe I was
> > lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
> > him say the same thing.
>
> Wow. At least he wasn't a child molester!
>
Yeah, and he was fun to drink with, in my younger days when I drank
sometimes. But that was before I read his actual real Naval record, all I
knew was the old pulp writer.
> <snip>
>
> > > > going into paroxisms(sp?) anytime someone lists their spam web pages and
> > > > even links to them.
> > >
> > > Squeeky wheel gets the grease.. that's what ol' Wolf advises.
> > >
> > > > This of course is Scientology in action.
>
> It's the way of the world. That CofS employs the methods they do doesn't
> make them Scientology methods. But it must smart to feel so
> self-righteous and keep getting your collective butts kicked by them
> terrible people.
My butt isn't hurting, I think theirs is, though.
>
> > > > Notice that Wolf calls a newsgroup a "cult" as though he could make a
> > > > thinking person believe that all critics are somehow mind-controlled to
> > > > believe terrible things about his favorite real UFO cult.
> > >
> > > Okay, ya got me there. Strictly speaking, ARS is not a cult. But then
> > > neither is CofS. But since ARS culties have deemed (and redefined) their
> > > target as culties, then you get like treatment. There's also the fact
> > > that ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main
> > > speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a
> > > cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.
Pot, kettle, black, is that it? Tit for tat? Though, strictly
speaking you are right. CofS isn't a cult, it is a "criminal cult",
convicted as such in many places, and the US will be one, eventually. The
karmic wheel turns eventually.
> >
> > Right, we are all in a cult. You know about as much of that as you do
> > about me, hence you defining me as a "subgenius". Who do you think is
> > *our* noble cult leader? Xenu? Minton? The Evil Zombie Psyche Lords?
>
> Right now Starshadow, there is a power struggle in the ARS Cult. Erlich
> has seemingly lost ground because he can't get a job and Wollersheim has
> been found out to be what many of us knew all along, an attention-mooch.
> Tilman has fallen victim to the clam-meme virus and Rob has proven
> steadily that he's too intelligent to buy into _all_ the rants and spew
> of this cult. RVY and his bride are angling to fill the vacuum by
> planning and staging daring GO type operations and rescuing fair maidens
> in the nick of time, but who can trust a couple of ex-GO button men?
> Barwell would love to be leader but he *plonks* anyone who says anything
> that isn't exactly what he wants to hear. Henson has the smarts, but the
> RTC left tread marks on his checkbook. I don't think you want the job...
> so... that leaves Dave Bird, He's the only ARS cultie here who has
> consistently been looney enough to dribble his garbage out in an
> on-policy, 100% standard fashion. Plus there's the added bonus of his
> giant beard and bohemian appearance. I vote for Dave!
Yeah, well you aren't in the ARSCC9wdne) so you don't get a vote. So
there! *sticks tongue out*
> > Oh, well, at least we don't have to spend thousands to get rid of space
> > cooties.
>
> This from a *witch*? Pot=Kettle?
*patiently* Witches don't have space cooties, and we don't spend
thousands on our religion nor do we sell miracle cures and claim magick
is a "science"--no wait, also a "religion" --no wait, a "technology"--etc
etc. In fact very few do much charging for instruction except for the
Frosts and a few Saxon Wicce offshoots. Neo-pagans in general seem to
have embraced the meme that charging for much of anything is somehow
karmically *bad* in fact, (this tends to be the main difference between
New Ager flakes and even the "bunnies and white light" witch crowd, the
money thing), and tend to be poor as some kind of barometer as to how
sincere they are (yes, I think this is silly, but then witches seldom
agree on a lot, kind of like the critics, here...)
> > > > read the ng long enough that while critics have and do criticize within
> > > > their own ranks when they think anyone is wrong, and admit mistakes,
> > >
> > > LOL!! Spelling mistakes sure. Hell, even a few grammer mistakes. But
> > > mistakes? You're way under the ether.
> >
> > Bullshit. You are lying. As usual.
>
> Why would I lie? If I had any compassion (according to Monica P I don't)
> my little feelings might be hurt by that remark. If I'm misinformed I'll
> take it like a man. But calling me a liar proves nothing.
I've seen many such examples of apology for mistakes and going off the
deep end by critics. Hell, I have apologized a few times myself. I did it
in *this* post!! But I don't think you lie, though I did think so when I
first posted that accusation. I just think you are not seeing them,
perhaps because they don't fit your world view, or just perhaps you are
skipping bits of posts.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > and that they never defend, they always attack.
> > >
> > > Well, pass. It's policy. A good one too, evidenced by the fact that
> > > nobody has ever forced them to answer any questions.
> >
> > It sure makes showing their idiocy easier. Non-confront and all that.
>
> I disagree. There's a world of difference between failing to confront
> something and stonewalling. Witness our current President if you want to
> observe a true master. It's effective, produces results and has been the
> preferred weapon of our civilization since language evolved. You want
> answers? They say nope. Now what ya gonna do? Shoot them? That's life.
Well, Wolf, when they claim they have *all* the answers and then refuse
to provide any of them, it just tends to show the lurkers how stupid they
are.
> > > You really are overwhelmed by your involvement in this cult.. Being on
> > > the net hardly qualifies as involving the *whole world* in your
> > > business. I know, those who have trouble getting attention in the
> > > non-virtual world sometimes lose track of just how few people really
> > > give a shit about them online too... but if you wanna think the world is
> > > watching, who am I to de-program you?
> >
> > yap yap. If it is so unimportant why the all the attention the cult
> > pays critics??
>
> I wish you ARS cultists would get it through your skulls... wgert,
> gunny, whip and the rest aren't major assets of the CofS. They're
> grunts. Foot soldiers. They don't know dick about what the RTC is up to.
> The threat of any enemy can be determined by the quality of the assets
> sent against it. Erlich, Henson, Wollersheim did, at one point, present
> a threat. That's why bigger guns were brought into play. You guys get
> wgert. Which shows how much impact ARS has had in the last four years.
Why do we need any foot soldiers at all? Why does a religion need foot
soldiers at all? Why not just ignore ars if it is that little a threat?
We covered that topic in email, so I won't reiterate here, except to
say that joking and degrading is part and parcel of my attitude, but I
don't usually engage in looksism, as a general belief in not throwing
stones in glass houses. I'm no little fairy foot. More like the great
white whale...(like I said, though, Goddesses are Not Anorexic!!)
> > You are full of it, aren't you? I'm not speaking here of The Truth with
> > a capital T, Wolf, but the truth about the abuses of this cult you defend
> > so mightily. If you cannot understand that , well, that is your head up
> > your ass.
>
> Well, I yam what I yam. But you must know by now that defending the CofS
> is beyond my capabilities. Nor do I care to defend them. OTOH, you folks
> here could definitly use a tune-up when it comes to fighting for
> something you believe in. Think of me instead as sort of a free
> consultant to ARS. Being basically immodest it's easy for me to state
> that I was one of the best players the CofS had. They know it too. The
> caliber of folks they assign to recover me is way over the level of the
> goons they assign to ARS. So here's my free consulting advice to you
> meatheads today -> hysterical ranting and raving coupled with cries of
> "Clam!" and "Xenu!" will net you the big zero. That crapola is for
> mouth-breathers like anti-cult and zinj and butt kissers like Martin.
> You people are not likely to destroy Scientology, so why not consider
> the possibility that you could continually change it for the better. Get
> a plan.
Heh, in process. I've saved a number of people from going in and
pissing away their wallets and their lives. I count each one of them as a
major victory, myself.
>
> > I'm speaking my mind, and if you don't like it, don't read what I write.
> > Or ignore it. Or refute it, if you can. Whatever yanks your chain. This
> > is Usenet, do what you want.
> > But for one who claims to have read a number of my posts and yet still
> > makes a fundemental mistake like thinking (for one) I'm a Sub-Genius, you
> > aren't looking as rational as you'd like.
>
> Now I never said *I* was rational, just that my thought processes are. I
> obviously like what you write, why else would I be here?
>
> Wolf
Flattery will get you everywhere, Wolf.
FWIW I like reading yours too, and I guess that sentence about
rationality can be appled to me as well. But I strive for *controlled*
irrationality!
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Starshadow
In article <6k9nq7$b...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
says...> >... I heard from his [LRH's] own lips that he started the
> >lying and somehow all the people at Norwescon One were lying that heard
> >him say the same thing.
>
> bulletin-board network. I questioned it then and got nothing but smoke.
> It is a unique claim I have seen nowhere else and she has never presented
> the slightest proof or corroboration.
>
> declared Scientology a scam. Had he done so it would have made front page
> news.
>
> The obvious conclusion is that StirredShadows is lying. God knows she
> hasn't the capacity for self-examination it would take to admit she was
> ever wrong. And she probably conceives that her witness to this historic
> incident provides her a status boost amongst her fellow armchair bigots.
>
> A possible alternative is that Hubbard uttered some characteristic jest at
> which the whole crowd chuckled except some beady-eyed, literal-minded gal
> near the back who was, I humorously imagine, too busy fingering Tarot
> cards and muttering malevolent incantations to think it through.
>
Norwescon One. It is not a lie. He wasn't at a public podium, he was at a
science fiction convention, mingling as a fan (oddly enough he registered
as a fan, not a pro. Once I had the program from Norwescon one which
listed him as a member but gee, after twenty-odd years, I seem to have
lost it in a move, or perhaps it is still in a box of old memorabilia
somewhere. Still, the record was there, still presumably is somewhere.)
and it was at a party and he was telling golden age stories. I also heard
it from Ted Sturgeon, who was one of the original golden agers. I also
heard it from others such as De Camp, and lessee, who else first hand?
Numberless second and third hander pros who also heard it from Hubbard.
The statement made, Keith Whappersniper Little, was something on the
order of "If you want to write science fiction for pennies a word, fine,
but if you want to make a million dollars, start a religion. I did. It
worked." FYI, I was drinking Pepsi and rum, slowly as I didn't like
getting drunk, at the time. He had a glass of something alcoholic, don't
ask me what. It was in the Hospitality Suite. I was neither fingering my
cards, (probably were in my room at the time, I wasn't set up to read
publically, though I later did get a table at the Huckster's Room as it
started helping pay for my convention going in many later years) and
wasn't uttering incantations of any kind either mal-or-benevelent, except
maybe "bwahahaha!".
Keith, if you think you can get away with calling me a liar on this
one, you are dead wrong. Give it up.
>
> - Whippersnapper
>
> "If your mind's gone blank, I have some suggestions!" -- Calvin
>
--
randf
Mark W Brehob wrote in message <6k1dnd$9tp$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>randf (Rand...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Mark W Brehob wrote in message <6juk2o$fej$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>: >Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
>: >: CVB413 wrote:
>: >: >
>: <snip>
>: >[big clip]
>: >
>: <...>
>If you'd like to disagree, feel free.
>
>Mark
>
>
Sorry so long in replying to your missive.
The reason why I (and I cannot and will not speak for anyone else, as i do
not know what motivates them) do it is for a LAUGH. Like I'm laughing at you
right now for dedicating this much time to this thread.
It's in good nature.
"Clam" and "Boohoo" are two Hubbardian examples of "whole track" experiences
someone is likely to have in scientology processing. So Hubbard WAS and IS
telling you what to think about your own "case" (reactive mind contents).
Besides, scientologists have bad names for me too, like "suppressive person"
and "merchant of chaos" and "apostate" and "evil" and so on. Do I have to
resort to their tactics? Sometimes. You don't like it? Tough. Don't read it.
Wolf
Mark W Brehob wrote:
>
> Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
> : Mark W Brehob wrote:
> : >
> : > Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
<snip>
> : Such things are a constantly shifting landscape. The potential for
> : idiocy and criminality amongst the ranks of any organization rises in
> : direct proportion the amount of members. CofS is no exception, not is
> : the company you work for or the church or any groups you belong to.
> : Straw man. This is an argument for grade schoolers.
>
> I made no reference to _my_ place of work or _my_ church. I made
> a general comment about having resposiblity for those that work for
> you. I see no straw man.
Point is, whether you include your own groups or not, it's hard to be
suprised that any group of people would have criminals in it's ranks.
Even groups you might belong to.
> : > In fact if there was reform to
> : > the point that:
> : > * No one else died for the same reasons Lisa M. died
>
> : Apparently this is an isolated case. The eventual trial will bring out
> : the facts. Are we forgetting that the justice system in America does
> : indeed apply to Scn as well as the rest of us?
>
> No I'm not forgeting that. The problem is that the CoS has
> not admitted any guilt in the matter. They have not said
> "we screwed up". Thats a problem. If they told the
> rest of their membership "Don't do this, it is wrong" then
> I would be much happier.
Which leads to the one aspect of CofS I *do* have a huge problem with:
The Sea Org. IMO if you were to remove the SO and it's mngmnt style from
the equasion, you'd be left with a mostly harmless and often helpful
group of people selling their services for big bucks. Hardly a crime.
Hardly worth fretting about.
<snip>
> : > * Stopped harassing their critics.
>
> : Why would they do that? This is the Scorpion and the Frog Mark. Despite
> : the claims that they have discovered they are thetans, not humans, they
> : are chained to the realities of their natures. As are you and I.
>
> Perhaps. However other religions and individuals behave _much_ better
> than the CoS. Are you are saying that this behavor comes from
> their religion? Or are you claiming this behavor is part of human
> nature?
The latter. CofS _is_ an aggressive group. It has to be. It sells
intangebiles in an often hostile environment. It makes claims that are
easily disputed. It's products are subjective. It's premise is
debatable. Why would anyone be suprised that it attracts people who, by
their nature, are also aggressive, competitive, intimidating and often
very intelligent? This is not a problem exclusive to CofS. I don't even
think it's a problem. It is *human nature* and I, for one, wouldn't care
to see aggression and the potential of hostility removed from the range
of human capabilities. At least not at this point in our history.
> : > * Stopped "protecting" its members from the real world.
>
> : Huh? What is that supposed to mean? Your real world? Mine?
> Sorry. A good example might be the web-page agreement
> they ask their members to sign. They are then required to use
> a "web-filter" which keeps them out of anti-CoS sites...
Okay. This is easily understood in the context of the Scn-meme that
exposure to SP materials causes a case to flounder. It's hardly
remarkable in the history of the planet, it's gov'ts and religions. Nor
is it particularly effective. Assuming that most Scn are not going to
read the news, check the net or be exposed to anti-Scn material would be
naive on CofS's part. But they will effect a certain amount of their
membership and this is not only not a crime, it's not an issue. It's
commonplace.
Going back to the value of ARS... if my additions to this ng can bring
even one critic to focus their criticism on not only what should be
changed about CofS, but what *can* be changed, then I think it's time
well spent. If enough criticism is brought to bear on focal points that
Scn cannot withstand, then Scn will be forced to alter it's internal
policies.
Just my opinion...
Wolf
Bernie
On Fri, 29 May 1998 11:29:12 -0600, , Wolf <wolf...@micron.net>
wrote:
>Which leads to the one aspect of CofS I *do* have a huge problem with:
>The Sea Org. IMO if you were to remove the SO and it's mngmnt style from
>the equasion, you'd be left with a mostly harmless and often helpful
>group of people selling their services for big bucks. Hardly a crime.
>Hardly worth fretting about.
I have observed a few freezoners having problem with OSA and "CoS
management", but hardly anything else. As I can see, you, for one,
seem to put the blame on the SO. I do not share your assertion that
simply removing the SO and it's management style would resolve the
problem. The problem, IMO, lays in LRH's approaches itself. It is
intrinsic in his doctrine, even if much good can *also* be found in
it.
>Going back to the value of ARS... if my additions to this ng can bring
>even one critic to focus their criticism on not only what should be
>changed about CofS, but what *can* be changed, then I think it's time
>well spent.
Whether this would succeed or not, it's at least refreshing to read a
more thoughtful criticism, and often an entertaining one as well.
Bernie
Ydrrisil
Wolf wrote:>>>Going back to the value of ARS... if my additions to this ng can
bring
>even one critic to focus their criticism on not only what should be
>changed about CofS, but what *can* be changed, then I think it's time
>well spen<<
The problem is that the church has been frozen into place by Hubbard. For
example the great concept of "hard sell" which means to demand and push that
someone buy services with absolutely no regard for what the person has to say.
This is frozen in church doctrine - in fact it is so frozen in that it is an
automatic SP declare to suggest that it should not be done.
Ask yourself this Wolf, or Bernie, - have you ever seen any encouragement for
scientologists to check what they are actually learning?
Probably the biggest barrier to reform is scientologists themselves - until
they actually demand to see the results of what scientology promises it will
continue to be a scam. It says on the Grade Chart
Ability to communicate about any subject as the ep of Grade 0 - the posters I
have seen like Wgert et alia seem incapable of communicating - unless they are
lowlevel nonentities who have merely done a communication course and a sec
check or two then they are absolutel written proof that grade 0 does not do
what is claimed.
The answer to reform lies within the reach of every scientologist - all it
would take is actually believing in the subject and being willing to tell the
truth about what you see.
Of course its a helluva thing to ask of them.
*************************************
Live life unzipped - become president of the USA
Wolf
Starshadow wrote:
> In article <35650A...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> > Starshadow wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35634B...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> > Of course I have credibility... just not with you. BTW, I'm not accusing
> > Stacey of lying, I'm merely suggesting she has edited the actual events
> > in whatever fashion she deemed appropriate to support her claims.
> >
> In that case so do we all. I think that what was done amounts to
> following and harrassment, and restraining orders have been gotten for
> lesser proof than this.
This I understand. Perception is everything. The mindset of
de-programming allows one to see more or less ordinary occurances in
very stark B&W terms.
> > What you've seen are things posted on this ng that have been claimed to
> > be from peoples folders. Common sense (of which I have copious amounts)
> > would tell you that after millions of hours of auditing, somebody,
> > somewhere is bound to scan a few folders looking for dirt. It happens in
> > Law offices, psychiatric offices, doctors offices all the time. But to
> > make a point: *Scientology* does not utilize the confidental contents of
> > pc folders for blackmail.
>
> I do not believe that. And I assure you that in the above professions,
> confidentiality is taken very seriously. It's been proven to my
> satisfaction (others who were higher up in the org than you, for example)
> that this is *exactly* what happens in this "church".
I hate to split hairs, but it's my specialty. I'll acknowledge that some
in the GO/OSA power circle may have culled data from folders. By
pointing out that professionals have been accused and found guilty in
other arenas of similar breaches in confidence I'm not attempting to
lessen what may have been done by GO people. In either instance it's
contemptable. But a mental health professional or attorney who violates
confidentiality doesn't make all his/her peers guilty by association.
Nor does the random act by a GO/OSA member. *Scientology* doesn't use pc
folders to blackmail anymore than *psychiatry* uses session notes to
blackmail.
> Grady Ward's mother was called on by Ingram who stole photos of her
> son. There are lots of others so harassed right here on this ng, why not
> ask them??
> Oh, I forgot. We are all droids and bigots, can't trust us.
My mother - who is an ex-Scn - had a visit 18 months ago from OSA
people. They were looking for an individual who shared her residence and
had been involved with some German reporters. How to interpret that
visit? Harrassment? Covert Ops? Intimidation? I don't know... how about
2 people who represented the CofS knocking on a door and asking
questions about a matter that concerned their group? The freedom of
movement and speech that we still have in this country does not exclude
CofS and they have the same right to move about, ask questions and
investigate matters they deem of significance as ARS'ers have to picket
or drop into an org and ask some 17 year old receptionist about BT's.
My mother was initially perurbed by the visit, but after to speaking to
her at length and asking her exactly what the people asked and their
manner she concluded that she had overreacted. Was this reaction due, in
part, to her occassional ARS lurking and the spin of this group?
Certainly. She has not since heard a word from OSA... even though they
are well aware she is a highly trained auditor who remains critical of
the CofS mngmnt.
I have other friends who have experienced visits from OSA people and who
didn't define those visits as harrassment. Why should I take Grady
Ward's mother's assessment over the assessment of my own mother or
people I know well who are highly critical of Scn? My aim here is to at
least suggest that some of the emotional heat pumped into the alleged
harrassment may be bs. ARS hard-liners call that the act of an
'apologist'. Personally I see it more as adding a little sense to the
issue.
> > Me too. Thankfully no such cults exist in our fair land.
>
> Lisa McPherson killed by application of the Introspection Rundown.
Lisa McPherson apparently died while on the introspection R/D. That
disregard for her health and even malicious mistreatment was rendered by
the three main players in this sad occurance seems obvious. Are they
guilty of manslaughter? That's for the courts to decide. Do I think so.
Yes. Based upon what I have heard and seen this seems to be the case.
Asserting that she was killed by the introspection rundown is the worst
sort of demonization and proves nothing about Scn. More to the point, it
proves that many critics are full of hype, bigotry and prejudice which
they hide under the fuzzy blanket of concern about the evil cult.
> > > > that ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main
> > > > speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a
> > > > cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.
>
> Pot, kettle, black, is that it? Tit for tat? Though, strictly
> speaking you are right. CofS isn't a cult, it is a "criminal cult",
> convicted as such in many places, and the US will be one, eventually. The
> karmic wheel turns eventually.
First we have the 'witch' problem, now we're relying on karmic wheels.
Might I point out gently Starshadow that belief in such things is as
weird as belief in BT's and evil SF space empires?
> > > Right, we are all in a cult. You know about as much of that as you do
> > > about me, hence you defining me as a "subgenius". Who do you think is
> > > *our* noble cult leader? Xenu? Minton? The Evil Zombie Psyche Lords?
> >
> > Right now Starshadow, there is a power struggle in the ARS Cult. Erlich
> > has seemingly lost ground because he can't get a job and Wollersheim has
> > been found out to be what many of us knew all along, an attention-mooch.
> > Tilman has fallen victim to the clam-meme virus and Rob has proven
> > steadily that he's too intelligent to buy into _all_ the rants and spew
> > of this cult. RVY and his bride are angling to fill the vacuum by
> > planning and staging daring GO type operations and rescuing fair maidens
> > in the nick of time, but who can trust a couple of ex-GO button men?
> > Barwell would love to be leader but he *plonks* anyone who says anything
> > that isn't exactly what he wants to hear. Henson has the smarts, but the
> > RTC left tread marks on his checkbook. I don't think you want the job...
> > so... that leaves Dave Bird, He's the only ARS cultie here who has
> > consistently been looney enough to dribble his garbage out in an
> > on-policy, 100% standard fashion. Plus there's the added bonus of his
> > giant beard and bohemian appearance. I vote for Dave!
>
> Yeah, well you aren't in the ARSCC9wdne) so you don't get a vote. So
> there! *sticks tongue out*
Ouch! That hurt. Where's that freedom of speech and adherence to the
laws, not to mention the loathing of secret cult power structures you
all claim to have? Despite my non-participation in the non-existant
mngmnt of ARS, shouldn't I also be allowed to examine it's workings? Or
are the non-members worried about what prying eyes may discover? ;)
> > > > > and that they never defend, they always attack.
> > > >
> > > > Well, pass. It's policy. A good one too, evidenced by the fact that
> > > > nobody has ever forced them to answer any questions.
> > >
> > > It sure makes showing their idiocy easier. Non-confront and all that.
> >
> > I disagree. There's a world of difference between failing to confront
> > something and stonewalling. Witness our current President if you want to
> > observe a true master. It's effective, produces results and has been the
> > preferred weapon of our civilization since language evolved. You want
> > answers? They say nope. Now what ya gonna do? Shoot them? That's life.
>
> Well, Wolf, when they claim they have *all* the answers and then refuse
> to provide any of them, it just tends to show the lurkers how stupid they
> are.
Stupid people don't rake in hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Nor do they allegedly coerce the largest gov't agency we have into
giving them a break. Nor do they have international operations of an
impressive scope. What stupid people do is consistently underestimate
their opponents and when faced with one defeat after another, re-spin
the experiences into a false win over the *stupid* opponent.
Competitively speaking, my current business has survived 16 years of
assualts by better financed, better schooled and better located
opponents. They're gone. I'm thriving. To the man, each one of them
figured they could whip me because they viewed my style of operating as
stupid and old-fashioned. In my defense, I restrained myself from a
malicious grin and evil peal of laughter when I cut their fucking hearts
out. I am a compassionate and caring soul.....
> > I wish you ARS cultists would get it through your skulls... wgert,
> > gunny, whip and the rest aren't major assets of the CofS. They're
> > grunts. Foot soldiers. They don't know dick about what the RTC is up to.
> > The threat of any enemy can be determined by the quality of the assets
> > sent against it. Erlich, Henson, Wollersheim did, at one point, present
> > a threat. That's why bigger guns were brought into play. You guys get
> > wgert. Which shows how much impact ARS has had in the last four years.
>
> Why do we need any foot soldiers at all? Why does a religion need foot
> soldiers at all? Why not just ignore ars if it is that little a threat?
Huh? Did you snooze through history class? I'm not suggesting ARS isn't
a threat. What I _am_ suggesting is that CofS doesn't see it as a great
threat right now. You'll know whn they do, of that you can be sure.
> We covered that topic in email, so I won't reiterate here, except to
> say that joking and degrading is part and parcel of my attitude, but I
> don't usually engage in looksism, as a general belief in not throwing
> stones in glass houses. I'm no little fairy foot. More like the great
> white whale...(like I said, though, Goddesses are Not Anorexic!!)
If you and I keep up this way we'll find we're in agreement on way too
many things to be sworn enemies. I'm an advocate of the high value of
J&D. As for the assertion that Goddesses are large... well.... I
consider that a delicate subject so I'll refrain from comment.
> > > But for one who claims to have read a number of my posts and yet still
> > > makes a fundemental mistake like thinking (for one) I'm a Sub-Genius, you
> > > aren't looking as rational as you'd like.
> >
> > Now I never said *I* was rational, just that my thought processes are. I
> > obviously like what you write, why else would I be here?
> >
> > Wolf
>
> Flattery will get you everywhere, Wolf.
I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
hell to flatter Dave Bird......
Wolf
Bernie
On 29 May 1998 22:52:24 GMT, , ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
> Ask yourself this Wolf, or Bernie, - have you ever seen any encouragement for
>scientologists to check what they are actually learning?
Of course. What is true for you is what you have observed yourself to be
true.
>the posters I
>have seen like Wgert et alia seem incapable of communicating -
You are being very selective. Wonderflur, Whippersnapper, RonsAmigo, Tim
Jones, Clear Baby, all seem very capable of communicating and I am not
speaking of the freezoners or the celebrities.
Bernie
Bernie
On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:30 -0600, , Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>> Flattery will get you everywhere, Wolf.
>
>I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
>hell to flatter Dave Bird......
Tell him he is a "poet", that he is *not* nuts, that he is very effective
in countering Scn, that he has a nice doggy, and that he looks absolutely
gorgeous in his suit of ping pong balls. That should do the trick. Of
course, none of the above is true, but that isn't the point of flattery, is
it?
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In<3590d96a...@news.ping.be>, Barnie <do...@dinosaur.be> writes:
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:30 -0600, , Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
>>hell to flatter Dave Bird......
>
>in countering Scn,
So the Orgs you picket outside are also all going down the tubes
are they, Hercule? (What Orgs have you picketed outside, Hercule??)
--
//////\\\
/ (~) (~) \ "Sometimes, Barmpot, your deductive processes
[( / \ {)]} truly amaze me."
\ ._. .-. / : --Captain Hastings, in
\_=====_/ Hercule Barmpot: The Case of the Missing Marbles
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <356FB3...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Starshadow wrote:
>> ... joking and degrading is part and parcel of my attitude...
>... I'm an advocate of the high value of J&D. ...
I just want to philosophize a bit here on the subject of humor.
Prior to encountering Scientology, I had always regarded humor as a sort
of mysterious genius some people posessed in startling abundance, of vast
value but of an elusive nature. I was acutely conscious that I could not
well define it.
I found Hubbard's statments on the subject, wherein he defines humor as
*rejection* and in its relation to illogic, as wonderful insights.
Nowhere else have I encountered anything even remotely so cogent on the
subject. It is one of my own favorite examples of Ron's brilliance.
I've yet to see one single example of humor, good or bad in intent, that
fails to meet perfectly with Ron's definitions.
And to my own delight, defining humor has done nothing to dispel my
appreciation of it, nor my wonder at others' genius for its application.
I remain in awe of Robin Williams! And many others who display that
almost metaphysical combination of quick wit, insight and expressiveness
that conjure-up the magic of laughter.
Humor can be delightfully, almost miraculously illuminating. It can
derail the most diabolically clever lies with a gentle push. And expose
mysteries and anxieties and those oh-so-many things we don't confront to
light as a wind might waft smoke aside.
By compelling us to reject the absurd, the false and the irrational, humor
often strips away the confusions and camouflage that obscure the
usually-simple truth. Sometimes those truths are profound and important.
Truth is an odd creature, sort of ethereal. It vanishes on inspection,
and it makes illusion lose substance in the most startling ways. But it
is there, and there is such a thing as Truth. We obscure it ourselves,
perhaps as a requisite to perpetuating our games (which depend so much
upon illusion) and our precious problems.
But humor has, one might say, a dark side. We laugh, as well we should,
at the ridiculous. But ridicule can find its basis in hatred, or falsity
or irrationality. It can present as absurd, something that is not, and
introduce a lie just as as true humor can dispel one. Ridicule with a
motive of malice or in a spirit of carelessness or self-indulgence can be
as damaging as the brighter sort of humor can be enlightening.
Measured by this yardstick, David Letterman comes out wanting, with too
many jokes at others' unnecessary and undeserved expense; and Jay Leno
shows himself a far better-motivated comic, more benign and more genuinely
insightful.
It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
usually easily recognizable. Does it add more obscurity, or does it
enlighten? Is it a subtle sort of moral or spiritual violence without
clear intent? Or does it sweep aside a curtain and show us something --
something we really knew, didn't we -- all along?
- Whippersnapper
"Hey, look what THAT monkey's doing!" -- Calvin
Ydrrisil
>> Ask yourself this Wolf, or Bernie, - have you ever seen any encouragement
>for
>>scientologists to check what they are actually learning?
>
>Of course. What is true for you is what you have observed yourself to be
>true.
ah yes - the words. So how many graduations or course rooms have you been in
where someone stood up and said "Hey, I have checked this out - its totally
wrong"?
I would love to hear your stories about this. I have spent a lot of time in
courserooms and not once have I ever seen it, yet there are things that are
demonstrably wrong.
A case in point - the condition of Power - I have no idea whether you
remember this or not - but for years it was "a straight line up" - remember?
For years everyone went through word clearing etc about it because it was utter
crap.
I ended up in ethics trouble for saying precisely that.
Then along comes a "new" hcopl and definition saying that everyone got it all
wrong.
As for being selective - maybe I am though I have only ever seen RA be capable
of trying to promulgate an approved PR line
Ted Mayett (KOX)
On 30 May 1998 15:09:10 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
>usually easily recognizable.
No kidding! And did you really need instructions for this? And do
you need to word-clear it to be sure you get all the meaning of it?
And does it deserve to be called Sacred Scripture?
And does this PL make scientology a religion?
And because this is correct does it make the
Jack In The Box Incident listed in History of Man also correct?
IOW, does A=A=A.
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
Bernie
On 30 May 1998 15:09:10 EDT, , Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)
wrote:
>It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
>usually easily recognizable. Does it add more obscurity, or does it
>enlighten? Is it a subtle sort of moral or spiritual violence without
>clear intent? Or does it sweep aside a curtain and show us something --
>something we really knew, didn't we -- all along?
Nice essay, Whip.
Bernie
If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing, fools and a dead man's ego (Wolf)
Bernie
On 30 May 1998 19:25:17 GMT, , ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
>ah yes - the words. So how many graduations or course rooms have you been in
>where someone stood up and said "Hey, I have checked this out - its totally
>wrong"?
None that I can remember, but people did question things.
> I would love to hear your stories about this. I have spent a lot of time in
>courserooms and not once have I ever seen it, yet there are things that are
>demonstrably wrong.
Most people are students, in the sense that they are learning the
subject. In "normal" schools too, students don't usually stand up in
the course room and say to the professor "I have checked this out -
it's totally wrong".
> A case in point - the condition of Power - I have no idea whether you
>remember this or not
18 years ago now, but I do.
>- but for years it was "a straight line up" - remember?
No. Not really.
>For years everyone went through word clearing etc about it because it was utter
>crap.
I don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
> I ended up in ethics trouble for saying precisely that.
Yes, you are supposed to keep your criticism "on line". This being
said, I saw a reportage the other day about the Israeli army, where it
was said that you are not allowed to criticize openly either.
> Then along comes a "new" hcopl and definition saying that everyone got it all
>wrong.
Then it's OK - you can criticize openly :-)
> As for being selective - maybe I am
Some Scientologists can communicate, some don't. The failings of the
critics is that they don't point out that it usually has little to do
with the tech. It's just their own ability. Critics' generalization
that "Scientologists can't communicate" is as ludicrous as the one of
Scientology saying that it's enough to do a comm course or being
audited on level 0 to be able to do so.
>though I have only ever seen RA be capable
>of trying to promulgate an approved PR line
Criticism with Scientologists is certainly possible. The point is that
you have to use a soft approach, have an extensive knowledge of the
subject from the inside (i.e. as an ex-member), and systematically
debunk the assumptions that are at the core of the belief system. You
have to lead him to ask for himself questions rather than force-feed
him answers. It's kind of easy, in fact, and I use to do it a lot
before, quite successfully. The reason I don't do it anymore is
because I don't want to support the madness that passes here as
"criticism". Arsoids are not going to get through to people like RA
with the kind of arguments à la William Barwell, Dennis Erlich, Rod
Keller, or other Tilman Hausherr. RA, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper and
others are much too intelligent and are just going to have a good
laugh at the so-called "critics" of Scientology.
Starshadow
In article <356FB3...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> Starshadow wrote:
>
> > In article <35650A...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
> > > Starshadow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <35634B...@micron.net>, wolf...@micron.net says...
>
> > > Of course I have credibility... just not with you. BTW, I'm not accusing
> > > Stacey of lying, I'm merely suggesting she has edited the actual events
> > > in whatever fashion she deemed appropriate to support her claims.
> > >
> > In that case so do we all. I think that what was done amounts to
> > following and harrassment, and restraining orders have been gotten for
> > lesser proof than this.
>
> This I understand. Perception is everything. The mindset of
> de-programming allows one to see more or less ordinary occurances in
> very stark B&W terms.
>
black and white terms. I try not to myself. I don't try to demonize the
cult's adherants, but I think the cult does a good job of that all by
itself.
> > > What you've seen are things posted on this ng that have been claimed to
> > > be from peoples folders. Common sense (of which I have copious amounts)
> > > would tell you that after millions of hours of auditing, somebody,
> > > somewhere is bound to scan a few folders looking for dirt. It happens in
> > > Law offices, psychiatric offices, doctors offices all the time. But to
> > > make a point: *Scientology* does not utilize the confidental contents of
> > > pc folders for blackmail.
> >
> > I do not believe that. And I assure you that in the above professions,
> > confidentiality is taken very seriously. It's been proven to my
> > satisfaction (others who were higher up in the org than you, for example)
> > that this is *exactly* what happens in this "church".
>
> I hate to split hairs, but it's my specialty. I'll acknowledge that some
> in the GO/OSA power circle may have culled data from folders. By
> pointing out that professionals have been accused and found guilty in
> other arenas of similar breaches in confidence I'm not attempting to
> lessen what may have been done by GO people. In either instance it's
> contemptable. But a mental health professional or attorney who violates
> confidentiality doesn't make all his/her peers guilty by association.
> Nor does the random act by a GO/OSA member. *Scientology* doesn't use pc
> folders to blackmail anymore than *psychiatry* uses session notes to
> blackmail.
I have seen too many incidents of the above to think it is just
individuals doing so on their own. I think it is a policy of the
heirarchy, rather than individuals acting on their own volition. A big
difference.
>
> > Grady Ward's mother was called on by Ingram who stole photos of her
> > son. There are lots of others so harassed right here on this ng, why not
> > ask them??
> > Oh, I forgot. We are all droids and bigots, can't trust us.
>
> My mother - who is an ex-Scn - had a visit 18 months ago from OSA
> people. They were looking for an individual who shared her residence and
> had been involved with some German reporters. How to interpret that
> visit? Harrassment? Covert Ops? Intimidation? I don't know... how about
> 2 people who represented the CofS knocking on a door and asking
> questions about a matter that concerned their group? The freedom of
> movement and speech that we still have in this country does not exclude
> CofS and they have the same right to move about, ask questions and
> investigate matters they deem of significance as ARS'ers have to picket
> or drop into an org and ask some 17 year old receptionist about BT's.
> My mother was initially perurbed by the visit, but after to speaking to
> her at length and asking her exactly what the people asked and their
> manner she concluded that she had overreacted. Was this reaction due, in
> part, to her occassional ARS lurking and the spin of this group?
> Certainly. She has not since heard a word from OSA... even though they
> are well aware she is a highly trained auditor who remains critical of
> the CofS mngmnt.
The PI I'm speaking of *stole* photos and misrepresented himself. There
are numerous other such instances I've seen detailed here. It's not
happening to me, but then I think I'm not perceived as much of a threat.
But the fact that I've seen posts of such things *as they happened* makes
me believe they are in fact true.
> I have other friends who have experienced visits from OSA people and who
> didn't define those visits as harrassment. Why should I take Grady
> Ward's mother's assessment over the assessment of my own mother or
> people I know well who are highly critical of Scn? My aim here is to at
> least suggest that some of the emotional heat pumped into the alleged
> harrassment may be bs. ARS hard-liners call that the act of an
> 'apologist'. Personally I see it more as adding a little sense to the
> issue.
Whatever. I think that's your spin, and you and I see it differently.
Now for me these are second-person accounts. But I think it's entirely
too big of a co-inky-dink that *so many* accounts from *so many* I know
on and off the ng corroborate and speak of the same thing. And anyway why
does OSA have to hire PIs to investigate anyway? I criticise the Pope,
and many do, but I've not seen accounts similar of a Vatican
investigation of their critics. Why does a church need lawyers and PIs in
the first place, let alone a "boot camp" etc. etc.
> > > Me too. Thankfully no such cults exist in our fair land.
> >
> > Lisa McPherson killed by application of the Introspection Rundown.
>
> Lisa McPherson apparently died while on the introspection R/D. That
> disregard for her health and even malicious mistreatment was rendered by
> the three main players in this sad occurance seems obvious. Are they
> guilty of manslaughter? That's for the courts to decide. Do I think so.
> Yes. Based upon what I have heard and seen this seems to be the case.
> Asserting that she was killed by the introspection rundown is the worst
> sort of demonization and proves nothing about Scn. More to the point, it
> proves that many critics are full of hype, bigotry and prejudice which
> they hide under the fuzzy blanket of concern about the evil cult.
According to their own logs they applied the "tech" as laid down by
policy. And if the church had nothing to hide, why smuggle the perps out
of the country and hide them? Why obfusticate investigators, and scream
"Liar, bigot" etc etc? Why at a memorial for Lisa, a candle light
memorial, did official church people emerge and blow out vigil candles???
WTF are the bigots here???
(Parm me, I get a bit hot under the collar at this constant
characterization of critics as bigots and prejudiced people. Like I said,
I'm bigoted against abuse and that is what I see the cult doing.)
> > > > > that ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main
> > > > > speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a
> > > > > cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.
> >
> > Pot, kettle, black, is that it? Tit for tat? Though, strictly
> > speaking you are right. CofS isn't a cult, it is a "criminal cult",
> > convicted as such in many places, and the US will be one, eventually. The
> > karmic wheel turns eventually.
>
> First we have the 'witch' problem, now we're relying on karmic wheels.
> Might I point out gently Starshadow that belief in such things is as
> weird as belief in BT's and evil SF space empires?
Whatever. You can refuse to believe in the karmic wheel all you want,
right up until it runs over you. Far be it from me to dissuade you. And
as I have pointed out before, I don't have an argument with the cult
loony beliefs, I hold my own that you and others may in fact believe
loony. It doesn't bother me.
I didn't make the ARSCC(wdne) rules (wdne). To quote my "Civilization"
game, since the ARSCC rule book dne, "Our secrets are our own, and ours
they will stay!". Besides, you don't know the secret passwoid.
I think that even stupid people can rake in money, but it catches up to
them eventually. It must already be. They aren't expanding, they are
shutting down orgs all over, or is that missions and churches all over?
Not having ever been in this particular cult, I haven't the language down
pat, so I may misspeak from time to time. I'm glad you are thriving. You
must be in sales, right? I love your last two sentences. (We'll have to
share sales stories sometime.)
>
> > > I wish you ARS cultists would get it through your skulls... wgert,
> > > gunny, whip and the rest aren't major assets of the CofS. They're
> > > grunts. Foot soldiers. They don't know dick about what the RTC is up to.
> > > The threat of any enemy can be determined by the quality of the assets
> > > sent against it. Erlich, Henson, Wollersheim did, at one point, present
> > > a threat. That's why bigger guns were brought into play. You guys get
> > > wgert. Which shows how much impact ARS has had in the last four years.
> >
> > Why do we need any foot soldiers at all? Why does a religion need foot
> > soldiers at all? Why not just ignore ars if it is that little a threat?
>
> Huh? Did you snooze through history class? I'm not suggesting ARS isn't
> a threat. What I _am_ suggesting is that CofS doesn't see it as a great
> threat right now. You'll know whn they do, of that you can be sure.
I think they are running out of ammo. They keep running out of toes,
too.
> > We covered that topic in email, so I won't reiterate here, except to
> > say that joking and degrading is part and parcel of my attitude, but I
> > don't usually engage in looksism, as a general belief in not throwing
> > stones in glass houses. I'm no little fairy foot. More like the great
> > white whale...(like I said, though, Goddesses are Not Anorexic!!)
>
> If you and I keep up this way we'll find we're in agreement on way too
> many things to be sworn enemies. I'm an advocate of the high value of
> J&D. As for the assertion that Goddesses are large... well.... I
> consider that a delicate subject so I'll refrain from comment.
Hey, check out the cave walls in France, or the Willendorf Goddess if
you doubt me. There's lots of examples.
And I don't consider myself to be a sworn enemy of you, and not even
the individual scientologists. Just the cult and its criminal policies.
>
> > > > But for one who claims to have read a number of my posts and yet still
> > > > makes a fundemental mistake like thinking (for one) I'm a Sub-Genius, you
> > > > aren't looking as rational as you'd like.
> > >
> > > Now I never said *I* was rational, just that my thought processes are. I
> > > obviously like what you write, why else would I be here?
> > >
> > > Wolf
> >
> > Flattery will get you everywhere, Wolf.
>
> I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
> hell to flatter Dave Bird......
>
> Wolf
Can't help you there, don't know him well enough. Oh, well.
Wolf
> >
> >I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
> >hell to flatter Dave Bird......
>
> gorgeous in his suit of ping pong balls. That should do the trick. Of
> course, none of the above is true, but that isn't the point of flattery, is
> it?
I dunno Bernie, I already told Dave he has a great beard and a cute
doggie. He still yells at me and uses curse words. You think it's
something I did or is he just angry at his mother?
Wolf
Wolf
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
> It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
> usually easily recognizable. Does it add more obscurity, or does it
> enlighten? Is it a subtle sort of moral or spiritual violence without
> clear intent? Or does it sweep aside a curtain and show us something --
> something we really knew, didn't we -- all along?
>
> - Whippersnapper
>
> "Hey, look what THAT monkey's doing!" -- Calvin
Well done Whip. While I don't share the exact same feeling of clarity
you do by using Hubbard's *rejection* theory of humor, I still think you
did a good job in general.
As for dark humor being J&D'ing... here I'll disagree. To some extent
all humor is J&D. Be it shaggy dog stories or Henny Youngman one-liners.
Humor points up the rideculous, the pompous, the stupid, the
self-serving and the host of other traits we find easily in others and
disregard in ourselves. I'm fairly sure that's what Hubbard meant by
stating that laughter is 'rejection'. But I don't buy it as anything
even close to an absolute.
Humor is also a mixture of suprise, joy, genuine happiness and even the
process of an exceptionally sharp mind. Where's the rejection in that?
More to the point though, ARS'ers are perfect targets for J&D because
they tend to fall quickly into the patter of condescending humor and
terms that degrade Scn. The nice thing about humor and sarcasm is that
once a person commits themselves to that method of attacking an
opponent, they're wide open for counter-humor. I think anyone still
calling Scn's clams is mere fish bait and are showing more their own
lack of humor and intelligence than any real wit. You'd think if the
ARS-snobs were really bright, they'd have come up with a new joke by
now...
Wolf
Wolf
Ydrrisil wrote:
>
> >> Ask yourself this Wolf, or Bernie, - have you ever seen any encouragement
> >for
> >>scientologists to check what they are actually learning?
> >
> >Of course. What is true for you is what you have observed yourself to be
> >true.
>
> where someone stood up and said "Hey, I have checked this out - its totally
> wrong"?
Not a one. Not in any school, Scn or otherwise. The reason why is fairly
obvious.
> I would love to hear your stories about this. I have spent a lot of time in
> courserooms and not once have I ever seen it, yet there are things that are
> demonstrably wrong.
Hubbard built a firewall against your sort with his 'what's true for
you' cornerstone.
> A case in point - the condition of Power - I have no idea whether you
> remember this or not - but for years it was "a straight line up" - remember?
> For years everyone went through word clearing etc about it because it was utter
> crap.
Not that I can recall. But then I was in Power almost non-stop and it's
hard to see that line from such heighth....
> I ended up in ethics trouble for saying precisely that.
> Then along comes a "new" hcopl and definition saying that everyone got it all
> wrong.
Here's my theory about that. I never had ethics trouble because I kept
my own counsel on such matters. While you seem to think that the only
way to be a Scn is to agree with everything or word-clear and do ethics
cycles until you do. At least that's how you come across. That
perception of Scn exists in only two places I know of -> the Sea Org and
ARS. That the Opinion Leaders of ARS are primarily ex-SO may be telling
in why that perception exists here. It's no secret how much time I spent
being a Scn. During that time I had literally thousands of conversations
with Scn who _did_ disagree or doubt the workablility of one or another
aspect of the tech. So what? If it was a strong enough disagreement,
they moved on. If not, it wasn't an issue.
BTW, the real secret to getting the most out of Scn is to never join the
SO.
Wolf
> As for being selective - maybe I am though I have only ever seen RA be capable
> of trying to promulgate an approved PR line
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In<6kplgm$e...@examiner.concentric.net>, WHIPPERSNAPPER writes:
>In article <356FB3...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>>Starshadow wrote:
>>>
>>... I'm an advocate of the high value of J&D. ...
>
>I just want to philosophize a bit here on the subject of humor.
>Prior to encountering Scientology, I had always regarded humor as a sort
>of mysterious genius some people posessed in startling abundance, of vast
>value but of an elusive nature. I was acutely conscious that I could not
>well define it.
>
>I found Hubbard's statments on the subject, wherein he defines humor as
>*rejection* and in its relation to illogic, as wonderful insights.
>Nowhere else have I encountered anything even remotely so cogent on the
>subject. It is one of my own favorite examples of Ron's brilliance.
>I've yet to see one single example of humor, good or bad in intent, that
>fails to meet perfectly with Ron's definitions.
So, how would Ron analyse a situation where someone, knowing the phrase
"can I sell you a bridge" means taking the person addressed for a total
mug, perpetrates a vast moneymaking con on his followers which he calls
"the bridge to total freedom"?
--
<__"-$ <__" <__" <__"
:_ : : :_
''''''''._____'-_....'"...-------''''''_ <__'
'. $CIENTOLOGY: ..''--- :.
; _ . . . - '''
. . ' ': ': ':
: .' the bridge to .~~>~~>:~~>:
:.' total madness ~~> ~~>
'
Enzo Piccone
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
A *wonderful* short essay, Whipper. :)
E
> In article <356FB3...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>
> >Starshadow wrote:
> >> ... joking and degrading is part and parcel of my attitude...
>
> >... I'm an advocate of the high value of J&D. ...
>
> I just want to philosophize a bit here on the subject of humor.
>
> Prior to encountering Scientology, I had always regarded humor as a sort
> of mysterious genius some people posessed in startling abundance, of vast
> value but of an elusive nature. I was acutely conscious that I could not
> well define it.
>
> I found Hubbard's statments on the subject, wherein he defines humor as
> *rejection* and in its relation to illogic, as wonderful insights.
> Nowhere else have I encountered anything even remotely so cogent on the
> subject. It is one of my own favorite examples of Ron's brilliance.
>
> I've yet to see one single example of humor, good or bad in intent, that
> fails to meet perfectly with Ron's definitions.
>
Ralph Hilton
On Sun, 31 May 1998 00:23:22 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@ermes.it> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>> It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
>> usually easily recognizable. Does it add more obscurity, or does it
>> enlighten? Is it a subtle sort of moral or spiritual violence without
>> clear intent? Or does it sweep aside a curtain and show us something --
>> something we really knew, didn't we -- all along?
>>
>> - Whippersnapper
>>
There is also a dark side to this classification. Humor can be used to point out
illogic in many ways. This can involve pointing out the ridiculousness of
something that some take too seriously. It can involve ridiculing a person or
organization which takes itself too seriously.
Scientology management refuses to accept outside criticism and is thus sometimes
the butt of sharp humor. They call this joking and degrading and label it as
destructive. It is only destructive when it contain lies and misdirection. Not
when it correctly indicated the ridiculousness of an untenable position.
Thus the labelling of humor as joking and degrading can be used to evade
responsibility for actual wrongs done.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
spbill
In article <35c48664....@news.ping.be>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>On 30 May 1998 15:09:10 EDT, , Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)
>wrote:
>Nice essay, Whip.
I also thought it was very well done. Thanks for posting it Whip.
Whippersnapper seems to be the only Scientologist in good standing who
can post something helpful to this newsgroup without needing to use it
in some perverse way to degrade critics.
spbill
The best way to reform CoS is to run it out.
David Gerard
On Fri, 29 May 1998 11:29:12 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
:Going back to the value of ARS... if my additions to this ng can bring
:even one critic to focus their criticism on not only what should be
:changed about CofS, but what *can* be changed, then I think it's time
:well spent. If enough criticism is brought to bear on focal points that
:Scn cannot withstand, then Scn will be forced to alter it's internal
:policies.
I suspect that the CoS will break rather than bend. Or simply run out of
money.
I'd *love* your thoughts on the following. (It's webbed at
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/demo/howto/follow-the-money.txt ).
The previous post being responded to is one from 'Jane Doe', who seems not
to be posting at present. I don't recall the post being followed up here.
From: F...@vm.tamu.edu (H Alan Montgomery)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: How Upsetting. There is No Way to Cause Co$ to Change. NOTs.
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 10:57:17 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <17F1D9A0...@vm.tamu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamvm1.tamu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Mar 1998 16:58:53 GMT
Jan Doe's arguments are real interesting. Basically she is saying that
pickets are a waste of time, because the Co$ canNOT negotiate. The Co$
feels that to negotiate would be the first step to the end of their
belief system.
The second segment of her argument is the REALLY interesting. The Co$
cannot be destroyed because the reorganization of the 1980's split off
too many shell corporations that can be the source of a new Co$ should
the old one be destroyed (admittedly she did not say this explicitly).
I find myself with a sense of deja vu. I remember reading as a kid
thirty years ago where they said the same thing about Communism.
"Communism has taken over seventy countries and NEVER has one country
come back to freedom." Then what happened? The Communist system ran
out of money. They just went broke. There was no negotiated
settlement, Russia and all the other Communist HAD to change because
they were on the verge of collapse. Admittedly Cuba and China and
North Korea are holding on, but they are not sending out too many
"armies of liberation" anymore.
The only way to cause the Co$ to change is cut off its cash flow. No
other tactic will work. Picketing is cutting the line of PC's queuing
up to squander their lives and money. Picketing will have a limited
effect. WISE, ABLE, Narconon, Crimonon, etc. will have to have their
cash flows decreased as well, before the Co$ changes.
At the present moment I do not see anyway to resolve our differences
with Co$. The idea has come to me that we will have to start being
more active in hunting their source of funds. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Okay. I will lay out a set of steps you might want to do that soon.
The information is out there to choke off their cash flow from illicit
or semi-illicit sources. The information is in OUR backyard. The only
real task is to figure out where we put the digging implements to
unearth them. The states have started putting all manner of corporate
records online. The FDIC has bunches of information about directors of
banks. The SEC has that data base of filings for IPO's. From what I
hear the Canadian (Vancouver) Stock Exchange filing are *REALLY*
_SPECIAL_. The hunt will begin soon.
From: eldo...@aol.com (EldonB123)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: How Upsetting. There is No Way to Cause Co$ to Change. NOTs.
Date: 18 Mar 1998 18:33:19 GMT
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <199803181833...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: <17F1D9A0...@vm.tamu.edu>
>The idea has come to me that we will have to start being
>more active in hunting their source of funds. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
>
Yes, this is correct. Money is what it's about, and that is what will bring
them down, just as it did the Soviet Union. It disintegrated for mostly
economic reasons. Ideology had little if anything to do with it.
A few suggestions:
1. Bitch, moan and whine repeatedly at your congesspeople and the IRS about
the secret settlement--in violation of a Supreme Court decision that
auditing is NOT tax exempt. This does not compute.
2. Boycott Scientology celebrity movies and TV shows, and make it loudly
known to the producers and sponsors. This is what Germans have been doing
voluntarily out of respect for their government. Joke about and degrade
John, Tom, Priscilla and the others mercilessly.
3. Make life expensive for them. What's going on with that $190 million
default in LA? How can you mercilessly chew up their lawyers' time at a few
hundred bucks an hour? Moxon's fruitless trip to Norway recently was a real
win. Probably $20,000 or more down the tubes right there--for nothing!
Promulgate wild goose chases and snipe hunts by Cof$ shysters and PIs--just
because they're so expensive.
To paraphrase the wisdom of LRH:
MAKE THEM SPEND MONEY! MAKE THEM SPEND MORE MONEY! MAKE OTHERS MAKE THEM
SPEND MONEY!
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"The only way to ensure that spamming doesn't become 'legitimized' is if
*every* company that sticks their toe in the water draws back a bloody stump"
- Tom Lane
Bernie
On Sat, 30 May 1998 21:52:48 -0600, , Wolf <wolf...@micron.net>
wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:30 -0600, , Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>> >I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
>> >hell to flatter Dave Bird......
>> Tell him he is a "poet", that he is *not* nuts, that he is very effective
>> in countering Scn, that he has a nice doggy, and that he looks absolutely
>> gorgeous in his suit of ping pong balls. That should do the trick. Of
>> course, none of the above is true, but that isn't the point of flattery, is
>> it?
>I dunno Bernie, I already told Dave he has a great beard and a cute
>doggie. He still yells at me and uses curse words.
A perfect candidate for twitfiling, quietly and without sorrow
;-)
>You think it's
>something I did or is he just angry at his mother?
I think Dave deeply feels for the "cause" he is defending and
views any critic who doesn't share his obfuscation for what he
*thinks* Scientology is (a "bunch of extortionate killers"), but who
uses a reasonable, more realist and compassionate approach, as "trying
to obscure the reality of manslaughter". In other word, he is a
cultist, an extremist for whom the means justify the end, and for whom
any critic successfully pointing out to failings on the critic side
(yourself, Diane Richardson, Judy Stein, my humble self) are dangerous
(and/or insane):
===============================================
Message-ID: <USdBaHAf...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
I have rather less respect for Diane Richardson and Bernie (Gabor
Barna) as apologists for that cause. [...] These, too (sic), could do
real damage and deserve to be met with hostility and derision.
===============================================
(I leave my supposedly real name in to show one of the tactics he uses
in common with the CoS).
He is dead frighten of open and free communication with those who
don't toe the invisible party line, and both he and his side-kick
Rashleigh-double-barrel have openly advised disconnection with them:
===============================================
<33EF9D...@netcomuk.co.uk>
It is my belief that Bernie is mentally ill. In a sense he is worse
than Koos. [...] It would be better not to communicate with this
person.
Be aware of the dangers of communication with someone like Diane
Richardson. [...] Better still, *plonk* the bitch.
===============================================
Between the two of them, they managed to display many of the
qualities for which they excoriate the scientologists, this includes
using private information against dissidents and trying to drown their
voice in noise:
===============================================
<$ytLSLBE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Paper Tiger:
> You know what? I've really little idea of what Diane DID have to
> say, because whatever it was got drowned out in flame wars
Dave Bird:
Then you fell for my (openly stated) strategy. Tell people it's a load
of crap and they should killfile her, all you get is arguments who are
you to say that. Pile in and oppose her hard generating a lot of
noise, people killfile the noise. Obviously it worked.
===============================================
You get the picture...
Nobody else better fulfil the definition of a bigot:
===============================================
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as
unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or
differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a
person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as
in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own
church, party, belief, or opinion.
===============================================
Finally, I always found that the following excerpt, dug out by
Diane, gave the best explanation for the behavior of this type of
"critic":
===============================================
Message-ID: <51lagh$d...@clark.zippo.com>
The book is _Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend_, by
Jeffrey S. Victor (Open Court, 1993). He writes:
People who are activists in moral crusades tend to be
impatient with skeptics and often intolerant toward outright critics.
They often regard the expression of skepticism by critics as
equivalent to giving aid and comfort to the evil they are fighting.
When moral crusaders and their opponents hold very different ways of
framing the problem, discourse between them is likely to be nearly
impossible. Because they don't share the same frame of reference,
their discourse easily degenerates into a kind of dialogue of the
deaf. Miscommunication and misunderstanding can be expected as
skeptics and believers attribute ulterior motives to each other.
===============================================
Bernie
--
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In<35c58687....@news.ping.be>, Barnie<do...@dinosaur.be> writes:
>On 30 May 1998 19:25:17 GMT, , ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
>:ah yes - the words. So how many graduations or course rooms have
>:this out - its totally wrong"?
>
>:I would love to hear your stories about this. I have spent a lot
>:are things that are demonstrably wrong.
>
>subject. In "normal" schools too, students don't usually stand up in
>the course room and say to the professor "I have checked this out -
>it's totally wrong".
Ah, but the great defective has failed to find a clue here:
When we look at calculations and lines of mathematical proof
on the blackboard (1) they are right because they are checkably
right and a fair number of people check them, and (2) the
professor is respected because through his knowledge and
experience he says things which check out right.
If something was wrong, somebody would say "that line doesn't follow"
People would check for themsleves. And, if they objection was
correct on checking, they would accept his version not the professor's.
Tommy_sp...@xs.net
Wolf wrote:
>
> WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> > It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
> > usually easily recognizable. Does it add more obscurity, or does it
> > enlighten? Is it a subtle sort of moral or spiritual violence without
> > clear intent? Or does it sweep aside a curtain and show us something --
> > something we really knew, didn't we -- all along?
> >
> > - Whippersnapper
> >
>
> you do by using Hubbard's *rejection* theory of humor, I still think you
> did a good job in general.
>
> As for dark humor being J&D'ing... here I'll disagree. To some extent
> all humor is J&D. Be it shaggy dog stories or Henny Youngman one-liners.
> Humor points up the rideculous, the pompous, the stupid, the
> self-serving and the host of other traits we find easily in others and
> disregard in ourselves. I'm fairly sure that's what Hubbard meant by
> stating that laughter is 'rejection'. But I don't buy it as anything
> even close to an absolute.
As usual, Heinlein stated it better. In SIASL, the young man raised
by Martians had returned to Earth, and was trying to adjust to a world
alien beyond his wildest imaginings. He had made great strides toward
becoming more 'human', and only one thing seperated him from the human
he longed to be - he could not laugh. Attempts to try produced a
horrible gratingly forced cackle that horrified onlookers. (sound
familiar?)
Then one day, the young man went to the zoo with a friend. He was
watching the monkeys when a large monkey saw the treat a smaller one was
enjoying, went to the smaller monkey, delivered a malicious beating, and
took the treat. The robbed monkey watched the bigger one enjoying the
stolen treat for a moment, then whirled on a still smaller monkey
sitting unaware close by and delivered a severe drubbing to the
unsuspecting littlest monkey. The young man took this in for a moment
and began to laugh and laugh until tears flowed. Alarmed at this, his
friend asked him what had happened to cause this breakthrough. The young
man replied that he had discovered why humans laugh - as a protective
mechanism against sadness borne of cruelty and animosity. When his
friend refused to accept this explanation, the young amn challenged her
to tell a single joke or funny story that did not involve someone being
hurt, humiliated, or otherwise done harm to. After some consideration,
she found that she could not. (try this yourself)
Bottom line: We laugh because we see something so painful that we
*must* laugh, ere we cry. This is how we deal with man's inhumanity to
man. As a critic, I see much about Scientology that is laughable - and
sad.
> You'd think if the
> ARS-snobs were really bright, they'd have come up with a new joke by
> now...
>
> Wolf
And if the Scientology apologists were borderline intelligent, they'd
have come up with a new doctrine in "handling" critics. But they can't
- can they ?
Tommy
--
"The fact that Scientology or it's members may have done something
illegal
has no bearing on the Keith Henson case."
"I don't make the mistake of mixing my beliefs with reality.."
Keith (Gunbunny) posted to a.r.s.
Tommy_sp...@xs.net
Bernie wrote:
>
> On 30 May 1998 19:25:17 GMT, , ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
>
> >ah yes - the words. So how many graduations or course rooms have you been in
> >where someone stood up and said "Hey, I have checked this out - its totally
> >wrong"?
>
> None that I can remember, but people did question things.
>
> > I would love to hear your stories about this. I have spent a lot of time in
> >courserooms and not once have I ever seen it, yet there are things that are
> >demonstrably wrong.
>
> Most people are students, in the sense that they are learning the
> subject. In "normal" schools too, students don't usually stand up in
> the course room and say to the professor "I have checked this out -
> it's totally wrong".
Students don't normally stand up in class and say that they have
checked something out and it's totally wrong because all the material in
all of the classes was not written by one man who dictated SF as fact.
The texts they work from were almost exclusively writtten by learned men
who subject all hypotheses to scientific verification and proof.
That being said, in one of my electronics classes, a bright young
man stood up and declared that the hysteresis formula presented in the
text must be wrong. The prof. checked the variable formula himself and
made a quick call to the dept. head, who contacted the vendor. The
mistake, I hear, was corrected in the next edition.
Nobody chastised this student for not keeping his criticism "on
line", nobody sent him to Ethics, he wasn't sec-checked to find out what
his overts were - he was regarded is smarter than others because he
found the flaw and pointed it out.
Of course, EMG theory doesn't have a codocil that states that it is
immutable and unchangable sacred writings, either.
Tommy_sp...@xs.net
Bernie wrote:
>
> Tell him he is a "poet", that he is *not* nuts, that he is very effective
> in countering Scn, that he has a nice doggy, and that he looks absolutely
> gorgeous in his suit of ping pong balls. That should do the trick. Of
> course, none of the above is true, but that isn't the point of flattery, is
> it?
Bernie, your posts are always unbiased, interesting, and
informative. No one in this NG has you twitfiled, and you were missed
terribly while you were away.
William Barwell
In article <3576a773...@news.atnet.at>,
The first command of the false prophet is always "Don't laugh!".
The second command is to label those who laugh as blasphemers.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
t.r.mcloughlin
Tommy_sp...@xs.net wrote:
> When his
> friend refused to accept this explanation, the young amn challenged her
> to tell a single joke or funny story that did not involve someone being
> hurt, humiliated, or otherwise done harm to. After some consideration,
> she found that she could not. (try this yourself)
"Man does not live by food alone. Frequently, there must be a beverage."
- Woody Allen
I still chuclke when I hear this, mostly, I think, because of the
deft use of the word "Frequently" and the way it noiselessly shifts
from the sublime to the silly. And try as I might, I'm at a loss
to find hurt, harm, or humiliation here.
> Bottom line: We laugh because we see something so painful that we
> *must* laugh, ere we cry. This is how we deal with man's inhumanity to
> man. As a critic, I see much about Scientology that is laughable - and
> sad.
It is true that we laugh/cry at things we are not prepared to accept.
But it is not the only reason.
trm
Rob Clark
>Tommy_sp...@xs.net wrote:
>> When his
>> friend refused to accept this explanation, the young amn challenged her
>> to tell a single joke or funny story that did not involve someone being
>> hurt, humiliated, or otherwise done harm to. After some consideration,
>> she found that she could not. (try this yourself)
>"Man does not live by food alone. Frequently, there must be a beverage."
> - Woody Allen
>I still chuclke when I hear this, mostly, I think, because of the
>deft use of the word "Frequently" and the way it noiselessly shifts
>from the sublime to the silly. And try as I might, I'm at a loss
>to find hurt, harm, or humiliation here.
the humor here lies in the twisting of a statement of spirituality.
the statement "man does not live by bread alone" is a biblical
admonition toward spirituality. in a non-humorous context, the
following statement would be religious in nature, dealing with spirits
of a different sort than the alcoholic spirits that seem to be implied
by "beverage."
so it appears to be a harmless little pun, but actually indirectly
touches on the angst which underlies the bringing up of a deeply
serious topic such as spiritual sustenance in a seemingly meaningless
existence.
the original quote is: "man does not live by bread alone, but man
lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord." so
the joke not only signifies the limited part of the human condition
represented by eating and drinking, but is structured by the absence
of "everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord" from an
agnostic perspective.
there is not any overt cruelty here, but there is certainly underlying
angst. apologies if i ruined the joke, there is something unalterably
not-funny about analysis of humor.
>> Bottom line: We laugh because we see something so painful that we
>> *must* laugh, ere we cry. This is how we deal with man's inhumanity to
>> man. As a critic, I see much about Scientology that is laughable - and
>> sad.
>It is true that we laugh/cry at things we are not prepared to accept.
>But it is not the only reason.
sometimes we also laugh when a pompous fool falls in a mud puddle
getting out of a train. it is funny to laugh at a fat banker who
falls in such a fashion, a degree funnier for every degree the person
is elevated above oneself. it is merely cruel to laugh at a bum who
falls in the same way.
>trm
rob
Rob Clark
On Sat, 30 May 1998 22:07:31 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Well done Whip. While I don't share the exact same feeling of clarity
>you do by using Hubbard's *rejection* theory of humor, I still think you
>did a good job in general.
>As for dark humor being J&D'ing... here I'll disagree. To some extent
>all humor is J&D. Be it shaggy dog stories or Henny Youngman one-liners.
>Humor points up the rideculous, the pompous, the stupid, the
>self-serving and the host of other traits we find easily in others and
>disregard in ourselves. I'm fairly sure that's what Hubbard meant by
>stating that laughter is 'rejection'. But I don't buy it as anything
>even close to an absolute.
i'll disagree too. what is light without shadow? even the grimmest
sort of jokes, such as the sort of grim gallows humor typified by
soviets under communism, represents the finest sort of human bravery,
the manner in which we face death and the inevitable. the innumerable
classic "bread line" jokes fall into this category. not getting
enough food or even facing imminent death is not enough to quell a
final thumbing of the nose at the grim reaper.
>Humor is also a mixture of suprise, joy, genuine happiness and even the
>process of an exceptionally sharp mind. Where's the rejection in that?
humor is how you turn bile into beer, lemons to lemonade,
shit to shinola. life can be mixed with all sorts of misery and awful
events, things that simply should not be. if you can get a chuckle
out of it though you are not beyond hope. comedy springs from tragedy
like new saplings from a forest fire.
>More to the point though, ARS'ers are perfect targets for J&D because
>they tend to fall quickly into the patter of condescending humor and
>terms that degrade Scn. The nice thing about humor and sarcasm is that
>once a person commits themselves to that method of attacking an
>opponent, they're wide open for counter-humor. I think anyone still
>calling Scn's clams is mere fish bait and are showing more their own
>lack of humor and intelligence than any real wit. You'd think if the
>ARS-snobs were really bright, they'd have come up with a new joke by
>now...
i'll agree with this, too. i'll even state that the condition of ars
critics is very ripe for fine humor. if the response to humor were
more humor, instead of an accusation of being a child-molestor or some
ridiculous deadly serious tirade about how the joker is destroying all
of humanity or "harassing" by laughing, ars would be a better, more
balanced and probably smaller place, where people took themselves less
seriously.
you among others have been part of this slow, torturous change of this
place from a snake-pit into. . .well. . .into a slightly less
disagreeable snake-pit. i think and hope that this trend eventually
catches up and overtakes the opposing trend toward more
chest-pounding, grim pontificating and warlike grimacing.
>Wolf
rob
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <35717b95...@news.mindspring.com>, Rob Clark writes:
>On Sun, 31 May 1998 11:27:18 -0400, "t.r.mcloughlin" wrote:
>>Tommy_sp...@xs.net wrote:
>>> When his
>>> friend refused to accept this explanation, the young amn challenged her
>>> to tell a single joke or funny story that did not involve someone being
>>> hurt, humiliated, or otherwise done harm to. After some consideration,
>>> she found that she could not. (try this yourself)
>
>>"Man does not live by food alone. Frequently, there must be a beverage."
>> - Woody Allen
>>I still chuclke when I hear this, mostly, I think, because of the
>>deft use of the word "Frequently" and the way it noiselessly shifts
>>from the sublime to the silly. And try as I might, I'm at a loss
>>to find hurt, harm, or humiliation here.
>
>the humor here lies in the twisting of a statement of spirituality.
>the statement "man does not live by bread alone" is a biblical
>admonition toward spirituality. in a non-humorous context, the
>following statement would be religious in nature, dealing with spirits
>of a different sort than the alcoholic spirits that seem to be implied
>by "beverage."
OK; here's my analysis of how humour works (and, no, it isn't
very funny). Roughly speaking, the WHY of humour is about status
and the HOW is often about learning/incongruity.
Incongruity works like this. You point out some things about how
the world works, and how they fit together in some unobvious way
to make a waterwheel work, and the person gets a shot of pleasure
for "ah, that's exactly right, I must remember to work things out
that way in future." OTOH incongruity takes a plausible kind of
error and shows you the absurd conclusion it can lead to, and
makes you think "ah, that's exactly the WRONG way to go, I'll
remember not to fall into that error in future." For examply
"Q: where would you find a rubber trumpet" "A: in an elastic band"
is just a way for the child to remember that confusing the different
meanings as "circlet" vs "group of people (often musicians)" has a
silly consequence, so he can remember to tell them apart in future.
The status side is more interesting. Basically, what's funny is
somebody landing face down in the shit i.e. losing status. As
you say, Rob, we find it fair enough when applied to high status
people but cruel and showing a vicious nature when the strong
decide to mock the weak whom they already have power over. The
simplest form of humour is mockery, an attempt to knock somebody
down in status by chucking some mud at them or showing they are
ugly or otherwise getting the crowd to laugh at them. Incidentally
some of what I call "safetyvalve" houmour directed at those in
unreasonable power may be directed not so much at overthrowing
them in parctice as at making their tyranny more bearable in your
own mind ("working for this company is like fucking a porcupine,
it's one prick against thousands").
However, there is a much more subtle use of humour when a one
person in conflict with another invites them to "laugh at each
other"---in effect, picks up some mud and daubs it on both of
them. The suggestion is "hey, we're BOTH not as important as
we're making out and this argument ain't important enough to
break bones over; ease up, fellah." It this point one of two
things will happen. Either the person will laugh and be unable
to feel anger. Or they will remain angry and regard humour as
an incomprehenisble martian emotion which has no possible bearing
on the current sitution. Now pompous and brutal tyrannies
**RELY** on maintaining a continuous atmosphere of arse-kissing
and status contest without relief. This is why mockery messes
them up so effectively, and why they so resent it.
Beyond this, I think we use the same technique to ease our
tension with "symbolic enemies", things that bug us. With
you children, humour is directed at the difficulties of
dealing with languages and sorting out the senses of words---
childlike or childish people tend to be stuck in this kind of
humour. After this you get, shit, blood and violence, and the
kind of sex joke where sex is the entire joke. After that
among adults you tend to get the kind of humour in, say,
Basil Fawlty, which relies on a shrewd examination of character
and the odd ways people, including ourselves, relate to
others socially.
So to your Woodie Allen quip. The HOW of it is incongruity.
He starts by saying we don't live by bread alone, which sets
up an expectation what foillows will be that we "also need
spirituality." The absurd interpolation that we "also need
something to drink with it" turns it round and says, in effect,
of course we live just by sustaining our physical bodies.
The WHY of it is that religion worries him, because he has
come from a group which defines itself through religion yet
personally has rejected religion. Perhaps he is mocking his
own doubt, or more likely he feels threatened by people who
try to pressure him into religious belief and is taking them
down a peg or two to stop them bothering him. Or quite possibly
both at the same time, he is saying to those who pressure him
"hey, this religious thing is not so big a deal, why can't you
stop noodzing me and you accept that I don't believe if I accept
that you do believe."
Which, bringing to back to the newsgroup topic, is how I feel
about Scn itself. If you people feel you are full of dead space
aliens and you should talk to a rag doll about it, that's fine
by me. If you start charging people a lot of money for it without
saying that's the content, then I'm not so happy. And if you
raid people's houses or drown their dogs over it, then I definitely
have a bone to pick with you.
In article <357187...@swbell.net>, Tommy_sp...@xs.net writes:
> Then you aren't looking very hard. Woody Allen's humour comes at
>*his* expense. The self-depreciating brand of houmour is merely directed
>at one's one foibles rather than another's. In this case, Woody's
>literal (wrong) intrepretation of a Biblical quotation. He begins with
>an incorrect premise and follows it logically to its silly conclusion.
>Monty Python explores this avenue as well.
I think if you look at it more deeply, he is "smearing a bit of mud
on both of them" as an invitation to stop bugging him and take their
differences less seriously. The joke is on him, because he has made
a foolish interpretation of the (? new testament -- christian)
scripture. But he is also slyly pointing out that their interpretation
might in fact be the daft one: we live by sustaining our bodies and
nothing else, that's what living is.
It is frequently the case that jesters get away with criticism
by clowning --- by mocking themselves, they can also get away
with mocking the strong. Think of the jester in King Lear who
says words to the effect "I know a real fool, one who's given up
his kindom to people not worth his trust and made a laughinstock
of himself, so who's the biggest fool here now?". If he came in
as an ambitious nobleman waving his sword around and saying
"I'm damn well right because I'm the most powerful", then the
person in power would draw a sword and call in his guards and we'd
settle it by who was most powerful. But if the person making the
criticism also mocks himself with a clowns cap and bladder on a stick
which makes clear he is of low status and no personal challenger,
then he is licensed to make the criticisms others cannot.
In article <35717785...@news.mindspring.com>,
Rob Clark <xe...@mindspring.com> writes:
>i'll agree with this, too. i'll even state that the condition of ars
>critics is very ripe for fine humor. if the response to humor were
>more humor, instead of an accusation of being a child-molestor or some
>ridiculous deadly serious tirade about how the joker is destroying all
>of humanity or "harassing" by laughing, ars would be a better, more
>balanced and probably smaller place, where people took themselves less
>seriously.
If you're waiting for the moment when OSA Los Angeles agree that
what we need is LESS fear and creeping, but all take each other
less eriously instead, I think you have a while to wait.
At least until they string Miscaige up, or hand him over to the FBI
sitting on a box of evidence....
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
t.r.mcloughlin
Tommy_sp...@xs.net wrote:
>
> t.r.mcloughlin wrote:
> ><snip re the nature of humour as defense against things that hurt>
>
> > "Man does not live by food alone. Frequently, there must be a beverage."
> > - Woody Allen
> Then you aren't looking very hard. Woody Allen's humour comes at
> *his* expense. The self-depreciating brand of houmour is merely directed
> at one's one foibles rather than another's. In this case, Woody's
> literal (wrong) intrepretation of a Biblical quotation. He begins with
> an incorrect premise and follows it logically to its silly conclusion.
> Monty Python explores this avenue as well.
Interesting point of view. For me, however, if you start with your
presumption that the speaker of this line does not understand the nature
of the metaphor of the first part (that the speaker takes the line literally)
you have no joke, just run-of-the-mill ignorance, of the order of a
normal UPN sit-com.
From my point of view, it is precisely the awareness that "live
by food alone" does not literally state a recipe for survival
vectors the humor. We find the humor in the simultaneity of states,
relishing that Schrodinger's joke can be back into the box,
that the state vector of humor *can * be uncollapsed.
It has long been my contention that, in the arena of humor such as
Woody Allen's or Monty Python's, there are three kinds of people:
1) people who find it silly for the reason you stated,
2) people who find it funny for the reason you stated, and
3) people who get it.
Granted, self-depricating humor exists, and in large quantities
than the self-aware variety, but it is the relative rarity of the
self-aware humor that I prize.
Also, let's be clear to distinguish between "humor as a defense
against things that hurt" (no arguement) and "humor as hurt,
harm, or humiliation" (which describes some but not all humor).
Sure, anyone can take any set of words and interpret it as degradation
(usenet is the greatest living example of that dynamic). But the
fact that you chose to interpret on way and laugh "at" neither
negates nor invalidates the sincerity of those of us who chose
to interpret and laugh "with".
And this to me is one of the revealing characteristics of the
teachings of L.Ron Hubbard: I expcet cynicism from a writer and
profit, but not from a righter and a prophet.
trm
Bernie
> I have seen too many incidents of the above to think it is just
>individuals doing so on their own. I think it is a policy of the
>heirarchy, rather than individuals acting on their own volition. A big
>difference.
There is no policy about that, even though I believe they may feel
justified doing it from time to time (although I am still waiting for
actual instances that I was assured happened in this newsgroup).
For auditors, though, PC folders are sacred and they will defend
intrusion with nail and teeth. To say that folder culling is a
standard operating procedure is an insult for those Scientology who
*do* care about not divulging confidential and personal information,
and they are the overwhelming majority.
Furthermore, I find it hypocritical on the part of those critics who
justifies the German government seizing personal folder to see if the
person confessed to a crime, to complain about the supposedly
disclosure of information from the CoS. This State intrusion in the
private realm is outrageous, and for critics to condone such actions
clearly shows that they have lost sight of whatever initially noble
feeling they might have had at the beginning.
>I criticise the Pope,
>and many do, but I've not seen accounts similar of a Vatican
>investigation of their critics.
Lucky for you that you weren't around during the Inquisition and other
niceties of the RCC.
> WTF are the bigots here???
Both sides. In an Iraqi/Iran war, which side would you chose? During
the war, Saddam Hussein did receive the massive material and moral
support of the West against the Muslim fanatics, only to find out
later that he was about as big a bastard as they were. It's only when
you really know both sides of the story that you can see through it.
Many critics here think they know much about Scientology and the whole
context of cults. In reality, they know near to nothing of the real
picture and delude themselves in their own collective fantasy.
> I think they are running out of ammo. They keep running out of toes,
>too.
I think Wolf is right. ARS isn't a threat for them, and it is becoming
less and less a threat as time goes by.
> And I don't consider myself to be a sworn enemy of you, and not even
>the individual scientologists. Just the cult and its criminal policies.
But, like so many critics here, you have a *picture* of what the CoS
really is. You have no first hand experiences. This picture is created
through what you have read, through the constant repetition to be
found in this newsgroup, and through ignorance of the darker side of
opposition to cults. Such a picture is usually a mixture of truth and
wild distortions. As a member of an often discriminated class
yourself, you should be the first to be aware at how a misleading and
false picture can be created from the outside by ignorance and
vindication.
From what I gather, Wolf isn't a Scientologist anymore, neither am I.
But the type of "criticism" to be found around here, fed by resentful
ex-members and sometimes benevolent but generally ignorant outsiders
is just so ridiculous that any thinking and informed person who has
had first hand experience with Scientology for a reasonably long time
just have to take a stand against.
Bernie
On Sun, 31 May 1998 09:43:34 -0500, , Tommy_sp...@xs.net wrote:
> Of course, EMG theory doesn't have a codocil that states that it is
>immutable and unchangable sacred writings, either.
Exactly. That's one of the reasons why Scientology qualifies as a
religion. Scientologists think LRH had a superior knowledge, like
others may think Mohammed had one.
Bernie
On Sun, 31 May 1998 09:50:17 -0500, , Tommy_sp...@xs.net wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>>
>> Tell him he is a "poet", that he is *not* nuts, that he is very effective
>> in countering Scn, that he has a nice doggy, and that he looks absolutely
>> gorgeous in his suit of ping pong balls. That should do the trick. Of
>> course, none of the above is true, but that isn't the point of flattery, is
>> it?
> Bernie, your posts are always unbiased, interesting, and
>informative.
Not always, but sometimes I think they are.
>No one in this NG has you twitfiled,
I think many people have me killfiled. But this is to be expected - I
feel like someone trying to speak some sense in the middle of a cult.
Only a minority will be receptive, but that's the minority I am aiming
for anyway.
>and you were missed terribly while you were away.
Well, taking into account the context and your use of generalities, it
doesn't sound to me like if you are sincere.
Starshadow
In article <3597d90f...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be says...
> >individuals doing so on their own. I think it is a policy of the
> >heirarchy, rather than individuals acting on their own volition. A big
> >difference.
>
> justified doing it from time to time (although I am still waiting for
> actual instances that I was assured happened in this newsgroup).
>
Margery Wakefield's account, --maybe somebody else, my memory ain't what
it used to be-- maybe some others)some people being told to tag folders
for confessions of juicy tidbits to store up to hold up against them
later. No, of course I wasn't there, but I have read this in more than
one account, I know. Like I said, I never fell for the scam so this is
not first hand accounts, but I see no reason to doubt people who have
proven trustworthy and whose accounts have been truthful thus far.
> For auditors, though, PC folders are sacred and they will defend
> intrusion with nail and teeth. To say that folder culling is a
> standard operating procedure is an insult for those Scientology who
> *do* care about not divulging confidential and personal information,
> and they are the overwhelming majority.
>
> Furthermore, I find it hypocritical on the part of those critics who
> justifies the German government seizing personal folder to see if the
> person confessed to a crime, to complain about the supposedly
> disclosure of information from the CoS. This State intrusion in the
> private realm is outrageous, and for critics to condone such actions
> clearly shows that they have lost sight of whatever initially noble
> feeling they might have had at the beginning.
I haven't condoned such actions, but I don't know what the
circumstances are or anything about that. It may have been a post I
missed. I'm not thrilled with the State intruding on private affairs but
I am not a German or European citizen, and historically, Europe has a
much more paranoid (and for reason) attitude toward fascistoid type
groups, which I believe the cult to be than does the US.
>
> >I criticise the Pope,
> >and many do, but I've not seen accounts similar of a Vatican
> >investigation of their critics.
>
> Lucky for you that you weren't around during the Inquisition and other
> niceties of the RCC.
My dear, I'm talking about now, this century, this day and age. Not
hundreds of years ago. Why is it anytime a critic mentions abuses of the
Oo$, which clearly are current, including fair game, though no longer
called that, apologists always scream "Old news" and yet when someone
brings up a religion that does not so operate y'all bring up *centuries*
old abuses?? Can't have it both ways, y'know.
>
> > WTF are the bigots here???
>
> Both sides. In an Iraqi/Iran war, which side would you chose? During
> the war, Saddam Hussein did receive the massive material and moral
> support of the West against the Muslim fanatics, only to find out
> later that he was about as big a bastard as they were. It's only when
> you really know both sides of the story that you can see through it.
> Many critics here think they know much about Scientology and the whole
> context of cults. In reality, they know near to nothing of the real
> picture and delude themselves in their own collective fantasy.
I know it is a massive scam and that apparently you fell for it hook
line and sinker, and that here and now, abuses are occurring, and that if
Lisa was the *only* suspicious death from a quack treatment it is one
death too many, but there are plenty more deaths laid at the cult's door,
and that children are being neglected and abused, and so on and so on. If
you want to call that deluded fantasy, go ahead. But when the whole house
of cards collapses and you see what it turned you into, and what
compromises you have made with the conscience the gods gave you, don't
blame me for not trying. I will always fight against injustice wherever I
see it.
> > I think they are running out of ammo. They keep running out of toes,
> >too.
>
> I think Wolf is right. ARS isn't a threat for them, and it is becoming
> less and less a threat as time goes by.
>
> > And I don't consider myself to be a sworn enemy of you, and not even
> >the individual scientologists. Just the cult and its criminal policies.
>
> But, like so many critics here, you have a *picture* of what the CoS
> really is. You have no first hand experiences. This picture is created
> through what you have read, through the constant repetition to be
> found in this newsgroup, and through ignorance of the darker side of
> opposition to cults. Such a picture is usually a mixture of truth and
> wild distortions. As a member of an often discriminated class
> yourself, you should be the first to be aware at how a misleading and
> false picture can be created from the outside by ignorance and
> vindication.
I talked to elron himself, dearie, and he told me it was a scam. If
that were all, I wouldn't be here. I'm here to keep more Lisas from
happening. I will fight for that and for the innocents trapped in it, and
that is that. They aren't able to, so I will speak out. If you think that
is ignorant, time will tell, won't it, who stood up for right, and who
for keeping quiet and complacent in the face of great evil.
> From what I gather, Wolf isn't a Scientologist anymore, neither am I.
> But the type of "criticism" to be found around here, fed by resentful
> ex-members and sometimes benevolent but generally ignorant outsiders
> is just so ridiculous that any thinking and informed person who has
> had first hand experience with Scientology for a reasonably long time
> just have to take a stand against.
Your call. Mine is different. But I don't stay quiet and I don't think
your cult is as benign as you say. Every thing *I've* seen and heard
tells me otherwise. My grandmother used to say "It's the stuck pig which
squeals the most" and I see the pig squealing again and again, at
peaceful pickets, at questions, at pointers to official web pages, for
the gods' sakes.
It is evil, but it will fall. When it does *my* conscience will be
clear. Will yours?
>
> Bernie
> --
> If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt
> you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing,
> fools and a dead man's ego (Wolf)
>
--
Warrior
>> intrusion with nail and teeth. To say that folder culling is a
>> standard operating procedure is an insult for those Scientology who
>> *do* care about not divulging confidential and personal information,
>> and they are the overwhelming majority.
stars...@mindless.com says...
>
> I do not believe this, for the above reasons.
You are wise, Starshadow.
I have seen many many instances of Sea Org execs and MAAs going through
pc folders for information. Maybe I'll just have to start naming some names
and places.
At the org I was on staff at I saw pc folders on the Commanding Officer's
desk, in the MAA's office and in the Guardian Office building.
It's a total lie that the contents of pc folders are kept confidential.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://www.newsguy.com
Rebecca Hartong
Rob Clark wrote in message <35717785...@news.mindspring.com>...
>i think and hope that this trend eventually
>catches up and overtakes the opposing trend toward more
>chest-pounding, grim pontificating and warlike grimacing.
Someone--sorry, don't remember who it was--had as their .sig for a while,
"Evil can't take a joke."
It seems appropriate to this thread.
---------------------------------
Rebecca Hartong
http://www.erols.com/hartong