COS's "Original Overt"?
alec
Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
first committed an overt against the suppressor.
COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
David Alexander
--
Separation of Church and State? Scientology seeks to control the State
WONDERFULR
>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>
>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>
>David Alexander
Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you. It
was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
abberations have kept it going.
William Barwell
In article <19971026101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
his crimes and lies. That is why he was paranoid. This is the fool
who kept getting arrested and sued for thefts. Arrested in San Luis Obispo
for a bad check, sued by Parsons for his thefts, arrested for stealing
a $9000 from the Dianetics Foundation after which he fled to England,
and later to sea in the Sea Org.
A paranoid thief and conman, who died running and hiding.
A bitter and angry sociopath who also left a trail of lies behind him for
the world to discover.
He was a war hero, he was a nuclear scientists, Dianetics could
raise your IQ and cure most ills. Scientology could give you OT powers.
A liar from start to finish. A thief and conman fleeing into the desert
abandoning yet another wife to serve time in prison for crimes he
also committed. He impuslively lied and cheated every day of his life
and worried about being caught.
This is the man who lied that after WWII he was "crippled and almost
blind" and abandoned by his family. When it was he who abandoned
his own family, a wife and two small children to go play black magician
and sex magician at Parson's OTO temple.
"Mommy, where's Daddy?"
Scientology still peddles this lie on their web site.
And is always so paranoid their lies and crimes wil be discovered.
That is why so few Scientologists post here and why they
cannot really debate anything, just keep up a string of
embittered persoanl attacks, post DA packs, and 'wins'.
There is nothing good about this cult and many withholds
and crimes and embarressments to admit to.
Russ, when is Scientology going to stop peddle the WIS? lies by
Hubbard on their website? Why did Hubbard tell this grotesque
lie on his own familym, his own flesh and blood?
Wgert and RonsAmigo can not even bring themselves to comment
on this amazing set of outrageous lies. No confront.
No affinity for truths, for noting Hubbard's lies and
callousness. Typical Scientologists. So many lies, so little
time.
If Scientology started abandoning Ron's lies and pathological
policies, there wouldn't be much left of Scientology, would there?
So you people dare not even start.
"Mommy, Where's Daddy"? "Jacking off Jack Parsons, honey."
Har!
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In Message-ID: <19971026101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>
>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>
>>David Alexander
>
>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you. It
> was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
> abberations have kept it going.
This is one of my favorite parts of the Scientology mindset.
Translated roughly into English, what Russ is saying is that we
criticize Scientology because of evil things that WE'VE done and
we're afraid that Scientology (with it's superior "tech") has found
out about. Russ goes on to say that our being insane ("abberated",
lacking Scientology processing - it's the same thing) keeps this
cycle going.
Is that a HOOT or what?
This idea originated with L. Ron Hubbard, of course. L. Ron said
that the ONLY reason anyone criticizes Scientology is because
they're a criminal. Not because of anything IT'S done, no, that
couldn't be it...
If anyone complains about the COS gleefully litigating people into
bankruptcy, shielding a child molester or neglecting a poor
troubled woman to death in the home of 100% standard tech, it's
simply because they're a criminal. No, really.
While you're here, Russ, would you mind answering a question? L.
Ron says that thoughts have actual physical weight! No kidding, he
says that by actual measuements somebody lost 30 pounds by blowing a
troubling engram. Is this true? I could stand to lose a couple
weighty engrams myself, but I gotta say this sounds like complete
crap. No doubt this is because of some terrible crime I've
committed, though, right?
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNFNDRoCmc8kif9MJAQGuBwP9EUdZ7F3Od4t0Yjs2pVisIU+wW4PYxJ6d
3VRH+fLKX5n/6aXJqGFn+Gvjq4pWwSntTc47WRE955z5jr31ryUX0fDFbc289vEm
ETysDEv2a3z80/W2y9fi4gSkg3Y83FEEbsQQ8lMQz1I7+ZgeH5jHMApwYEPGKV9U
FZP3G1Q1I0w=
=Hqvi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971026101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>
>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>
>>David Alexander
>
>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you.
It
> was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
> abberations have kept it going.
>[WONDERFULR]
DAMN! You know about me? Shit. You mean all this time I could have been
open and honest instead of closed and revealing about COS charlatanry? God
how will I ever make up the damage to the group?
All seriousness aside, WONDERFLIST, you know this is a knee-jerk reaction to
appease group demands that you demonstrate "friend of the group". It was
part of Hubbard's duplicitious design that you would feel the compulsion to
seem aggressive like other Scientologists. Have you ever referenced the
attrition rate of Scientology membership? Someday You, too, will cognite on
the blind "wannabee" of supporting Hubbard's original overt--that of missing
our witholds--a deliberate, suppressive act. It is the property of
Politicians and Judges (and now Scientologists) to miss witholds as an
overture to "making a living"--blackmail, if you will. How else can
Scientologists enforce their threat to others' salvation (Intro to
Scientology Ethics, p156; also Trouble-Source policies (Type C) that
threaten denial of Salvation to anyone who would snitch to the authorities
about the felonious crimes of the charlatan Church of Scientology).
One thing Scientologists (and Hubbard before you) overlook is we all have
overts--making it a moot point--were it not for the fact that you have kept
yours well-hidden causing us to frantically cover our own because we can't
defend ourselves by pointing to yours. Hubbard realized, very craftily,
that this leaves one feeling very naked and defenseless, and depicts them as
being "wrong"--while depicting Hubbard and the church as being "right"--and
that's Hubbard's ser fac (self-righteousness obsession). What you are
observing in the church today is their MISSED WITHOLD as we on ARS are
"PULLING" (not missing) COS's witholds and crimes. Instead of confronting
their crimes (which would gain a much better world press), they are denying
and hiding their crimes desperately.
Now the dedicated ARSers are turning the tables on the criminality (Type
B-ness) of Scientologists. To quote Hubbard, "Even while [you] scream at
us, [you] know...down deep [that] we threaten [your] eternity"--Intro to
Scientology Ethics, p156.
---David Alexander
Honester than Scientologists
Rob Clark
On 26 Oct 1997 10:16:03 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>
>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>
>>David Alexander
>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you. It
> was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
> abberations have kept it going.
you really ARE a wonderfool, aren't you?
if your dumb ho of babble-on hadn't sent an rmgroup, and your cancelbunny
hadn't illegally forged cancels, i would never have even heard of this
newsgroup, i certainly wouldn't have sat about worrying about scientology but
instead perhaps had a laugh about it.
if you hadn't then raided dennis erlich, i wouldn't have stayed.
you are, however, honestly so fucking stupid i bet you believe that twaddle.
rob
Garry Scarff
alec <al...@flash.net> wrote in article
<62togq$am3$1...@excalibur.flash.net>...
> Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
> first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>
> COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>
> David Alexander
Introducing you to Eugene Ingram & the fantastic world of career
opportunties for Scientology investigators?
Anti-Cult
On 26 Oct 1997 10:16:03 GMT.
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?:
>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>
>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>
>>David Alexander
>
>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you. It
> was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
> abberations have kept it going.
Hi Wonder Russ, remember this? You are such a predictable Ronbot :-))
Russell Shaw joined a.r.s. and immediately tried to push the critics
around, telling them to knock off the critical talk. Then he had an
idea...
From
news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!aol.com!WONDERFULR
Sat Jan 28 11:52:01 1995
Path:
news.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!aol.com!WONDERFULR
Comments: Gated by NET...@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID: <9501280638...@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 06:38:59 -0500
Reply-To: WONDE...@aol.com
Sender: owner...@cornell.edu
From: WONDE...@aol.com
Subject: GOOD NEWS ON ARS
X-PH: V4...@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Lines: 91
GOOD NEWS ON ARS
I think I may have a solution that can work for everybody.
When I asked for help in getting the graffiti spraying to stop, you guys
held back. One even posted that you folks *knew* a way to stop it,
but would not tell me.
Now, I understand that I am a net newbie, but let me run this idea by
you.
I want the graffiti to stop. You have your free speech rights. If you
were doing what you are doing in private e-mail, I would not know (or
care). I just don't like the endless stuff that gets repeated here that
is vile and false.
Solution: I send a request uplines in the church for an official
worldwide Call to Arms. We want each Scientologist with a computer
and a modem to post their success stories to *every* newsgroup that
has any sizeable amount of black PR being posted.
The Scientologists would need to be notified of which newsgroups and
their net address. The Scientologists would not need to read any of the
existing posts on those newsgroups, as they can see all the success
stories they like, at their local org.
Now, I'm not talking about paltry 100-200 posts a day. I'm talking
about ENOUGH of the success stories to really "paint over" all of the
graffiti. If a particular newsgroup had 100 negative posts a day going
to it, then we would need to post at *least* 2000-3000 success stories
a day to that newsgroup.
To make sure that *our* stuff is on an "equal footing" with the black
pr stuff, each Scientologist posting would need the names of the
current threads and only use those names for their subject headers.
These would change from month to month, so there is a bit of admin
involved, but I'm certain it can be done.
To ensure that a negative sysop does not kill file the theta posts, the
success story posters could post from anonymous remailers. They
might need to change the anonymous remailer site they posted from
once in a while to ensure that their posts got through, but this could
be handled (again, with a bit of organization)
What I envision is that every newsgroup that has significant entheta
posts getting ENOUGH theta posts to completely cancel out the
negative.
I could be way off on the numbers. It might take 9000-10,000 posts a
day to some newsgroups to do the job. But if that is what it takes, then
that is what it takes.
This would be a real opportunity for Scientologists everywhere to
contribute, without really spending a lot of time. When I consider how
much Scientologists like to help and how little of their time this would
take, I see real possibilities. There are probably enough
Scientologists in Los Angles alone to do this, but I see it as a world
wide cooperative effort amongst the group. Plus, I like the
international idea.
What is now ars (or other similar newsgroups) could become large e-
mail groups. You guys can enjoy your free speech, and I get the
graffiti to stop.
Naturally, this is just my idea at this point, and there may be
something I have not considered.
If the church did endorse the idea, it would be a great PR move too.
The broad press releases about how Scientology success stories (and
selected texts like What is Scientology) were available at no charge on
the internet.
There are details of course; , like someone to monitor all net
newsgroups for selected words (Scn, C of S, Hubbard, etc.) to see if
there were new places that needed some success stories.
This is just a rough outline of my plan, and I know it needs a lot of
polishing. As there are a lot of people here who know considerably
more about computers and the internet than I, please feel free to post
your input on this idea.
I welcome the assistance. I want to work this out.
Sincerely,
Russell Shaw
----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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......
------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Burling
On 26 Oct 1997 13:46:14 -0000, Paper Tiger <paper...@nym.alias.net>
saith:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In Message-ID: <19971026101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>>
>>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>>
>>>David Alexander
>>
>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you. It
>> was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
>> abberations have kept it going.
>
> This is one of my favorite parts of the Scientology mindset.
>
> Translated roughly into English, what Russ is saying is that we
> criticize Scientology because of evil things that WE'VE done and
> we're afraid that Scientology (with it's superior "tech") has found
> out about. Russ goes on to say that our being insane ("abberated",
> lacking Scientology processing - it's the same thing) keeps this
> cycle going.
>
> Is that a HOOT or what?
>
Well, what puzzles me is that David Alexander (who is the guy up there
with three chevrons before his text) asked the CoS what
overts/withholds THEY had that drew ARS after them, & Wonderfuller's
response was to state what overts/withholds ARS had that drew them to
the CoS.
In otherwords, Wonderfuler didn't understand the question. Must have
been a Misunderstood Word there, Russ. Dig out the dictionary, & start
word clearing each & every one of those little buggers in David's
post.
For the record, I'm still not sure why I started posting to ARS. I had
the itch long before Jairus Godeka decided to walk into the Salmon
Street offices of the Cos & start shooting people. Maybe Hubbard was
right: overts & withholds pull that stuff in. One day, sitting in
front of a computer at Transport Logic, I decided to check out
alt.religion.scientology, & from that moment the fun never ended.
And for the record, it doesn't matter to me if you word clear the
above, Russ. Or if you consider your overts & withholds, either. I can
continue my life wihtout worry if you achieve a more ehtical or sane
existence; but can you continue your existence knowing that I might
post again to ARS - today, tomorrow, or maybe next week? And that my
posts might lead to other people deciding to steer away from the CoS?
Gosh, clearing the planet can be a bitch, can't it?
Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore
Return address altered to foil spambots. Change ``cyberpromo"
to``agora", & your email will reach me.
WONDERFULR
>>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>>
>>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>>
>>>David Alexander
>>
>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you.
>It
>> aberrations have kept it going.
>
>No, ...
<crap Charles shit snip>
>That is why so few Scientologists post here and why they
>cannot really debate anything,
Does it *ever* occur to loons like you that people who ~do~ things in life
don't have the time or interest in "debate" that you and the other arsholes
have?
>Russ, when is Scientology going to stop peddle the WIS? lies by
When are you going to actually accomplish something in your own life? When are
you going to actually DO something constructive?
>Wgert and RonsAmigo can not even bring themselves to comment
>on this amazing set of outrageous lies. No confront.
No. Not like you at all. You are real smart and real successful. It shows,
Crap Charles.
>"Mommy, Where's Daddy"? "Jacking off Jack Parsons, honey."
>
>Har!
>
Crap Charles just plays with himself.
Snap Snap Snap Crap Charles.
WONDERFULR
>
>And for the record, it doesn't matter to me if you word clear the
>above, Russ. Or if you consider your overts & withholds, either.
Thanks Geoff. I feel SO much better.
> I can
>continue my life without worry if you achieve a more ethical or sane
>existence; but can you continue your existence knowing that I might
>post again to ARS - today, tomorrow, or maybe next week?
Yes. You now have my permission (since you seem to be asking) to post here -
or anywhere else - you like.
Communicate a lot. Often. Is okay with me.
> And that my
>posts might lead to other people deciding to steer away from the CoS?
>
Again, yes. As effective as you are - I can live with it Geoff. Really.
>Gosh, clearing the planet can be a bitch, can't it?
>
Again, yes. Aberrated beings are sometimes ~very~ difficult to handle. ARS
alone establishes that.
>Geoff
>Olympic-Class Bore
You are right again, Geoff.
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>From: Paper Tiger <paper...@nym.alias.net>
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 1997 08:46 EST
>Message-id: <199710261346...@nym.alias.net>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In Message-ID: <19971026101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>>
>>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>>
>>>David Alexander
>>
>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you.
>It
>> was the uncertainty of if we had, that got you started. Your own
>> aberrations have kept it going.
>
>
> Translated roughly into English, what Russ is saying is
<paper tiger make-wrong snip>
It needed no "translation".
If you had ever learned to duplicate what WAS actually ~there~ you would know
this.
.
>
> While you're here, Russ, would you mind answering a question? L.
> Ron says that thoughts have actual physical weight! No kidding, he
> says that by actual measurements somebody lost 30 pounds by blowing a
> troubling engram. Is this true? I could stand to lose a couple
> weighty engrams myself, but I gotta say this sounds like complete
> crap. No doubt this is because of some terrible crime I've
> committed, though, right?
>
No. You say that because you don't really understand what was being said in
the first place. It has little to do with your past misdeeds.
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 1997 10:12 EST
>Message-id: <62vmlu$bfu$1...@excalibur.flash.net>
>>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>>
>>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>>
>>>David Alexander
>>
>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you.
>It
>> was the uncertainty of if we had, that got you started. Your own
>> aberrations have kept it going.
>
>
>DAMN! You know about me? Shit. You mean all this time I could have been
>open and honest instead of closed and revealing about COS charlatanry? God
>how will I ever make up the damage to the group?
>
It is doubtful that you will, David.
And if you HAD been truly open and honest you would not be on ARS now.
>All seriousness aside, WONDERFLIST, you know this is a knee-jerk reaction to
>appease group demands that you demonstrate "friend of the group".
You are an idiot.
I have no one I am "appeasing" (other than myself).
That *you* and the other "ex-Scientologists" here felt "controlled" is YOUR
own lack of integrity. No one "controls" me or "tells me what to do". No
one.
>Someday You, too, will cognite on
>the blind "wannabee" of supporting Hubbard's original overt--that of missing
>our withholds--a deliberate, suppressive act.
Wrong. That WAS what the Church did wrong. Failed to find out about you.
People who are really CLEAN don't blow and spend years "writing about it".
>One thing Scientologists (and Hubbard before you) overlook is we all have
>overts--making it a moot point--were it not for the fact that you have kept
>yours well-hidden causing us to frantically cover our own because we can't
>defend ourselves by pointing to yours.
I get my overts off in session. Always have. And once "gone" I don't need to
think of them again. They aren't there to weight me down. This principle -
by the way - is the very principle that the Catholics have attempted to apply
in confession.
> Hubbard realized, very craftily,
>that this leaves one feeling very naked and defenseless, and depicts them as
>being "wrong"--while depicting Hubbard and the church as being "right"
How about both being "right"? As that isn't even part of it for me - once gone
no attention is left on the SUBJECT.
I am not then worried about someone "finding out". The misdeed is just not
there to worry about. And I don't give a crap if someone "knows".
> What you are
>observing in the church today is their MISSED WITHHOLD as we on ARS are
>"PULLING"
The only thing you are "pulling" is your own pud.
>---David Alexander
>Honester than Scientologists
Honester? Is that actually a word?
WONDERFULR
>From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>Hi Wonder Russ, remember this?
Of course I remember. I'm clear. :-)
>
>
>Russell Shaw joined a.r.s. and immediately tried to push the critics
>around, telling them to knock off the critical talk. Then he had an
>idea...
>
Probably best if ~no one~ "gets pushed". But if someone has to get pushed -
better you than me.
Zane
On 28 Oct 1997 07:40:17 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>>From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>
>>Hi Wonder Russ, remember this?
>
>Of course I remember. I'm clear. :-)
Well then you shouldn't have any trouble recalling the numerous lies
El Wrong told, his abandoning his family, sex magic games with parsons
in Pasadena, and so on right WonderFool?
Please try to say something, anything, to demonstrate that
scientologists are willing to confront and respond to those known
facts.
Zane
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Sun, Oct 26, 1997 18:14 EST
>Message-id: <3455ce7b...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
>
>On 26 Oct 1997 10:16:03 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>>
>>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>>
>>>David Alexander
>>
>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you.
>It
>> abberations have kept it going.
>
>
>
>-Neal H.
>
>
Has Grady gotten ~everyone~ here to fixate on this sort of thing?
Zane
Wonderfool,
You snipped the best parts, I repeated them in their entirety below.
>>That is why so few Scientologists post here and why they
>>cannot really debate anything,
>
>Does it *ever* occur to loons like you that people who ~do~ things in life
> don't have the time or interest in "debate" that you and the other arsholes
> have?
Let me see, you have time to call us arsholes, make up snappy sayings
like "Crap Charles", and wonder what others are doing with their time.
But you don't have the time to respond to serious accusations about
your hero El Wrong? What's wrong with that picture fool?
Now, please direct your attention to what the real issue and stop
trying to play your silly games with us ok?
Here ya go, please try to not make such a shabby showing for
scientology this time:
That is why so few Scientologists post here and why they
cannot really debate anything, just keep up a string of
embittered persoanl attacks, post DA packs, and 'wins'.
There is nothing good about this cult and many withholds
and crimes and embarressments to admit to.
Russ, when is Scientology going to stop peddle the WIS? lies by
Hubbard on their website? Why did Hubbard tell this grotesque
lie on his own familym, his own flesh and blood?
Wgert and RonsAmigo can not even bring themselves to comment
on this amazing set of outrageous lies. No confront.
No affinity for truths, for noting Hubbard's lies and
callousness. Typical Scientologists. So many lies, so little
time.
If Scientology started abandoning Ron's lies and pathological
policies, there wouldn't be much left of Scientology, would there?
So you people dare not even start.
"Mommy, Where's Daddy"? "Jacking off Jack Parsons, honey."
Har!
Pope Charles
Zane
On 28 Oct 1997 07:33:59 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>Has Grady gotten ~everyone~ here to fixate on this sort of thing?
Would you rather direct your attention to answering the numerous
posted charges that El Wrong was a notorius liar and criminal?
Zane
alec
Geoffrey Burling wrote in message <3454eb52...@news.zippo.com>...
>On 26 Oct 1997 13:46:14 -0000, Paper Tiger <paper...@nym.alias.net>
>saith:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>In Message-ID: <19971026101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
[ALEC wrote]:
>>>>Hubbard presented that for one to be suppressed by another he must have
>>>>first committed an overt against the suppressor.
>>>>
>>>>COS, I ask you... What was your original overt against us?
>>>>
>>>>David Alexander
[RUSSEL SHAW wrote]:
>>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about
you. It
>>> was the uncertainity of if we had, that got you started. Your own
>>> abberations have kept it going.
[PAPER TIGER wrote]:
>> This is one of my favorite parts of the Scientology mindset.
>>
>> Translated roughly into English, what Russ is saying is that we
>> criticize Scientology because of evil things that WE'VE done and
>> we're afraid that Scientology (with it's superior "tech") has found
>> out about. Russ goes on to say that our being insane ("abberated",
>> lacking Scientology processing - it's the same thing) keeps this
>> cycle going.
>>
>> Is that a HOOT or what?
>>
[GEOFFREY BURLING wrote]:
>Well, what puzzles me is that David Alexander (who is the guy up there
>with three chevrons before his text) asked the CoS what
>overts/withholds THEY had that drew ARS after them, & Wonderfuller's
>response was to state what overts/withholds ARS had that drew them to
>the CoS.
>
>In otherwords, Wonderfuler didn't understand the question. Must have
>been a Misunderstood Word there, Russ. Dig out the dictionary, & start
>word clearing each & every one of those little buggers in David's
>post.
Geoff,
Actually RUSS gave a "Technically" appropriate response. I don't know your
background with Scientology Geoff, but if you can take the "anemic"
Scientology viewpoint for a minute I'll explain.
When one sets out to correct others, he must "PULL" overts, not "MISS" them.
To PULL an overt is to get full confront from the perpetrator, along with
confession and relief. To "touch close" to an overt (so that the
perpetrator isn't sure whether he's busted) leaves him with a "guilty
conscience" phenomenon, that is, he's preparing with "oops, what alibi do I
have". It leaves an uptight, disturbed individual in the universe, whose
sphincter is recoiling with "fear of being caught". He is now further from
honestly confronting his guilt, and this further aberration is an overt by
the one who "missed" the guy's overt. If the person "handling" the
perpetrator had done his job effectively the perpetrator would now be
absolved of his wrong, but instead is more screwed up than before--and must
have his "missed withold" resolved before the original overt can be
resolved. This is called "missed withold" phenomenon and Hubbard classifies
it as a suppressive act--a capital "NO NO". RUSS quickly offered this as
Scientology's "original overt". It's sort of an "inadvertant overt". It's
a little bit of a ser fac (self-righteousness obsession) on RUSS's part
because it's a token crime offered instead of the real problem with
Scientology. RUSS offers this token so he won't have to dig for what all
Scientologists are in denial about--their true "original overt".
Here's the Scientology situation: Hubbard with his stated intention for
inventing Scientology--"to make a million dollars"--and his indulgence in
Satanism to come up with what he considered a "viable TECH", came up with a
practice which is so harmful to civilization (and Hubbard has never
confessed this overt of magnitude) that Hubbard built up such an
overt/withold for his last 46 years that he became his own "TROUBLE SOURCE
Type B" (a criminal with impervious defenses of his wrongs--so he can't be
helped).
This is Hubbard's "prior confusion" (previously unresolved aberration that
led to the currently unresolved aberration)
What's not apparent here is a quirk in the true nature of Scientology--an
even earlier "prior confusion". And that is << WE ALL HAVE OVERTS >>.
Hence, to busy ourselves pointing out others' overts, without resolving our
own, leads to a FLOW ZERO "missed withold" (Flow Zero means "self, acting
against self") which continually excites a guilty conscience. And that's
where Scientologists are today--A harmful, abusive, coercive, destructive
cult, exacerbating their own criminal nature in their quest to be "right".
They have fallen for the planetary (fourth dynamic) ser fac
(self-righteousness compulsion). This always happens to groups who exercise
and demonstrate NO Compassion. Compassion restimulates one's own witholds
everytime he confronts another person with their overts/witholds. Juggling
this constant restimulation of one's formerly resolved overts while seeking
to assist others to resolve theirs amounts to a constant INTROSPECTION.
Compassion is a willingness to be a person who has sinned and is open about
it to those whom he would assist to confront their wrongs. While
Scientologists are unwilling to be a person who has sinned, they approach
the world in full ser fac (self-righteousness obsession), and it foils their
self-aggrandizement. It also foils their delusional religious efforts.
COMPASSION AND HUMILITY LEAD TO MASTERY OVER INTROSPECTION. People without
Compassion and Humility cannot survive Introspection.
This lack of compassion is similar to the actions of District Attorneys who
seek to nail the Defendant--for a living! You notice that COS seems to fall
right in with courts and prosecutors. It's the Pauline/Machiavellian world
we live in.
Mankinds' greatest aberration is the taunting of others who have sinned.
Pauline Christians go through life with their nose in the air, pompously
seeking to resolve others' overts and witholds. They constantly see others
as the ones who cheat on their wives, who abuse their children, and who
covet their neighbors ass. :o) A Christian who approaches others in full
awareness of his own wrongs and potential wrongs is a "CHRIST" Christian,
rather than a Pauline Christian. St. Paul came so close when he said, "We
have all sinned and have come short of [our spiritual stature]". But St.
Paul spoke from his role as Roman Dominatrix to the early Christian
church--he was insincere. The Compassionate person knows that there is no
true resolution to personal guilt (accountancy for our contribution to
mankind's problems) until we resolve our wrongs (repent) as a group--the
entire planet (or at least a preponderance). Until that time, segments will
self-righteously taunt each other for their wrongs--driving each other back
into smugness and self-righteousness obsessions. Now, the POMPOUS
Scientologists are one of the greatest impediments to "Clearing the Planet".
The only people with a ghost of a chance of "Clearing the Planet" will be
persons with lots of egg on their faces. It is visible and is called
humility--the natural outworking of Compassion.
Hubbard is their Prior Confusion. He was an atheist/agnostic who started a
religion to attain great wealth, and sought, in the wrong circles
(Satanism), to contrive measures to resolve aberration. Hence
Scientologists evade wrongdoings rather than face the constant humility of
being "one who can be as wrong as others". In their daily efforts to be
impeccable in courtrooms and news reports, OSA is a daily barrage against
any successful action by Scientologists.
The ability to handle the constant INTROSPECTION brought on by assisting
others with their wrongs is called MASTERY. One only reaches this through
demonstrating Compassion. It constantly humiliates one who sincerely seeks
to resolve the overts and witholds of the Fourth Dynamic (all mankind).
A principle for those who would assist mankind is << To Master One Must
Serve >>. And this is out of reach of the deaf ears and blind eyes of
Scientologists.
---David Alexander
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In Message-ID: <19971028070...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
[snip]
>>>Missing your withholds. Making you wonder if we had found out about you.
>>It
>>> was the uncertainty of if we had, that got you started. Your own
>>> aberrations have kept it going.
>>
>> This is one of my favorite parts of the Scientology mindset.
>>
>> Translated roughly into English, what Russ is saying is
><paper tiger make-wrong snip>
Here's ANOTHER one of my favorite Scientology bits. If you try to
argue or debate someone about something you're trying to "make them
wrong". While this is true (and is in fact the POINT of arguing or
debating) it is a CARDINAL SIN in Scientology - one is supposed to
leave other people's reality completely alone. One can see how
this would tend to suppress dissension and critical thought, as
Hubbard no doubt intended it to do.
>It needed no "translation".
On the contrary, not everyone here speaks Hubbardese.
>If you had ever learned to duplicate what WAS actually ~there~ you would know
> this.
Russ is correct here, I *HAD* misduplicated (more Hubbardese - it
means I misunderstood him) somewhat. David Alexander has followed
up to this thread explaining very nicely what a "missed withold" is.
I thought Russ was just talking about people only attacking
Scientology because they're criminals, which IS in fact something
Hubbard taught:
"Show me _any_ person who is critical of us and I'll show you
crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair
on end."
-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOB 4th Apr 1965
Apologies if I confused anybody.
Oh, and Russ WAS still accusing critics of committing evil deeds
that they were afraid the COS's superior "tech" would find out
about.
And it's still a HOOT!
>> While you're here, Russ, would you mind answering a question? L.
>> Ron says that thoughts have actual physical weight! No kidding, he
>> says that by actual measurements somebody lost 30 pounds by blowing a
>> troubling engram. Is this true? I could stand to lose a couple
>> weighty engrams myself, but I gotta say this sounds like complete
>> crap. No doubt this is because of some terrible crime I've
>> committed, though, right?
>>
>
>No. You say that because you don't really understand what was being said in
> the first place. It has little to do with your past misdeeds.
What's to misunderstand? Hubbard says:
"In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is
simply a finer, higher level of physical energy. The test of
this is conclusive in that a thetan "mocking up" (creating)
mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can
increase the body mass and by casting them away again can
decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an
increase of as much as thirty pounds, actually measured on
scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating
"mental energy." Energy is energy. Matter is condensed energy."
-- L. Ron Hubbard
"Understanding the E-Meter", page 50.
Where did I go wrong, Russ? Help me out here.
Hubbard says mental image pictures (sorry, I had thought it was
"engrams") have changed body mass by as much as 30 pounds ACTUALLY
MEASURED ON SCALES.
Now, is this true or not?
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNFXy/YCmc8kif9MJAQHZJwQAnajDQRg/0htOpujVm5NVSB4mjqgtBO5Z
hu/3rsJeeu+T298Hr2yhRCzJgQilv53SUvZA3K1xr3CPANHrK/lqzaOB2uvo6eGQ
JUfjEatOY/eAsWL6YQmay+uMycWy/gvnbXH0wyO3vCfOB4/v1x4Ath8UTW8t4Vyo
K3RBa2cmBLE=
=hO/C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anti-Cult
On 28 Oct 1997 07:40:17 GMT.
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?:
>
>>From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>
>>Hi Wonder Russ, remember this?
>
>Of course I remember. I'm clear. :-)
>
Clear? Clear from what? Don't give me the Bs about any reactive mind.
Care to give me some scientific data on that? Nah, wouldn't think so :-)
>>
>>
>>Russell Shaw joined a.r.s. and immediately tried to push the critics
>>around, telling them to knock off the critical talk. Then he had an
>>idea...
>>
>
>Probably best if ~no one~ "gets pushed". But if someone has to get pushed -
> better you than me.
>
Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? What did you exact have in
mind when it comes to pushing me? Could it be your reactive :-) mind
that feels the urge to push me over the edge of a cliff maybe? Care to
give us more than the usual one-liners on that?
Hmm, Russ surely is a clam...
Oh, did you succeed in the plan you posted back then?
Pathetic weaklings. Scientology has changed to be the turn the other
cheek religion. How come you clams always comes back for more ass
kicking? Answer: you are members of a cult of weaklings and degenerated
morons!
Watch out for the 12 most powerful men on this planet Russ. Hubbard
warned you about them. Sadly enough, you didn't listen :-)
Anti-Cult
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:35:15 GMT.
z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane).
From: None.
Wrote on the subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?:
>On 28 Oct 1997 07:40:17 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>>
>>>From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>>
>>>Hi Wonder Russ, remember this?
>>
>>Of course I remember. I'm clear. :-)
>
>Well then you shouldn't have any trouble recalling the numerous lies
>El Wrong told, his abandoning his family, sex magic games with parsons
>in Pasadena, and so on right WonderFool?
>
>Please try to say something, anything, to demonstrate that
>scientologists are willing to confront and respond to those known
>facts.
>
>Zane
Zane, don't push him please. This type of ppl that stands up for their
losing cult to the bitter end are very vurnerable. We never know what
they can do against themselves, their family, and their community when
they finally snap.
I think we'd better bear in mind, that those that still are supporting
this particularly nasty sect, are the hard nucleus and the most deluded
of any members the cult ever had. They are with outmost certainty
prepared to die for their beloved illusion and their nasty auditine
addiction, just as much as the ppl in Waco was prepared to go down
together with their cult leader David Koresh (sp?). I predict some
violent acts in the future from these kind of cultists. Remember the
affidavit that talks about the weapons this criminal cult have bought
over the years.
Take care Zane!
http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/bridge.ram
Paul
WONDERFULR wrote:
> Does it *ever* occur to loons like you that people who ~do~ things in life
> don't have the time or interest in "debate" that you and the other arsholes
> have?
No, not when so many Scientologists post here so often, and make it
quite clear from their postings that they read this newsgroup (dare I
say it) religiously.
The fact that you are here, for example, and have been here in the past,
puts the lie to your statement above (unless you are willing to admit
that you don't really "~do~" things in life). I also note that
RonsAmigo and I posted the same number of times last week, and that
wgert posted even more.
Additionally, your statement above doesn't include those of us who post
here and who still find time to "~do~" things in life. My time on
a.r.s. consumes less than one hour per day, leaving me plenty of time
for the other things that I do.
> When are you going to actually accomplish something in your own life? When are
> you going to actually DO something constructive?
Well, I've told the truth about the Church of Scientology[tm] quite a
few times this week. Personally, I feel that that is quite
constructive. As to the rest of my activities, they are none of your
business, but I assure you that many are quite constructive.
Debate is part and parcel of Usenet, like it or not. This is not AOL,
where you can have a "Big Wins[tm]" message group containing nothing of
substance, and have that enforced by Big Brother. If you post here, it
is assumed that you are prepared to defend your words and your views.
If you choose not to do that, you lose--it's that simple.
As evidence of this, examine the archives of this newsgroup. The number
of people who read this newsgroup, and the various web pages, and who
end up supporting the Scientology[tm] position is miniscule. Those who
read this newsgroup quickly realize that Scientologists are simply not
interested in open debate and open communication.
Personally, I'm saddened by this. I don't like winning by default. I'd
much rather take my chances in open debate knowing that I'll win some
and lose some. On other newsgroups, I've even had people convince me
that my position was incorrect through the power of their arguments.
That will never happen here because Scientologists like you are simply
not willing to engage in open communication with the rest of the world.
-Paul
Rob Clark
On 28 Oct 1997 07:01:14 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>Does it *ever* occur to loons like you that people who ~do~ things in life
> don't have the time or interest in "debate" that you and the other arsholes
> have?
you're right, people like ditch-diggers are usually too busy digging ditches
to do much debating. or for a more extreme example, scienos too busy
scrounging together enough cash for the next "course" are also usually too busy
to debate.
also, it's a good idea to stay away from debates when, like you, you happen to
be dumb as a sack of hammers.
rob
WONDERFULR
> Where did I go wrong, Russ? Help me out here.
>
> Hubbard says mental image pictures (sorry, I had thought it was
> "engrams") have changed body mass by as much as 30 pounds ACTUALLY
> MEASURED ON SCALES.
>
> Now, is this true or not?
>
> ** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
>
>
It does not seem (based on your other writings) to be true for you.
Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>From: z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
>Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 02:32 EST
>Message-id: <34b39429....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>Let me see, you have time to call us arsholes, make up snappy sayings
>like "Crap Charles", and wonder what others are doing with their time.
>
Well done on spotting that, Zane.
>But you don't have the time to respond to serious accusations about
>your hero El Wrong?
That is correct. What you think does not matter.
I am glad though, you thought "Crap Charles" was a snappy saying. I'd like to
see it catch on for everyone.
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 08:45 EST
>Message-id: <3456eb22...@news.sk.sympatico.ca>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On 28 Oct 1997 07:27:10 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
>wrote:
>
>>> What you are
>>>observing in the church today is their MISSED WITHHOLD as we
>on ARS are
>>>"PULLING"
>>
>>The only thing you are "pulling" is your own pud.
>>
>
>of posts in one group.
So glad you liked them, James.
> And absolutely no comm in any of it.
Re-read them all, James. There is lots of comm. Exactly the comm I intended.
Really.
> You
>managed to avoid any real discussion about your "religion". Well
>done. Are you on some sort of amends project?
>
I have no intention of "debating my religion" with you or anyone else here.
There is no possible benefit to what passes here for "discussion". And no - I
am not on any kind of amends project.
>Tell me something. Do you think it was ethically correct for
>Scientology to move into Clearwater, Florida under the guise of
>United Churches of Florida and Southern Land Development and
>Leasing to prevent people from knowing who they really were?
I will tell you something, James. It is common practice for really large
corporations to buy real estate anonymously. Same with other investments.
They can usually buy it on better terms that way. And it is not considered
"unethical" in any of the 50 states in the United States.
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 02:38 EST
>Message-id: <34b59631....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 28 Oct 1997 07:33:59 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>
>>Has Grady gotten ~everyone~ here to fixate on this sort of thing?
>
<Zane's poor manners snip>
This may come as a bit of a shock to you Zane - but I direct my attention where
*I* want it. You are free, of course, to have ~yours~ directed (or in this
case, STUCK).
Hope all is well.
WONDERFULR
>Message-id: <34b49556....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 28 Oct 1997 07:40:17 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>>
>>>From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>>
>>>Hi Wonder Russ, remember this?
>>
>>Of course I remember. I'm clear. :-)
>
<Zane's poor upbringing again snipped>
>
>Please try to say something, anything, to demonstrate that
>Scientologists are willing to confront <snip>
Hello Zane. Hope all is well with you and yours. Take care, buddy.
Mike O'Connor
In article <19971029055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
[...]
> Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
It had BETTER. That's the basis for lots of things, including NOTs 22,
"ANATEN". That's the one which explains that body thetan mental masses can
physically impinge upon nerves, cutting them off and causing deafness,
blindness, and catatonia. It goes on to explain how to use E-Meter
auditing to diagnose, treat, and cure these conditions. NOTs 22 is
available on the Internet, and people can see that is what it says for
themselves.
If the theory of mental mass is wrong, then NOTs 22 is wrong, and a LOT of
other things are wrong, like the explanation of how the E-Meter works. On
the other hand, Hubbard says conclusive tests have already been made, that
people have been weighed on actual scales. This is great, because if this
is fact, then NOTs 22 is fact and it proves that, despite what the FDA
says, the E-Meter can be used to help diagnose, treat, and cure physical
diseases like blindness, deafness, and catatonia!
THE E-METER DIET
Lose up to 30 pounds through E-Meter auditing! People would flock to
Scientology in droves, to get the deafness, blindness and catatonia cures,
and to lose weight. All the thriving cult of greed and power has to do is
show the disbelievers once and for all that mental mass is real. This
should be easy. Do it in public, and the money and converts will flow.
Scientology's golden age will finally begin. -Mike
MikeSmith3
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:41:47 -0800, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote:
>WONDERFULR wrote:
>> Does it *ever* occur to loons like you that people who ~do~
>> things in life don't have the time or interest in "debate" that
>>you and the other arsholes have?
---del
>Debate is part and parcel of Usenet, like it or not. This is not
>AOL, where you can have a "Big Wins[tm]" message group
>containing nothing of substance, and have that enforced by
>Big Brother. If you post here, it is assumed that you are
>prepared to defend your words and your views.
>If you choose not to do that, you lose--it's that simple.
Paul's convertible debating philosophy. Its pretty handy.
He just puts the top up when it rains.
==============================================
I rarely get involved in Usenet conflicts because 99.9% of the time, it's a
complete waste of time. On the other hand, I don't have any problem with
those that choose to engage themselves that way. Anyone who thinks those
kinds of debates are a waste of time can simply choose to refrain
from entering into the debate in the first place.
-Paul
Message-ID: <3325B5D4.5C2C@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
================================================
Zane
On 29 Oct 1997 06:13:02 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
><Zane's poor manners snip>
LOL! Are you related to Scarff?
>This may come as a bit of a shock to you Zane - but I direct my attention where
> *I* want it. You are free, of course, to have ~yours~ directed (or in this
> case, STUCK).
Really?
So when it's pointed out to you over and over again that hubbard was
lying, that he wasn't a nuclear scientist, war hero, or blood-brother
(as just a few of the many whoppers told by El Wrong), you simply pay
no attention at all? That would account for your apparent inability
to confront the obvious contradictions between what scientology says
about hubbard, and what the record says about him.
Zane
Zane
On 29 Oct 1997 06:17:48 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
><Zane's poor upbringing again snipped>
Heh, asking you to discuss know facts about El Wrong is poor
upbringing? At Ignoramus U I guess.
>>Please try to say something, anything, to demonstrate that
>>Scientologists are willing to confront <snip>
>
>Hello Zane. Hope all is well with you and yours. Take care, buddy.
Uh, I was refering to the actual Hubbard --- as opposed to the one
that lives in your fantasy world. Guess you really can't confront
the truth, eh buddy?
Zane
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:36 EST
>Message-id: <lepton-2910...@lepton.dialup.access.net>
>
>In article <19971029055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
>
>THE E-METER DIET
>
>Lose up to 30 pounds through E-Meter auditing! People would flock to
>Scientology in droves,
There is no "e-meter diet". And were not looking for people to "flock" to
Scientology - but to just walk in and get a book.
It's the folks here who "flock".
>show the disbelievers once and for all that mental mass is real. This
>should be easy.
Easy or not - why show disbelievers anything?
>Do it in public, and the money and converts will flow.
>Scientology's golden age will finally begin. -Mike
Thanks for the helpful input, Mike. But the money and converts DO flow
already. Or hadn't you noticed that was what had everyone here so upset?
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:14 EST
>Message-id: <34bed364....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 29 Oct 1997 05:59:17 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>
>>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
>
<Zane's rudeness snipped>
Hope all is well with you Zane. You are a terrific guy with good potential.
Take care.
Russell
WONDERFULR
>Message-id: <34bfd4b6....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 29 Oct 1997 06:13:02 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>><Zane's poor manners snip>
>
>LOL! Are you related to Scarff?
No. Are you related to the Thomas family in Edmonton? I have so many
questions on who is related to who (and I can see you do also) that you may
want to start some kind of chart or web page diagraming the who thing.
>
>>This may come as a bit of a shock to you Zane - but I direct my attention
>where
>> *I* want it. You are free, of course, to have ~yours~ directed (or in this
>> case, STUCK).
>
>Really?
Yes, Zane, really.
>
>So when it's pointed out to you over and over again that Hubbard was
<Zane's poor manners snip> you simply pay
>no attention at all?
That's right, Zane. I ignore most everything here. Wild, huh? I'm sure I'd
be a lot happier if I were to pattern my life after you - but for now, I'm so
damn happy doing it the way I've been doing it - I'm going to stick with that
for a while longer.
But do keep in touch. It's always nice to hear from an old friend.
Mike O'Connor
In article <19971029083...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
> >From: lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
> >Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:36 EST
> >Message-id: <lepton-2910...@lepton.dialup.access.net>
> >
> >In article <19971029055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> >wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
> >
(Did your copy of my posting include these two paragraphs?)
It had BETTER. That's the basis for lots of things, including NOTs 22,
"ANATEN". That's the one which explains that body thetan mental masses can
physically impinge upon nerves, cutting them off and causing deafness,
blindness, and catatonia. It goes on to explain how to use E-Meter
auditing to diagnose, treat, and cure these conditions. NOTs 22 is
available on the Internet, and people can see that is what it says for
themselves.
If the theory of mental mass is wrong, then NOTs 22 is wrong, and a LOT of
other things are wrong, like the explanation of how the E-Meter works. On
the other hand, Hubbard says conclusive tests have already been made, that
people have been weighed on actual scales. This is great, because if this
is fact, then NOTs 22 is fact and it proves that, despite what the FDA
says, the E-Meter can be used to help diagnose, treat, and cure physical
diseases like blindness, deafness, and catatonia!
> >THE E-METER DIET
> >
> >Lose up to 30 pounds through E-Meter auditing! People would flock to
> >Scientology in droves,
>
> There is no "e-meter diet". And were not looking for people to "flock" to
> Scientology - but to just walk in and get a book.
>
> It's the folks here who "flock".
>
> >show the disbelievers once and for all that mental mass is real. This
> >should be easy.
>
> Easy or not - why show disbelievers anything?
You want to show disbelievers a copy of Dianetics, don't you? All those TV
commercials?
> >Do it in public, and the money and converts will flow.
> >Scientology's golden age will finally begin. -Mike
>
> Thanks for the helpful input, Mike. But the money and converts DO flow
> already.
OK. They flow, but they don't flock.
> Or hadn't you noticed that was what had everyone here so upset?
You are confused. The huffle-ruffle here is not about religion. It's about
abuse of people, the law, and the Internet. -Mike
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In Message-ID: <19971029055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>> Where did I go wrong, Russ? Help me out here.
>>
>> Hubbard says mental image pictures (sorry, I had thought it was
>> "engrams") have changed body mass by as much as 30 pounds ACTUALLY
>> MEASURED ON SCALES.
>>
>> Now, is this true or not?
>>
>> ** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
>
>It does not seem (based on your other writings) to be true for you.
>
>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
Whoops. I seem to have stepped in that "it's true if it's true for
you" nonsense again.
I'm sorry, Russ, but whether you or I or anyone else thinks
something is true has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that
something actually occurs. The universe enforces it's own reality
regardless of what we happen to believe, even if we close our eyes
and believe REALLY REALLY HARD.
The usual example is people who get high on something and think
that they can fly. No doubt they believe this REALLY REALLY HARD.
This belief isn't necessarily a problem, of course, unless they
actually try to test it...
I'd ask you for a demonstration of this measureable loss in body
mass, but I'm pretty certain you'd turn me down. Shall I run
through the usual list of excuses for you? Check all that apply.
[ ] I'm a hateful religious bigot and you aren't doing ANYTHING
for the likes of ME.
[ ] This is SPIRITUAL, so even if you did demonstrate it I
wouldn't understand it.
[ ] It's true for YOU and that's all that matters.
Feel free to add any I may have missed.
Oh, and Russell? Believe whatever you want - that mental image
pictures can alter body weight, that Scientology is expanding, that
humans evolved from clams or that L. Ron Hubbard was a nuclear
physicist.
Just don't test it. You probably won't fly.
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
Looks like it's time to update "Testing Scientology for under $50".
Look for it soon on a newsserver near you!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNFc/A4Cmc8kif9MJAQFebQQAiXURFeEtl2OKvNn+I1QSuDS8K/n9rAJm
Ky0jw0JksItmTCeSniyF6dfDs1JhPBQQvcsZ8SOw5uU+wmlrfCvx4bps1dQG111y
TC4AZkCqFL/6M4gOF7/it6M8ncQVPyZrc9pbqjhfI3m5hfjCIFppHLWl8xiHANRu
8BjHto05Ag4=
=3A43
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) brewed up the following, and served it to
the group:
>> Where did I go wrong, Russ? Help me out here.
>>
>> Hubbard says mental image pictures (sorry, I had thought it was
>> "engrams") have changed body mass by as much as 30 pounds ACTUALLY
>> MEASURED ON SCALES.
>>
>> Now, is this true or not?
>>
>> ** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
>>
>>
>
>It does not seem (based on your other writings) to be true for you.
>
>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
>
How so, please?
Physically speaking, the only way "mental mass" could affect body weight
is if the actual *mass* of the mind changes. How does this occur through
$cientology?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNFdgC6n8flYc1m/ZAQFVjAf9Fv+dQie/UETwwluZq17elpzm+Jm61/5+
xp+giX3xduMKWJnSUPVd6pht1CsY4/XpxuMehmxYIC3nVWoYosZ92N7UIOntJYJL
7ZRFWnM8PyySQB5CWywAovzsELNVJjEz8Lzsdn2/RfmGOlJG0RxQ2iKiyrzkeRgu
EVHqEKgtQ5UX/ZM+XJe9SHA/VIVKiAjoRThF60ydDQW6f0XVdf1zH5BLx6fxM1bQ
Hg1bE5/D/Oiv5Jdlwg7ltQ7obbvgxD6/jIdlh3auxTitynIyzGYa9KeBaWHdzsj6
utnJgslKGnatg+yp0uUwCA6d7CDkP2sThtv6y9nI8EjJMH788U5zFA==
=2+yQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
"Death to all fanatics!"
--Malaclypse the Younger
the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains
bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
*SP2*
...bc...
Paul
MikeSmith3 wrote:
Oh, how nice to have someone archive my posts, even if you don't
understand them.
I freely admit, though, that the fault was mine for using the word
"debate" in my earlier post. That should have been "flame war" rather
than debate. Sorry, no inconsistency at all.
I love to engage in free *debate* on quite a few topics. I rarely get
involved in *flame wars* because they're a waste of time.
Now, if you'd like to get involved in a debate on any subject regarding
Scientology, please let me know and I'll be pleased to participate. If,
on the other, you'd like to get involved in a flame war or other
meaningless activity where no real information is exchanged, count me
out.
-Paul
Paul
WONDERFULR wrote:
> I have never been interested in "facts" about Ron Hubbard.
>
> It makes no difference to me if the "facts" come from the church, from Ron or
> from someone who (like you) hates Ron Hubbard.
>
> There is NOTHING I can **__DO__** with those "facts". Nothing.
If that's the case, then why did you put all that effort into your "ars
bigots" web page? Why should you expect anyone to care about the
dead-agenting "facts" that you post about, for example, Vaughn Young?
Do I detect the stench of hypocrisy?
-Paul
Zane
On 29 Oct 1997 08:40:18 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>Mental mass? What is mental mass
>
><Zane's rudeness snipped>
>
>Hope all is well with you Zane. You are a terrific guy with good potential.
> Take care.
There you have it, that's how scientologists answer questions about
their wonderfool "proven technology".
Zane
Paul
WONDERFULR wrote:
> I have never been interested in "facts" about Ron Hubbard.
Neither is the Church of Scientology[tm]. The bilge they continue to
pump out about Hubbard's life bears little resemblance to the truth.
[snip]
> There is NOTHING I can **__DO__** with those "facts". Nothing.
Well, actually, there is, but you choose not to. There's a difference.
If Scientologists were willing to confront the truth about Hubbard's
life, then they could insist that the leaders of the Church of
Scientology[tm] also confront the truth. The Church would stop lying in
its documents, in its recruiting literature, and on its web sites and
the world would be a better place.
[snip]
> The WORK of Ron Hubbard has helped me achieve a level of success that I would
> have only dreamed about in the past. And it has done the same for countless
> others all over the world. Nothing you or any of the morons here say is ever
> going to change any of that.
Actually, what has been said here *has* had an effect, and it will
continue to have an effect. You see, unlike you, others *are*
interested in the truth about Hubbard and about the *actions and
policies* of the Church of Scientology[tm]. The net has had an enormous
impact on the spread of information about the Church of
Scientology[tm]. The leaders of the Church of Scientology[tm] are well
aware of this and have attacked those who post to this newsgroup. Your
"ars bigots" web page is one prong of that attack, as you are well
aware.
[snip]
> I am not interested in "confronting" the crap here.
Neither is the Church of Scientology[tm]. What they're interested in
doing is shutting down the free flow of information about the Church,
about Hubbard, and about the "tech".
The trouble is that they will continue to get away with this as long as
Scientologists like you allow them to. The first step toward fixing a
problem is acknowledging that it exists. Sadly, neither you nor the
Church of Scientology[tm] is interested in taking this first step.
> Got bored with that stuff
> a LONG time ago. But don't let me stop you from your "valuable work".
You won't. Telling the truth is always valuable work and it will
continue, with or without you.
-Paul
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In Message-ID: <19971029060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
[snip]
>I will tell you something, James. It is common practice for really large
>corporations to buy real estate anonymously. Same with other investments.
>They can usually buy it on better terms that way.
*ANONYMOUSLY*, yes. But they DON'T lie about who they are.
Corporation XYZ doesn't claim to be Company ABC. Corporation XYZ
simply has its agents tell the sellers that their client wishes to
remain anonymous.
>And it is not considered
>"unethical" in any of the 50 states in the United States.
I'd have to say lying about your identity to buy something, that
you KNEW would probably not have been sold to you had the sellers
known who you were, is unethical ANYWHERE. Unless we're talking
about Scientology "ethics" - those don't always coincide with what
most people consider ethical.
Lies are okay in Scientology, you see. Hubbard said that one
should never tell HARMFUL lies, but it's quite okay to lie if that
will somehow benefit Scientology. The "greatest good for the
greatest number of dynamics" and all that, with benefit to
Scientology (the only path to Mankind's Salvation, you know)
outranking any harm to mere people, cities or civilizations.
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
Another helpful Hubbard quote:
"I am not interested in wog morality. I am only interested in
getting this show on the road and keeping it there."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 15/8/67
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNFdsL4Cmc8kif9MJAQH73QP+IXo5EX6mspIMhLmJmcTj7CWiTURNfldr
2yXMDa5uPxGlSxTfuFs4qgZHhrws/SvhwF22HzafsrBpPoi2oGRwTQzaCvHQL2aP
hb0ZLyYdY3EW+cO9R9yLwXSr+JFqvi6dl7DsX8LLuIt3f4paATYTPIdIzlqU/MA+
BB7dwI/M0Bc=
=EpdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zane
On 29 Oct 1997 05:45:47 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>But you don't have the time to respond to serious accusations about
>>your hero El Wrong?
>
>That is correct. What you think does not matter.
Spoken like a true scientologist, all claims no substantiation all the
time. Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate to the lurkers how
utterly devoid of substance scientology really is.
>I am glad though, you thought "Crap Charles" was a snappy saying. I'd like to
> see it catch on for everyone.
Better go wordclear sarcasm wonderfool.
Zane
Zane
On 29 Oct 1997 09:02:13 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>I have never been interested in "facts" about Ron Hubbard.
Thanks for admitting the obvious.
>There is NOTHING I can **__DO__** with those "facts". Nothing.
Actually you could use them to consider the likely veracity of the
hubspew you consume. See following...
>With the *TECHNOLOGY* there is LOTS that I can do. I have observed it to work
> in helping me (a LOT) and I have observed it work for others.
Why are there no scientific studies of your alleged *TECHNOLOGY*
wonderfool? I'll help you out here, because scientology doesn't have
any theories or technology. Your observations are of no more value
than those of people who say that dripping chicken-blood in the middle
of an upside down star inscribed on the earth under the fool moon is
responsible for making things "go right" for them.
>The WORK of Ron Hubbard has helped me achieve a level of success that I would
> have only dreamed about in the past. And it has done the same for countless
> others all over the world. Nothing you or any of the morons here say is ever
> going to change any of that.
Actually, wonderfool, if you have achieved anything there is
apparently no way you can establish a causal connection between
scientology and what you have done. Further it could easily be the
case that you would be doing better if you gave up your superstitious
view of life and the world. What do you scientologists say? Isn't it
something like "try it and see if it works for you?" Well,
wonderfool, give up scientology life without superstitious beliefs
works!
>So someone offering "proof" that Ron Hubbard once had "really bad breath" or
> some other equally irrelevant nonsense about his ex-wife or upstairs neighbor
> from 1942 or something snipped from his service record - is ALL of NO
> consequence to me.
So you don't think it matters that your great "spiritual" leader was a
liar, fraud, and conman?
> I *know* Ron Hubbard's technology works.
> Scientologists don't need "permission" from you or anyone else to live our
> lives the way we want.
No you don't. There's a difference between knowledge and belief, the
difference is recognized by people who actually understand the value
of rational thought.
>I am willing to confront things that are of value to me.
Then give up your illusions wonderfool, they really are of no value to
you.
>I am not interested in "confronting" the crap here. Got bored with that stuff
> a LONG time ago.
Uh huh, so why are you here then? Open your eyes wonderfool, you've
been lied to.
Zane
Martin Hunt
In article <19971029055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
Are you a looney-tunes fruit bat who lost his marbles in the
Scientology cult? Yes.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.
Martin Hunt
>Here is a list of "clever zingers" for you to use in future posts.
From where, rip-off artist? You left no attribution.
>> Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
...
You learned at the feet of Elron the Plagiarist, no doubt.
alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971029090...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:21 EST
>>Message-id: <34c0d569....@snews.zippo.com>
>>
>>On 29 Oct 1997 06:17:48 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>><Zane's poor upbringing again snipped>
Dear Russ,
This is where ARS really shines against the charlatan Church of Scientology.
It reveals the COS Customers' inability to look at what they believe.
You're not so much avoiding confrontation (a "must" for you). You're just
avoiding seeing the mind-cage you have given your mind to.
Petty jabs and insults aside, no one here can really claim, with
satisfaction, that you are not an intelligent person. Russ you're a grown
man defending something you won't acknowledge the abusiveness of. If you'll
step back and look at this thread, you'll see you have been an embarrassment
for Scientology. You're being the football player whose coach sent into the
game with, "Give it all you have". But you should clear, "all you have".
Russ you have (but don't use) the ability to look at Hubbard's embarrassing
past which COS ordered Gerry Armstrong to withold from Hubbard's biography.
This has been an effective swindle. If I had known these things, I wouldn't
have bought $111,822.26 worth of Scientology's equally covered-up services
and products. COS's lies are Grand Larceny by false
promise--misrepresentations (lies), non-disclosures (witholds), and
coercive, abusive enforced reality. Those qualify for "Original Overts",
for which we are suppressing Scientology--as justified in Step 3 of the
Doubt Formula.
But the world has watched your demonstration of Scientologists' denial and
delusion in these posts, on this thread, on this newsgroup,
Alt.Religion.Scientology. I can imagine you give your best efforts in other
pursuits, but you have performed poorly for COS in not "looking at"
Hubbard's wrongs--and the world has witnessed.
Incidentally you never responded to my post on this thread entitled, "Russ's
Prior Confusion". Are you avoiding it? I point out some genuine COS
"Original Overts", and I point out Hubbard's major "Prior Confusion".
My purpose is not in insulting you Russ. I am demonstrating for you that
you are not truthfully examining the religion you have adopted. This
non-examination is the nature of Scientology. It is your training and your
coerced reaction. Take a look at it Russell. Even if you don't respond to
it, it will enrich your viewpoint.
Yours,
David Alexander
BP
In article <19971029090...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, wonde...@aol.com says...
>
>I am not interested in "confronting" the crap here. Got bored with that stuff
>
>
Yeah, that's why you are posting 10X more these days.
Must be hurting, Wonderful ASSHOLE.
Zane
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:39:38 +0000, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34bed364....@snews.zippo.com>,
>Zane <z_th...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>If you pop off a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb the amount of mass converted
>>to energy is something like 1 gram.
>
>Er, no, I thought is was of the order of a millionth of a gram.
Not according to Feynman, see bottom of page 70 in the recently
released Six Not-So-Easy-Pieces. The chapter is called The
Special Theory of Relativity which I believe can also be found
in the last of the three volume Lectures on Physics. Can't
verify that at the moment since those are buried somewhere in
50 boxes of books I have stacked against the wall.
Zane
LilAlex742
One of the Mike Smiths wrote about something Paul wrote:
>>Debate is part and parcel of Usenet, like it or not. This is not
>>AOL, where you can have a "Big Wins[tm]" message group
>>containing nothing of substance, and have that enforced by
>>Big Brother. If you post here, it is assumed that you are
>>prepared to defend your words and your views.
>>If you choose not to do that, you lose--it's that simple.
>
>Paul's convertible debating philosophy. Its pretty handy.
>He just puts the top up when it rains.
>
>==============================================
>I rarely get involved in Usenet conflicts because 99.9% of the time, it's a
> complete waste of time. On the other hand, I don't have any problem with
> those that choose to engage themselves that way. Anyone who thinks those
> kinds of debates are a waste of time can simply choose to refrain
>from entering into the debate in the first place.
Mike, I am at a loss to understand why you seem to think Paul's statements
conflict with each other. Do you really think they do? Or are you simply
implying they do, because at first glance, they kind of look like they might?
It is quite obvious to me that these two statements do not conflict. You are
implying a hypocrisy that does not exist, and hoping that no one will notice.
Shame. Shame. Or is it Sham. Sham.?
Geoffrey Burling
Wonderfuller responded to my earlier post in a striking generic manner
for a Scientologist. I had asked:
>>Well, what puzzles me is that David Alexander (who is the guy up there
>>with three chevrons before his text) asked the CoS what
>>overts/withholds THEY had that drew ARS after them, & Wonderfuller's
>>response was to state what overts/withholds ARS had that drew them to
>>the CoS.
>>
>>In otherwords, Wonderfuler didn't understand the question. Must have
>>been a Misunderstood Word there, Russ. Dig out the dictionary, & start
>>word clearing each & every one of those little buggers in David's
>>post.
>>
>>For the record, I'm still not sure why I started posting to ARS. I had
>>the itch long before Jairus Godeka decided to walk into the Salmon
>>Street offices of the Cos & start shooting people. Maybe Hubbard was
>>right: overts & withholds pull that stuff in. One day, sitting in
>>front of a computer at Transport Logic, I decided to check out
>>alt.religion.scientology, & from that moment the fun never ended.
>>
Note that Wonderfuller does not respond to the paragraphs above.
Instead, he responds to the last two paragraphs thusly:
>>
>>And for the record, it doesn't matter to me if you word clear the
>>above, Russ. Or if you consider your overts & withholds, either.
>
>Thanks Geoff. I feel SO much better.
>
>> I can
>>continue my life without worry if you achieve a more ethical or sane
>>existence; but can you continue your existence knowing that I might
>>post again to ARS - today, tomorrow, or maybe next week?
>
>Yes. You now have my permission (since you seem to be asking) to post here -
> or anywhere else - you like.
>
>Communicate a lot. Often. Is okay with me.
>
And so forth, etc.
Now it could be that I had insulted him, when the point of my post was
to make Wonderfuller think for himself. I wasn't looking for an
answer, not even an ``ack" (if I have the Scieno lingo down right),
just trying to plant the idea in his head that MAYBE he's in a state
of denial, that he's been handed a plate of BS, & no matter how hard
he tries it's not gonna turn into gold.
What is interesting is that David Alexander dealt with those first few
paragraphs in a post in another thread, & provided a careful, reasoned
response. As a result, I printed it off & took the time to understand
what David said. Now I may not agree with him - I doubt I agree with
everything any other poster writes here - but at least David had the
honesty & integrity to confront the point I tried to make, & explain
some things I did not understand. I can be sure that David, at least
read & thought about my post.
I guess Wonderfuller doesn't want to understand what I said. From what
I've seen, people who belong to the CoS aren't interested in anything
outside of their own, limited world.
If Wonderfuller feels he was insulted by original post, I apologize.
If he doesn't want to confront the point I made in that post, well, I
don't worry about making other people my slaves, & what he does with
what I say is his own business.
But you are trying to keep a latern under a basket, Wonderfuller. And
eventually this action is goining to get you burnt. And I promise that
if I'm around, I won't say ``I tell you so."
Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore
Return address altered to foil spambots. Change ``cyberpromo"
to``agora", & your email will reach me.
Jim Bianchi
>> >Debate is part and parcel of Usenet, like it or not. This is not
>> >AOL, where you can have a "Big Wins[tm]" message group
>> >containing nothing of substance, and have that enforced by
>> >Big Brother. If you post here, it is assumed that you are
>> >prepared to defend your words and your views.
>> >If you choose not to do that, you lose--it's that simple.
>>
>> Paul's convertible debating philosophy. Its pretty handy.
>> He just puts the top up when it rains.
>>
>> ==============================================
>> I rarely get involved in Usenet conflicts because 99.9% of the time, it's a
>> complete waste of time. On the other hand, I don't have any problem with
Youre entirely right here, Paul. Someone once said something about
how, by the second reply (or followup) any given thread has deteriorated
into "you're an asshole," and "well, you're one too!" In other words, it is
extr- emely unlikely -- if the point hasn't been made in the first post --
it will be made in an extended exchange. I've been involved myself in quite
a few BBS network (FIDO) and local debates, as well as debates here on
a.r.s. and this seems generally true. Esp here on a.r.s., where scient-
ologists seem to never really confront a fact when it is presented.
>> those that choose to engage themselves that way. Anyone who thinks those
>> kinds of debates are a waste of time can simply choose to refrain
>> from entering into the debate in the first place.
Right on, again. Trouble is, most scientologists seem to have a
somewhat different definition of the word 'debate' than that used by the
rest of the world; apparantly they think it means 'giving unconfirmed
assertions and apocryphal big win stories in support of their bizarre
claims.'
>Now, if you'd like to get involved in a debate on any subject regarding
>Scientology, please let me know and I'll be pleased to participate. If,
>on the other, you'd like to get involved in a flame war or other
>meaningless activity where no real information is exchanged, count me
>out.
Ok. How about a debate on the topic: Resolved: Scientology is an
inherently ethical organisation? I'll let you start.
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279
Zane
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:07:31 GMT, t...@ibexbsc.com.xenu.antispam
(Ted) wrote:
>If you don't know what "mental mass" is, just say so.
But Ted, Hubby said that you could measure the loss of mental mass by
weighing people on scales! Wonderfool must simply believe that.
Of course if Hubby wasn't a fraud, and actually knew something about
physics (nuclear (newclear?) or otherwise) then he would have known
how absurd and stupid his claims are.
Zane
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 11:54 EST
>Message-id: <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
>
>WONDERFULR (wonde...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>: With the *TECHNOLOGY* there is LOTS that I can do. I have observed it
>: to work in helping me (a LOT) and I have observed it work for others.
>: would have only dreamed about in the past.
>
>does not help you in the real world, while there are things such as a
>technical education which do.
This is a pretty good example of you talking about something you don't know
anything about.
You have NO idea about the success I am talking about. None.
The *education* I have received in Scientology has enabled me to SOAR to the
top of my profession. By *any* standard anyone in my industry would EVER have
- I am at the top. Period.
The conditions technology ~alone~ enables to keep my business expanding and be
able to debug others if they are having a problem. I have LOTS of friends
(who are NOT Scientologists) who routinely call upon me if they get in a jam.
But thanks for your meaningful input.
>
>Yep, and smack addicts *know* that the feeling they get from shooting up
>is the greatest thing in their lives.
You tell me - HOW would you define success in business or life? Write here:
>Keith Henson
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>From: bpe...@primenet.com (BP)
>Must be hurting, Wonderful ASSHOLE.
I just love the way you are willing to talk like this when you are safely out
of reach. I can't imagine you being that rude to me in person.
But this ~ is~ the level of the "conversation" here.
MikeSmith3
On 29 Oct 1997 17:21:00 -0700, bpe...@primenet.com (BP) wrote:
>In article <19971029090...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, wonde...@aol.com
says...
>>
>>I am not interested in "confronting" the crap here.
>>Got bored with that stuff a LONG time ago. But don't
>> let me stop you from your "valuable work".
>>
>>Russell
>>
>
>Yeah, that's why you are posting 10X more these days.
>Must be hurting, Wonderful ASSHOLE.
>
Russell,
BP continues to live up to his reputation as the Leon
Spinks of the rejoinder. He keeps tripping on his trunks.
Mike
Zane
On 30 Oct 1997 07:46:50 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>But this ~ is~ the level of the "conversation" here.
Conversation? What do you know about conversation Mister ARS Bigot's
Page?
When you learn how to discuss important criticisms of Hubbard's lies
and "theories" then I'll believe you have some interest in
conversation. Until then it sounds pretty damned hollow coming from
you.
Zane
Zane
On 30 Oct 1997 07:58:54 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it up
> here - but that IS what happens.
Why not?
You've been asked the question, you profess to know the answer, so
take it up.
Zane
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 12:17 EST
>Message-id: <199710291717...@nym.alias.net>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In Message-ID: <19971029060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>[snip]
>>I will tell you something, James. It is common practice for really large
>>corporations to buy real estate anonymously. Same with other investments.
>>They can usually buy it on better terms that way.
>
> *ANONYMOUSLY*, yes. But they DON'T lie about who they are.
> Corporation XYZ doesn't claim to be Company ABC. Corporation XYZ
> simply has its agents tell the sellers that their client wishes to
> remain anonymous.
>
Do you actually KNOW this - or did it just sound good for a reply?
How much do you really know about large commercial real estate purchases? Did
you know, for instance, that ALL buyers have the RIGHT to *assign* their
rights in a contract to another buyer?
That corporation "A" may buy it and sell it to corporation "B". Happens EVERY
day.
>>And it is not considered
>>"unethical" in any of the 50 states in the United States.
>
> I'd have to say lying about your identity to buy something, that
> you KNEW would probably not have been sold to you had the sellers
> known who you were, is unethical ANYWHERE.
This is a somewhat silly statement. The identity of the buyer is of NO
relevance. In residential real estate this is so true that it is against
federal law in the U.S. to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, family
status, etc. It is called "Fair Housing Laws"
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In Message-ID: <19971030080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
[snip]
>> *ANONYMOUSLY*, yes. But they DON'T lie about who they are.
>> Corporation XYZ doesn't claim to be Company ABC. Corporation XYZ
>> simply has its agents tell the sellers that their client wishes to
>> remain anonymous.
>
>Do you actually KNOW this - or did it just sound good for a reply?
Both? I've heard of companies buying land anonymously, but never
of them claiming to be another non-existent company when they do so.
Have you?
>How much do you really know about large commercial real estate purchases?
Very little, I admit. If you can come up with some examples of
companies outright LYING about their identities to purchase
property, I'll certainly be willing to admit that it does happen.
But whether it happens doesn't change the fact that it's
unethical. Perhaps not ILLEGAL (a lawyer-type might be able to
make a case for fraud, I suppose) but UNETHICAL. And again, I'm
talking about good ol' WOG ethics, not the "anything for the good
of Scientology" ethics L. Ron espoused.
>Did
>you know, for instance, that ALL buyers have the RIGHT to *assign* their
>rights in a contract to another buyer?
>
>That corporation "A" may buy it and sell it to corporation "B". Happens EVERY
>day.
Okay - so what? "United Churches" NEVER EXISTED. It wasn't some
buyer that bought the property and then transferred it to the COS,
it was a fictitious entity the COS invented out of whole cloth!
>> I'd have to say lying about your identity to buy something, that
>> you KNEW would probably not have been sold to you had the sellers
>> known who you were, is unethical ANYWHERE.
>
>This is a somewhat silly statement. The identity of the buyer is of NO
>relevance. In residential real estate this is so true that it is against
>federal law in the U.S. to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, family
>status, etc. It is called "Fair Housing Laws"
Well, to start with we aren't talking about residential real estate
but commercial. And secondly, we aren't talking about an individual
but about an organization, one that hadn't even been "recognized as
a religion by the IRS!" yet. How this effects the discrimination
laws I have no idea.
But none of that changes the fact that the COS acted unethically,
that THEY LIED. They could easily have gotten some lawyer to buy
the property anonymously. They could have had one of their members
buy the property in his name and transfer it to the COS. But no,
they invented the fictitious entity "United Churches" and bought the
property that way, taking the first of many steps to insure that
the city of Clearwater despised them utterly!
As we like to say on ARS, "another Big Win for Scientology!"
Could we just skip to the heart of this matter, Russ? Could you
apply your no-doubt considerable knowledge of Scientology Ethics
and tell us under what circumstances it is okay to lie to people?
Is it always okay if the COS does it, because they are, after all
"the only hope for Mankind"? Is it okay to lie to the media and to
governments because they're suppressive organizations and are
controlled by the World-Wide Psych Conspiracy anyway?
When is it okay to fib, prevaricate, fabricate, misrepresent, tell
an "acceptable truth(tm)" or Lie Like A Motherfucker?
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
And while I've got you here, could I be on your Suppressive Bigots
web page? I know it'll be hard listing my crimes because I'm
anonymous and all, but feel free to invent whatever you want.
After all, it's for the good of Scientology, isn't it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNFiUcYCmc8kif9MJAQEeOwP/ZOw/+Zt+2EFrRoJ6FDTECye3Y85whyVL
XsgZ9SoAHC+bKHE+ovviBbJ1yqkuGFtenO0OQ8FBn7FZMQQPKIXuYjiGE7OyhHsB
Hir1Yn32rcdgoonIPVaPTlexn7L93OajHH5AYIyfKzL36aXSVazUTwxeQeoQqPf9
vK3yi3rIYmU=
=w++s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jim Bianchi
On 30 Oct 1997 08:05:58 GMT, WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: Paper Tiger <paper...@nym.alias.net>
>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 12:17 EST
>>Message-id: <199710291717...@nym.alias.net>
>>
>>
>>In Message-ID: <19971029060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>I will tell you something, James. It is common practice for really large
>>>corporations to buy real estate anonymously. Same with other investments.
>>>They can usually buy it on better terms that way.
>>
>> Corporation XYZ doesn't claim to be Company ABC. Corporation XYZ
>> simply has its agents tell the sellers that their client wishes to
>> remain anonymous.
>>
>
>Do you actually KNOW this - or did it just sound good for a reply?
>
> you know, for instance, that ALL buyers have the RIGHT to *assign* their
> rights in a contract to another buyer?
>
>That corporation "A" may buy it and sell it to corporation "B". Happens EVERY
> day.
>
>>>"unethical" in any of the 50 states in the United States.
>>
>> you KNEW would probably not have been sold to you had the sellers
>> known who you were, is unethical ANYWHERE.
>
>This is a somewhat silly statement. The identity of the buyer is of NO
> relevance. In residential real estate this is so true that it is against
> federal law in the U.S. to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, family
> status, etc. It is called "Fair Housing Laws"
"Fair Housing Laws" are applicable to INDIVIDUALS. If I'm not
mistaken, the topic under consideration is the (unethical) behavior of
CORPORATIONS when buying real estate. It IS quite possible to discriminate
against the buying of property by a corporation, for any reason at all. In
corporate scenarios (not individual), the identity is perhaps one of the
mahor factors involved in any type of real estate deal.
And I'll point out that even if your bizarre reasoning re: the
importance of identity is correct (it isn't), your response scarcely answ-
ers the statement, but what's new for scientologists, who seem to've taken a
course in "introducing red herrings" into args.
Paul
WONDERFULR wrote:
> The *education* I have received in Scientology has enabled me to SOAR to the
> top of my profession. By *any* standard anyone in my industry would EVER have
> - I am at the top. Period.
It's interesting, then, Russ, that I've never heard of you. I know the
people at the top of my profession and you're not among them. Would you
care to tell us just how you've distinguished yourself in your
profession?
I've examined the study materials offered by the Church of
Scientology[tm]. To a computer programmer, such as myself, they're
essentially worthless.
By any measure you care to make, we have seen absolutely no correlation
between the "education" offered by the Church of Scientology[tm] and
success in the real world. The Church of Scientology[tm] has *never*
provided *any* evidence that *any* of its "technology" works.
Where are the great scientists who use the "tech" to reach the pinnacle
of their profession? How many Nobel prize winners were Scientologists?
Where are the great artists who use the "tech" to improve their art?
How many Pulitzer prize winners were Scientologists? Where are the
financial wizards who have used the "tech" to improve their fortunes?
How many of the richest men in the world are Scientologists? Where are
the entrepeneurs and inventors who have used the "tech" to chart new
territories? How many of today's successful companies were founded by
Scientologists? How many of today's inventions were created by
Scientologists?
If all you're talking about is personal satisfaction, then I won't argue
with you, because that's nearly impossible to quantify and measure.
Regrettably, the Church of Scientology[tm] doesn't restrict its claims
to personal satisfaction. Instead, they offer extravagant claims, not
backed up by *any* evidence, in the hopes of reeling in people such as
yourself.
> The conditions technology ~alone~ enables to keep my business expanding and be
> able to debug others if they are having a problem.
You can "debug others"? Interesting...
> I have LOTS of friends
> (who are NOT Scientologists) who routinely call upon me if they get in a jam.
And your point is? I'll match your list, friend for friend, Russ. Any
competent technical person always gets called on by friends in today's
society. I'll also match my career against yours. Care to take up the
challenge?
-Paul
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <34ceb799....@snews.zippo.com>, Zane writes:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:39:38 +0000, Dave Bird wrote:
>>In article <34bed364....@snews.zippo.com>, rites:
>>>
>>>If you pop off a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb the amount of mass converted
>>>to energy is something like 1 gram.
>>
>>Er, no, I thought is was of the order of a millionth of a gram.
>
>Not according to Feynman, see bottom of page 70 in the recently
>released Six Not-So-Easy-Pieces.
You may be right. I have read a statement to the effect that
total conversion of 2 or 3 grams, etc, but I didn't check the
math. A little diddling around suggests that a million tonnes
of explosive must release about 10^17th Joules, speed of light
(in mtrs/sec) squared is around 10^19th, so the equivalent mass
is---10 grams? So I'm an order of ten too high. Yes, a gram
or so. Shoulda checked the math on that statement at the time,
not just believed it.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'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(:)
Paul
WONDERFULR wrote:
> >From: lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
> >You are confused. The huffle-ruffle here is not about religion. It's about
> >abuse of people, the law, and the Internet. -Mike
>
> If that was ~really~ true then why the endless postings of copywrited material
> (with all the debate about if it is *really* copywrited).
The "endless postings of copywrited [sic] material" all fall under the
Fair Use doctrine of the copyright law. The reason that the material is
posted is that it is the only way to talk about the Church of
Scientology[tm] in any kind of meaninful way. For example, I can talk
about the policy that led to Lisa McPherson's death, but unless I can
post a portion of the Introspection Rundown and discuss the relevant
sections, that discussion will be stripped of content and meaning.
That is true of just about every topic regarding the *actions* and
*policies* of the leaders of the Church of Scientology[tm]. Posting the
relevant sections of the HCOB's and HCOPL's provides the context for the
discussion and makes the point much more convincing.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, about religion.
> Why the endless posts on how awful the ~beliefs~ are?
You must be reading a different newsgroup than I am. I've heard no one
claim that the *beliefs* are "awful". I've seen a few people in a few
postings point out that the Xenu story is rather silly, but I've also
seen other people point out that stories from other religions are
equally silly.
I have seen quite a few people, including me, point out that some of the
*policies* of the Church of Scientology[tm] are "awful", including the
Introspection Rundown, the Purification Rundown, Fair Game, etc., but
that is not the same things as *beliefs*.
Personally, I don't care what you *believe*. What I care about is your
*actions* and the *actions* of the leaders of the Church of
Scientology[tm].
-Paul
Anti-Cult
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:19:15 GMT.
z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane).
From: None.
Wrote on the subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?:
Nono Zane, number one is no verbal tech, number two is never give it
away for free:-)
Easy way to avoid answering questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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......
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bianchi
On 30 Oct 1997 07:50:27 GMT, WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 10:03 EST
>>Message-id: <lepton-2910...@lepton.dialup.access.net>
>>
>
>>OK. They flow, but they don't flock.
>>
>>> Or hadn't you noticed that was what had everyone here so upset?
>>
>>You are confused. The huffle-ruffle here is not about religion. It's about
>>abuse of people, the law, and the Internet. -Mike
>>
>
>If that was ~really~ true then why the endless postings of copywrited material
> (with all the debate about if it is *really* copywrited).
>
> religion?
IF scientology was a religion, you might have a point. But it isn't
and you don't. Sorry. Try again.
Jim Bianchi
On 30 Oct 1997 07:39:25 GMT, WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 11:54 EST
>>Message-id: <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
>>
>>WONDERFULR (wonde...@aol.com) wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>: With the *TECHNOLOGY* there is LOTS that I can do. I have observed it
>>: to work in helping me (a LOT) and I have observed it work for others.
>>: The WORK of Ron Hubbard has helped me achieve a level of success that I
>>: would have only dreamed about in the past.
>>
>>People on heroin say much the same thing. What you get from Scientology
>>does not help you in the real world, while there are things such as a
>>technical education which do.
>
>This is a pretty good example of you talking about something you don't know
> anything about.
>
>You have NO idea about the success I am talking about. None.
>
> top of my profession. By *any* standard anyone in my industry would EVER have
> - I am at the top. Period.
Ok, I'm very skeptical, but I'm willing to listen to a well reasoned
arg. You might start by telling us in what industry you are 'at the top.'
And if scn is solely responsible for this 'being at the top,' why we don't
see more notable examples of scn-education in the arts, sciences and
humanities? When was the last time a scieno (or a scieno trained individual)
was nominated for the Nobel prize in anything? What was the last breakthrough
in physics by a scieno? Where are all the elegant discourses on jurisprudence,
or ethics by scienos? When was the last time a major medical discovery was
made by a scieno? When was the last time you (or anyone) saw a Really Neat
sculpture or painting or heard a significant bit of music by a scieno? If
you consider they now claim (at least) 8,000,000 members and have been in
existance as a group for going on for 50 years now, there'd be more than
just a significant number of these things -- esp considering the effect on
recruitment they'd have..
---
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 10:22 EST
>Message-id: <63a8mo$c...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>
>In article <19971030074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com says...
>
>>
>>I just love the way you are willing to talk like this when you are safely
>out
>> of reach. I can't imagine you being that rude to me in person.
>>
>
>Saturday, Nov. 1. PLEASE stop by and let me rude to you.
Are you saying you would stand there and call me names like "asshole"? Is
that part of Jeff's "picket tech"? I don't think so, but if you really want
to take it to that level - it is fine with me.
But I'll pick the time. Not you.
GBW1
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>From: bpe...@primenet.com (BP)
>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 10:22 EST
>Message-id: <63a8mo$c...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>
>In article <19971030074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com says...
>
>>
>>I just love the way you are willing to talk like this when you are safely
>out
>> of reach. I can't imagine you being that rude to me in person.
>>
>>But this ~ is~ the level of the "conversation" here.
>
>I will be picketing the Mesa Mi$$ion from 9:00 to 10:30 AM,
>Saturday, Nov. 1. PLEASE stop by and let me rude to you.
>
My money is on the big guy.
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>From: z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 02:19 EST
>Message-id: <34e434b1....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 30 Oct 1997 07:58:54 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>
>>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it up
>> here - but that IS what happens.
>
>Why not?
>
It would be a somewhat long and complex answer.
>You've been asked the question, you profess to know the answer, so
>take it up.
>
>Zane
>
Anyone who is really interested can read the books I suggested. For the others
it means nothing. Most here can not assimilate data well anyway. So, for the
few who can - read the books.
WONDERFULR
>Message-id: <34f6740c....@snews.zippo.com>
>
>On 31 Oct 1997 06:15:02 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>
>>>>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it
>up
>>>> here - but that IS what happens.
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>>
>>
>>It would be a somewhat long and complex answer.
>
>Frankly, long and complex answers are my favorites, so have at it.
Then you should read EACH of the books that I recommended.
>If you really believe there's something to that "mental mass" stuff
>you were talking about then this would be a good place to see if it
>can stand up to the multiple perspectives and insights the analytical
>types on this newsgroup can bring to bear.
>
If you think it is such a great idea - YOU read the books and post your
thoughts.
I'm nearly done with this thread. Really.
>So let's have it. I don't care how long or complex it is, I can
>follow it and so can dozens of others. What better opportunity could
>there be
Oh gee? - maybe ANY other opportunity?
Zane
On 31 Oct 1997 06:15:02 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it up
>>> here - but that IS what happens.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>
>It would be a somewhat long and complex answer.
That's ok, it seems that you have lots of time to post these days.
Frankly, long and complex answers are my favorites, so have at it.
But you've got to be prepared for criticism --- in the scientific
sense of the word.
>Anyone who is really interested can read the books I suggested. For the others
>it means nothing. Most here can not assimilate data well anyway.
That's not true at all. A number of people who post here are very
well educated. There are physicists, people with backgrounds in
various life-sciences, attorneys, programmers ... in short, lots of
people with good analytical skills who have spent years "assimilating"
and working with various sorts of data.
If you really believe there's something to that "mental mass" stuff
you were talking about then this would be a good place to see if it
can stand up to the multiple perspectives and insights the analytical
types on this newsgroup can bring to bear.
So let's have it. I don't care how long or complex it is, I can
follow it and so can dozens of others. What better opportunity could
there be for you to prove the worth of scientology than to present one
of its central tenents in a clear manner and defend its worth in front
of people who know the difference between science and bs?
Zane
Anti-Cult
On 31 Oct 1997 06:15:02 GMT.
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?:
>
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 02:19 EST
>>Message-id: <34e434b1....@snews.zippo.com>
>>
>>On 30 Oct 1997 07:58:54 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it up
>>> here - but that IS what happens.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>
>It would be a somewhat long and complex answer.
>
>>You've been asked the question, you profess to know the answer, so
>>take it up.
>>
>>Zane
>>
>
>Anyone who is really interested can read the books I suggested. For the others
> it means nothing. Most here can not assimilate data well anyway. So, for the
> few who can - read the books.
>
Been there, done that, and considered Hubbards theories to be total
bullshit. There is no truth whatsoever in the drug addicts rantings. The
few cases that has been tested scientifically have proven that Hubbard
was utterly wrong, and that his followers are deluded idiots. Yes Wonder
Russ, that goes for you too.
Auditine is a powerful drug, and I can appreciate the problems you have
to get out of the auditine factory, or the dream factory. The cult
dogmas doesn't work in the real world, where scienos are cowards and
weaklings that only live to tell another lie about their big win from
the nonexisting tech.
Now Wonder, try to answer some questions for a change. Heck, why do I
ask a mindless Ronbot to answer questions, they have never ever managed
to do that before..:-)
This is for you and your pathetic cult Ronbot:
CULT DANGER EVALUATION FRAME
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These criteria were copied from Real Magic, Revised Edition, (Samuel
Weiser, NY, 1989) by P.E.I. Bonewits.
You can rate each criteria on a scale of 1 to 10. The higher the total
score, the more potentially dangerous is the group.
1. Internal Control, amount of internal political power exercised by
leader(s) over members
2. Wisdom Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared about
decisions.
3. Wisdom Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in
decisions made by leader(s)
4. Dogma, rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal
inflexibility
5. Recruiting, emphasis put on attracting new members, amount of
proselytizing
6. Front Groups, number of subsidiary groups using different names from
that of the main group
7. Wealth, amount of money and/or property desired or obtained; emphasis
on members' donations
8. Political Power, amount of external political influence desired or
obtained.
9. Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s); amount of control over
sex lives of members
10. Censorship, amount of control over member's access to outside
opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s)
11. Dropout Control, intensity of efforts directed at preventing or
returning dropouts
12. Endorsement of Violence when used by or for the group or its
leader(s)
13. Paranoia, amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies;
perceived power of opponents.
14. Grimness, amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group,
its doctrines or leader(s)
15. Surrender of Will, emphasis on members not having to be responsible
for personal decisions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is as if this was written specifically for scientology and
scientologists, ain't it?
The bridge is falling:
http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/bridge.ram
NoScieno
In article <19971029083...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) writes:
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>From: lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:36 EST
>Message-id: <lepton-2910...@lepton.dialup.access.net>
>
>>In article <19971029055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>> Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
If this is true there is a substantial award -- $1,100,000 -- offered for
merely demonstrating it! The offer is open to anyone, and the conditions
are simple.
Please see
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
or
Message-ID: <19971022053...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ('Re: Koos FAQ')
... for a convenient application form. Simply print it out and send it
in. This is a serious offer, and the award is genuine. Why don't any of
you OT wusses take it? Is it because of the final paragraph in the application?
"Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal
embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct
proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate,
before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me
and many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were
quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and
do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution."
Yeah, that could be the problem.
>>
>
<snip>THE E-METER DIET -- Nyuk, nyuk. Good one, Mike!
>
>>show the disbelievers once and for all that mental mass is real. This
>>should be easy.
There's no doubt in my mind that a very simple experiment could be set up
that would easily convince the organizers of the award.
1) mount two chairs and table on a sheet of plywood. Place assembly on
digital industrial scale.
2) Sit auditor and BT-infested PC at table with e-meter.
3) Record scale reading.
4) Conduct auditing session.
5) Note weight difference correspondent with number of BTs blown (be sure
blown BTs don't conceal themselves in furniture or plywood).
6) Collect $1,100,000 and gain the respect of the scientific community.
Bask in good PR, etc.
Easy as pie.
>
>Easy or not - why show disbelievers anything?
Why NOT, Russ? WHY NOT!!! ***_IT'S_ _A_ _MILLION_ _BUCKS_!!! *** Heck
if *you* are so able, successful and highly principled that you scorn
material gain, just donate it to the dissem campaign. Or start your very
own Celebrity Mission...
But wait! There's more! You also get an unconditional right to brag that
this foundation has witnessed conclusive proof that a person's physical
weight varies as a result of Scientology auditing! Isn't that great? They
might not attribute said weight change to the removal of body-thetans, but
what the hell. They can't deny that the evidence -- REAL scientific data
for once -- supports the result predicted by Hubbard, can they?
Of course, notwithstanding the million bucks, varying a person's weight
isn't much of a brag, is it? Since the award is a one-shot deal, pick
something truly remarkable from your repertoire, something that will go
down in the annals of history as the most remarkable event since Jesus
walked on water. You might choose any number of amazing feats of OT
ability. Say for example repairing vehicles or other mechanical devices by
telekinesis. Or telepathic communication at a distance. If you've got a
flair for the dramatic and courage to match your faith in the Tech,
dematerializing your body in the path of a speeding truck would be a
spectacular validation of the Tech.
All three of the above examples have been performed by OTs, according to
accounts published in ADVANCE! magazine. Those Success stories *are*
factual, aren't they? Any of them would easily qualify for the award if
openly demonstrated. Isn't it about time OT Powers came out of hiding?
What do you OTs have to hide?
>
>>Do it in public, and the money and converts will flow.
>>Scientology's golden age will finally begin. -Mike
>
>Thanks for the helpful input, Mike. But the money and converts DO flow
> already. Or hadn't you noticed that was what had everyone here so upset?
What a hollow deflection. No, at the present time the flow of money and
converts -- seeing that it is flowing *down* the drain and not so much from
the tap, that is -- is what everyone is *gloating* over. Stats are
crashing worldwide. Scientology's golden age is a ten-carat plated stamped
pewter tie tack out of Taiwan, and it's looking a bit greenish lately. "Or
hadn't you noticed?" Wouldn't $1,100,000 help polish things up a little bit?
I can't understand why CoS doesn't care that Hubbard's claims have not yet
been scientifically verified. Can't they see that this is one of the major
reasons no one takes the claims seriously? You seem like a reasonably
intelligent person, Russell. Please explain why scientology being regarded
by the world at large as an insular superstitious bunch of willing dupes is
not a problem. Because that's exactly the impression most normal people
have, when presented with the peculiar combination of arrogant denial of
reality and gullible unquestioning acceptance of HubSpew(tm) that your
posts illuminate so well.
Oh, if that taxes your house-of-cards belief system to an uncomfortable
degree, a variation of the standard non sequiter cop-out will do fine.
We'll understand. After all, we among the 99.99999827586207% who aren't in
your black magic UFO nut cult, already know that there isn't one shred of
scientific foundation for the CoS's outrageous claims of OT ability -- IT'S
IMAGINARY.
Have a nice delusion.
-
NoScieno accepts NO mail (spam-bounce). Try "thynkr"
The surest source of proof in an unfounded belief is the belief itself.
Paul
WONDERFULR wrote:
> Pauldb wrote:
> >By any measure you care to make, we have seen absolutely no correlation
> >between the "education" offered by the Church of Scientology[tm] and
> >success in the real world.
>
> YOU can see it - I don't need you to see anything for it to work for me.
Then point it out to me, please. I asked you for the names of the great
artists, innovative scientists, Nobel prize winners, Pulitzer prize
winners, entrepeneurs, inventors, etc. who are Scientologists. I'm
still waiting for even a couple of names.
For that matter, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what your
profession is so that we can double-check for ourselves that you are "at
the top of your profession." Because, if you truly are, then there will
be evidence that I can find at my local library and here on the web.
> >Where are the great artists who use the "tech" to improve their art?
>
> They live in different cities around the world. Would a list of those cities
> help?
No, but a couple of names would. So that we can see that these artists
really have achieved "success in the real world" through their
Scientology "education".
> > Where are the
> >financial wizards who have used the "tech" to improve their fortunes?
>
> If a serious question - most of those live in New York and California.
A couple of names, please? So that we can verify that these
entrepeneurs really have achieved "success in the real world" through
their Scientology "education".
> >How many of the richest men in the world are Scientologists? Where are
> >the entrepreneurs and inventors who have used the "tech" to chart new
> >territories? How many of today's successful companies were founded by
> >Scientologists? How many of today's inventions were created by
> >Scientologists?
>
> I don't know the exact numbers in each of these questions. Nor am I willing to
> go around digging them up. But the answer is - in EACH case - never ~none~.
Isn't it? I think in most of those cases above, the answer is *none*.
In particular, I'm fairly certain that nobody at the top of the various
technical and scientific fields is a Scientologist.
You have claimed that you have "observed that correlation"--a
correlation between "education" offered by the Church of Scientology[tm]
and success in the real world. If you've observed it, then you surely
have some examples of that correlation. Please share them with us.
> >I'll also match my career against yours. Care to take up the
> >challenge?
> Depends. What would be the point? What would it prove?
Nothing. You're correct in questioning this. I wrote it in haste and
now regret it. I apologize.
-Paul
Leonardo Serni
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>Well done on spotting that, Zane.
>>But you don't have the time to respond to serious accusations about
>>your hero El Wrong?
>That is correct. What you think does not matter.
If I may make a suggestion, it would have sounded a lot better, at
least to my personal taste, had you said:
"What you think does not matter. You will be assimilated."
irrelevantly,
Leonardo
".signature": bad command or file name
alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971031090...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>>Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 02:59 EST
>>Message-id: <345a8191...@193.12.69.3>
>>>Anyone who is really interested can read the books I suggested. For the
>>others
>>> it means nothing. Most here can not assimilate data well anyway. So,
for
>>the
>>> few who can - read the books.
>>>
>>
>>Been there, done that, and considered Hubbards theories to be total
>>bullshit.
>
>Well, there you have it. Galactic Federation has wrapped the subject up.
>
>Like I said - if you are really interested - read the books.
>
>
>>
>>Now Wonder, try to answer some questions for a change. Heck, why do I
>>ask a mindless Ronbot to answer questions, they have never ever managed
>>to do that before..:-)
>
>Because you are an idiot. That is why.
Hear that Anti-Cult? Only an idiot would ask questions of a Scientologist.
:-).
---Alec
Zane
On 31 Oct 1997 08:55:49 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>I'm nearly done with this thread. Really.
Well, that about wraps it up then I guess. Typical scientologist
evasive manuever.
You could have expounded at length on Hubbard's "theories", winning
converts around the world, but instead you'd rather just have one or
two people "read the book".
Scientology really is a crock, scientologists never post anything
substantive here.
Zane
telecon
In article <3459134B.4681@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>, Paul
<pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote
:You must be reading a different newsgroup than I am. I've heard no one
:claim that the *beliefs* are "awful". I've seen a few people in a few
:postings point out that the Xenu story is rather silly, but I've also
:seen other people point out that stories from other religions are
:equally silly.
I would have to agree with this paragraph. The xenu story is quite silly.
:I have seen quite a few people, including me, point out that some of the
:*policies* of the Church of Scientology[tm] are "awful", including the
:Introspection Rundown, the Purification Rundown, Fair Game, etc., but
:that is not the same things as *beliefs*.
These are not a matter of policy for idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H scientologists,
they are a matter of scripture as far as the clams are concerned. It does
not matter to the clams that all of the shit that they consider scripture
are what started out as a scam and ended up the rabid ravings of a drunken
madman.
Leonardo Serni
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>I get my overts off in session. Always have. And once "gone" I don't need to
> think of them again. They aren't there to weight me down. This principle -
> by the way - is the very principle that the Catholics have attempted to apply
> in confession.
>> Hubbard realized, very craftily,
>>that this leaves one feeling very naked and defenseless, and depicts them as
>>being "wrong"--while depicting Hubbard and the church as being "right"
>How about both being "right"? As that isn't even part of it for me - once gone
> no attention is left on the SUBJECT.
>I am not then worried about someone "finding out". The misdeed is just not
> there to worry about. And I don't give a crap if someone "knows".
That, I feel, is a major difference between this 'session' of yours
and the Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; a real Catholic
does not only attempt to get rid of his burden, s/he should also do
everything possible to atone.
Of course, in the case of an offense to God, the atonement does not
(directly) involve the material world. Yet, should a Catholic wrong
anyone, his|her confessor will advise s/he to make amendments. Else
the pardon cannot be granted; just as, to sin, it is not sufficient
to do wrong, but awareness and will are also required.
It appears to me that Scientology(tm) is more handy, in that - from
your report - it does not appear to need the two key conditions for
Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; redress, and resolution
(implying: resolution not to repeat the misdeed).
As far as your (admittedly scant) report goes, there's nothing that
hints to a resolution not to fall back in the same errors; not even
an attempt to redress. You blandly 'erase' not the mistake, but its
memory, and blithely walk on.
Comfortable as it indeed seems, Catholics would object that you get
rid not of your sins, but of your conscience. I feel such a thought
somewhat disturbing.
William Barwell
In article <34bed364....@snews.zippo.com>,
Zane <z_th...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 29 Oct 1997 05:59:17 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>
>>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
>
>
>Where do you get the information from which to make such a definitive
>statement?
From Hubbard. A ridge is inactive until it is stimulated.
It then becomes active and as it activates, it mocks up mass.
After it's work is done, the mass disappears as the ridge no longer is in
immediate stimulation. BTs work the same way.
>
>Do scientologists lose mass during odditing? You bet they do, in the
>amount given by e=mc^2 due to the lack of energy input via food, for
>instance.<snicker> Is that significant, or measurable with an
>e-meter? Don't make me start ROFLMAO wonderfool.
If an auditor stimulates an engram or ridge (same thing actually)
this makes the ridge mock up mass. When one finally blows the ridge,
(ridge running was standart tech in Scientology in the early days if
Hubbard's tapes are to be believed) one loses mass as the ridge
blows. Fascimiles attached to the ridge will, if in stimulation
have mass. They too will leave and so will their mass.
Often one has many facsimiles, a chain, on a ridge. The idea
is to handle secondaries, locks, get to the basic on a chain and blow it
all at once, so most will not have mass.
The first incident will be a archetype for similar other incidents
which are added to the chain automatically.
Ron goes on and on about such things at length in his tapes.
>
>If you pop off a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb the amount of mass converted
>to energy is something like 1 gram. Measure that wonderfool.
Ron repeatedly makes little claims such that if a person really learned
all at once to handle matter prefectly as a thetan, he could blow the
entire solar system up by releasing energy.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <19971029090...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,>>From: z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:21 EST
>>Message-id: <34c0d569....@snews.zippo.com>
>>
>>On 29 Oct 1997 06:17:48 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>><Zane's poor upbringing again snipped>
>>
>>Heh, asking you to discuss know facts about El Wrong is poor
>>upbringing? At Ignoramus U I guess.
>>
>
>I have never been interested in "facts" about Ron Hubbard.
We can tell.
>
>It makes no difference to me if the "facts" come from the church, from Ron or
> from someone who (like you) hates Ron Hubbard.
>
>There is NOTHING I can **__DO__** with those "facts". Nothing.
>
Except see what a flaming shitheel Hubbard was, what a liar, and
what a twit. And avoid being the same.
Use him as a bad example to pint a finger at.
>With the *TECHNOLOGY* there is LOTS that I can do. I have observed it to work
> in helping me (a LOT) and I have observed it work for others.
I have seen the promises. Perfect memory and shrinking that overlarge nose
as promised by Dianetics? Bull doo-doo.
Exteriorize with full perceptics as promised bu Hubbard?
Bull doo-doo.
Mighty OT powers for simply speniding years of your life exorcising BTs
and Clusters and GMP implants?
Bull doo-doo!
Kill bugs with a thought?
Bull doo-doo!
Become a sooper genius, superliterate Big Being?
Bull doo-doo.
Lots of big promises and we get nebulous, vague, paltry claims of "it
works" or ludicrous "wins" that make any sane person laugh.
>
>The WORK of Ron Hubbard has helped me achieve a level of success that I would
> have only dreamed about in the past.
So how do the millions of people do it without Hubbard tech?
You do it till you get good at it.
The tech has nothing to do with making a go of life.
You ignore teh obvious failures of Hubbard's idiot claims and give him
credit for what you would do without him anyway just like everybody else
in this silly world who makes it.
alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971030075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc)
>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 10:40 EST
>>Message-id: <3459519a....@news.concentric.net>
>>>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
>>>
>>How so, please?
>>
>>Physically speaking, the only way "mental mass" could affect body weight
>>is if the actual *mass* of the mind changes.
>
>You are correct. The mass of the "mind" would have to change for this to
be
> true.
>
>> How does this occur through
>>Scientology?
>
>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it up
> here - but that IS what happens.
>
>If you are *really* interested, get the book, "Understanding the E-Meter".
> Excellent - yet still pretty simple - explanation there. Also, you could
read
> "Scientology 8-8008", and "Scientology 8-80".
Russ, now you're really embarrassing Scientology. That book is one of the
silliest, contrived books on phsyics ever written. Throughout this book,
Hubbard demonstrates why he made an "F" at Georgetown College in physics.
This book is the best example in Hubbard's Library of him spinning a yarn.
It is nothing but a joke.
---Alec
alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971031061...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: z_th...@ix.netcom.com (Zane)
>>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 02:19 EST
>>Message-id: <34e434b1....@snews.zippo.com>
>>
>>On 30 Oct 1997 07:58:54 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it
up
>>> here - but that IS what happens.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>
>It would be a somewhat long and complex answer.
>
>>You've been asked the question, you profess to know the answer, so
>>take it up.
>Anyone who is really interested can read the books I suggested. For the
others
> it means nothing. Most here can not assimilate data well anyway. So, for
the
> few who can - read the books.
Russ, Scientologists wrote the book on assimlating nothing that wasn't
written by Hubbard. If you read Time Mag, or Readers' Digest, you are in
"Lower Ethics". You yourself are unable to NOT stand and applaud when a
congregation leader says, "E Peep", and the "throng" shouts, "Who Ray".
Prove it to yourself Russ. Try to remain seated and silent when those
around you jump up and shout, "HOORAY".
Now that is becoming SMUG Russ, pointing away from yourself with accusations
of "can not assimilate data well". Scientologists don't study, they comply.
They memorize (Study Tech notwithstanding) Hubbard's writings as the only
conversations they can ever have.
It's possible I'm under-estimating you Russ. Aren't you yet committed to
the point that all other knowledge is useless? Maybe I've misjudged you.
If in 24 years you have not closed yourself to other knowledge, then you are
a "lukewarm" Scientologist. Don't know why I took you to be really
dedicated.
But then, who put you up to embarrassing Scientology on ARS? Was this your
own idea?
---David Alexander
Zane
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 19:20:07 GMT, t...@ibexbsc.com.xenu.antispam
(Ted) wrote:
>He can't comment on the "tech" because he can no more understand it
I guess that's the conclusion we're left with. I'm sure the lurkers
note that scientologists _always_ refuse to dicsuss their wonderfull
"tech" in an open forum. Maybe they sort of realize how worthless and
utterly indefensible it really is.
Zane
Fast
On 31 Oct 1997 09:01:12 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
> >From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
> >Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 02:59 EST
> >Message-id: <345a8191...@193.12.69.3>
> >
> >On 31 Oct 1997 06:15:02 GMT.
> >wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
> >From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
> >Wrote on the subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?:
> >Been there, done that, and considered Hubbards theories to be total
> >bullshit.
>
> Well, there you have it. Galactic Federation has wrapped the subject up.
>
> Like I said - if you are really interested - read the books.
>
>
> >
> >Now Wonder, try to answer some questions for a change. Heck, why do I
> >ask a mindless Ronbot to answer questions, they have never ever managed
> >to do that before..:-)
>
> Because you are an idiot. That is why.
GF is not an idiot, and we all know the real reasons you can't answer
the questions. First, there is the prohibition on "verbal tech",
which is basically anyone trying to explain what LRH meant in his
ramblings. Second, as even LRH found out, there is no scientific
basis for the claims, and no way to actually demonstrate them to a
skeptical audience, hence his strict rules about talking to the press
or anyone who is open-minded.
Of course, LRH also said "Answer the Question". So, answer the
question.
- Fast
Perry Scott
WONDERFULR (wonde...@aol.com) wrote:
: >From: dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc)
: >wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
: >>Paper Tiger:
: >>>
Tiger:
> Hubbard says mental image pictures (sorry, I had thought it was
> "engrams") have changed body mass by as much as 30 pounds ACTUALLY
> MEASURED ON SCALES.
bc:
>Physically speaking, the only way "mental mass" could affect body weight
>is if the actual *mass* of the mind changes.
Careful, bc, you're intimating that the brain size of Scientologists
decreases due to processing. That's not nice.
Wonderful:
: You are correct. The mass of the "mind" would have to change for this to be
: true.
bc:
: How does this occur through
: Scientology?
Wonderful:
: As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to take it up
: here - but that IS what happens.
Note the repeated vehement assertion made by wonderful. Note that
Scientologists cannot be bothered to explain themselves. Hubbard had
the same condescending attitude.
Nice ARC break, Russ.
: If you are *really* interested, get the book, "Understanding the E-Meter".
: Excellent - yet still pretty simple - explanation there. Also, you could read
: "Scientology 8-8008", and "Scientology 8-80".
Well, Russ, I happen to have "E-Meter Essentials" right here. In
Section B "Theory", Hubbard states:
"The meter tells you what the pc's mind is doing when the pc is made to
think of something."
[this is an assertion.]
"The meter registers before the bc becomes concious of the datum. It is
therefore a "preconcious" meter. The meter passes a tiny current
through the pc's body."
[Sentence 1 is another assertion. Sentence 2 is a conclusion based on
the assertion of sentence 1. Sentence 3 is a fact that can be
verified.]
"This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and
machinery. When the pc thinks of something, these mental items shift
and this registers on the meter."
[Sentence 1 is an assertion. Sentence 2 is an assertion. So far,
Hubbard has said nothing to support his assertions. Question for
wonderful: Does Hubbard EVER present the data that validates his
assertions? Where is it?]
---
Is it any "wonder" that scientologists evaluate data? Prolonged
exposure to Hubbard's repeated assertions and anti-critical "processing"
has stripped them of their ability to ask "but, why?" Throughout the
Gradient, Scientology selects for those that are not critical thinkers,
since critical thinkers eventually wise up and walk away early on.
It's real for wonderful, so it must be real. It must be wonderful to
not be bothered by details like experimental methodology and data.
Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee
Zane
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:24:06 -0500, lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
wrote:
Typical scientologist behaviour, we haven't seen anything different in
all the years ars has been in existence. They can't have their
"science" exposed to open criticism, because it wouldn't last 5
minutes.
As to the long history of abuse and criminal behaviour by the
church<spit> and the numerous documented lies of El Wrong, the only
thing that's amazing is how they can so casually ignore the obvious
truth.
Zane
BP
In article <19971031063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wonde...@aol.com says...
>
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 10:22 EST
>>Message-id: <63a8mo$c...@nntp02.primenet.com>
>>
>>In article <19971030074...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>wonde...@aol.com says...
>>
>>>
>>>I just love the way you are willing to talk like this when you are safely
>>out
>>> of reach. I can't imagine you being that rude to me in person.
>>>
>>>But this ~ is~ the level of the "conversation" here.
>>
>>I will be picketing the Mesa Mi$$ion from 9:00 to 10:30 AM,
>>Saturday, Nov. 1. PLEASE stop by and let me rude to you.
>
> that part of Jeff's "picket tech"?
I realize that as a $cieno you can't conceive of independent action,
but _I_ am more aggressive than Jeff. I have and will call you an asshole
based on your web page, your statements on ARS, and your membership
in a criminal cult. Tough shit.
>I don't think so, but if you really want
> to take it to that level - it is fine with me.
>
>But I'll pick the time. Not you.
I'll pick the time to picket your "church", as I do
almost weekly. If you're there (still got the gross gold-trimmed caddy?)
drop by and get insulted.
Mike O'Connor
In article <34f8f43b....@snews.zippo.com>, z_th...@ix.netcom.com
(Zane) wrote:
I tried, but Mr. Shaw didn't respond to my last post. He replied to almost
everyone else's in the thread though, mainly to call them idiots and such.
Is he hiding because I quoted actual sacred scripture penned by dead cult
founder L. Ron Hubbard? Is he hiding because I used the Fair Game policy
as my example, and he couldn't think of a response other than the
standard, debunked one?
Of course, I'm not asking for a response on Fair Game, that was merely an
example I used in a discussion about why I believe the huffle-ruffle in
this group is not about religion - it is about abuse of people, the law,
and the Internet - and why quoting seems necessary to express that
opinion. Is he hiding because he couldn't think of a good way to curve
that discussion around into a personal attack? Hiding. That is quite low
on the cult's Tone Scale.
I could be very wrong. Maybe my message got lost - I didn't EMail it, as I
only hold my conversations here, in public. Maybe he is still working on a
response, maybe he didn't think it worthy of a response. But really, it is
probably because his cult does not permit a proper response.
I believe when I post a serious message directed to a cult member and I
get no response, that the posting may have been effective. I believe the
cult teaches that members may not discuss the scriptures. That they may
not defend them. That they must never respond with a defense, only with an
attack.
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
THE DEFENSE OF ANYTHING IS UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is
to ATTACK.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
Ability Mag Article (page 47 Tech Vol. III)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shaw's responses in the thread seem to follow that teaching. They consist
of personal attacks and refusals to discuss cult teachings or policy.
Will he respond to this post? Will it be a discussion of my points, or
will it be a personal attack? I'm predicting the attack. He can't defend,
and I believe cult scripture says that it is also bad not to respond at
all.
Please Mr. Shaw, I'm trying to have a discussion. I've tried with you and
with other cult members. Yes, my posts are critical, but whenever there is
a response I read it carefully. I have to. I've never been in the cult
myself, and am always learning. Usually, when a message quotes the
scripture and tries to be serious and thoughtful, there is no response
from cult members. That teaches me something. -Mike
alec
Leonardo Serni wrote in message <63d6tv$ubn$4...@master.pantheon.it>...
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>>I get my overts off in session. Always have. And once "gone" I don't
need to
>> think of them again. They aren't there to weight me down. This
principle -
>> by the way - is the very principle that the Catholics have attempted to
apply
>> in confession.
>
>>> Hubbard realized, very craftily,
>>>that this leaves one feeling very naked and defenseless, and depicts them
as
>>>being "wrong"--while depicting Hubbard and the church as being "right"
>
>>How about both being "right"? As that isn't even part of it for me - once
gone
>> no attention is left on the SUBJECT.
>>I am not then worried about someone "finding out". The misdeed is just
not
>> there to worry about. And I don't give a crap if someone "knows".
[Leonardo Serni writes:]
>That, I feel, is a major difference between this 'session' of yours
>and the Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; a real Catholic
>does not only attempt to get rid of his burden, s/he should also do
>everything possible to atone.
Leonardo, you have struck on one of the basic "prior confusions" about
Scientology. They take no responsibility for their transgressions. They
audit to forget about it, then thumb their noses at those whom they may have
hurt.
Scientologists are in defiance to Karma. Of course Karma never asked for
their approval. Karma will of course, and obviously is, as we speak,
"handling" COS.
---David Alexander
Hud Nordin
In article <63dbg9$qs$1...@excalibur.flash.net> "alec" <al...@flash.net> writes:
>Leonardo, you have struck on one of the basic "prior confusions" about
>Scientology. They take no responsibility for their transgressions. They
>audit to forget about it, then thumb their noses at those whom they may have
>hurt.
>
>Scientologists are in defiance to Karma. Of course Karma never asked for
>their approval. Karma will of course, and obviously is, as we speak,
>"handling" COS.
Quick, scientology, file for a TRO against Karma!
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <19971031064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> writes:
> >Would you
>>care to tell us just how you've distinguished yourself in your
>>profession?
>>
>
>Maybe. But first we would need to define success and agree on the terms.
> THEN, I would be happy to give specifics.
Rubbish -- just give what you consider the greatest successes of
your professional life, as you would in setting out your CV to be
appointed or elected to some professional position.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'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(:)
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) brewed up the following, and served
it to the group:
<snipped>
>>>Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
>>>
>>How so, please?
>>
>>Physically speaking, the only way "mental mass" could affect body
weight
>>is if the actual *mass* of the mind changes.
>
>You are correct. The mass of the "mind" would have to change for
this to be
> true.
Thank you.
>> How does this occur through
>>Scientology?
>
>As this *IS* what the whole subject is about - I am not going to
take it up
> here - but that IS what happens.
Flunk for non-confront. Begin!
This *IS* what the whole subject is about--and as usual, you avoid
the issue entirely. Why does this fail to surprise me?
If this is what happens, it should be a small matter for you to
explain HOW it happens and WHY. You being so knowledgeable about
the
tech (bs) and all.
We're waiting...and waiting...and waiting...and waiting...and
waiting...
>If you are *really* interested, get the book, "Understanding the E-
Meter".
> Excellent - yet still pretty simple - explanation there. Also, you
could read
> "Scientology 8-8008", and "Scientology 8-80".
I've read all the Hubbardspew (bs) that I really want to read right
now, thank you very much. I want to hear it from YOU. Not Elrong.
YOU. YOU are here on this newsgroup making these fucking ridiculous
claims which don't even have the slightest basis in physical
reality.
Quit trying to dodge the question, weasel. How does $cientology
processing physically change the mass of the human brain?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNFpYGqn8flYc1m/ZAQG5xwf/Qont8rWOWQXVzG/T7n0/u6Sq4HhMGcxK
krGLLo/3aV/Ly/F0OyPXKCdQQ53yS9N/uMlTyFBO2QzPAX8+HQq6fDuFVsavpuS5
IQex8lyIB4fI7Km8Yh12SVjs3ZQGo5WVI7Ic/H6IR8U1kPi+cc5VA0jjHh4+2kDS
1l4As8aonPXLyf0rXEaGxLEumPJQRc61FvICIkJyaAGNYyGcBCYOh5NVOPIU9QRg
4ehp7Ve9o1MI9tDgYuJBLTZ8NDE3NX5043pD3ToeNxN9olxXhv994NNyitGuZ1Iz
ctQeSgbPVKWcykm/MjRn+B+uEJkgWzmNjSwckalrWVZ1Z2C6a6lHSA==
=mpMj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----------------
"Death to all fanatics!"
--Malaclypse the Younger
the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains
bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
*SP2*
...bc...
William Barwell
In article <19971031061...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>Date: Thu, Oct 30, 1997 02:19 EST
>>Message-id: <34e434b1....@snews.zippo.com>
>>
>>On 30 Oct 1997 07:58:54 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> here - but that IS what happens.
>>
>>
>
>It would be a somewhat long and complex answer.
>
>>You've been asked the question, you profess to know the answer, so
>>take it up.
>>
>>
>
>Anyone who is really interested can read the books I suggested. For the others
> it means nothing. Most here can not assimilate data well anyway. So, for the
> few who can - read the books.
>
>
Page numbers? Where does it say anything that is to the point
of this argument?
alec
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971030073...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
>>From: hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
>>Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 11:54 EST
>>Message-id: <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
>>
>>WONDERFULR (wonde...@aol.com) wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>: With the *TECHNOLOGY* there is LOTS that I can do. I have observed it
>>: to work in helping me (a LOT) and I have observed it work for others.
>>: The WORK of Ron Hubbard has helped me achieve a level of success that I
>>: would have only dreamed about in the past.
>>
>>People on heroin say much the same thing. What you get from Scientology
>>does not help you in the real world, while there are things such as a
>>technical education which do.
>
>This is a pretty good example of you talking about something you don't know
> anything about.
>
>You have NO idea about the success I am talking about. None.
>
>The *education* I have received in Scientology has enabled me to SOAR to
the
> top of my profession. By *any* standard anyone in my industry would EVER
have
> - I am at the top. Period.
What is your profession, Russ. SAY!... You're not the SHAW of "SHAW HEALTH
CENTER", on Fountain Ave. are you?.
That gives me a little more respect for you because I know that an MD cannot
possible swallow Scientology wholeheartedly.
Hats off,
---Alec
BP
In article <AXZUb2AY...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, da...@xemu.demon.co.uk says...
>
>In article <19971031064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> writes:
>> >Would you
>>>care to tell us just how you've distinguished yourself in your
>>>profession?
>>>
>>
>>Maybe. But first we would need to define success and agree on the terms.
>> THEN, I would be happy to give specifics.
>
>Rubbish -- just give what you consider the greatest successes of
>your professional life, as you would in setting out your CV to be
>appointed or elected to some professional position.
>
claim that he sells "18 times" the average number of houses.
My hope is that his and other "services" that bring buyer and
seller together for an exorbitant percentage will be supplanted by
web pages and professional title/deed/insurance filers working at a fixed rate.
Oh yeah, in the late 60's Wonderful Russ was his DJ moniker on a
Phoenix radio station.
Åke Wiman
WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<19971031090...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
> >From: nosc...@aol.com (NoScieno)
> >Date: Fri, Oct 31, 1997 03:12 EST
> >Message-id: <19971031081...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
> >
> >In article <19971029083...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> >wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) writes:
> >
> >>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"?
> >>>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >>>
> Am I supposed to believe that *you* or most of the others HERE fall into
the
> category of "most normal people"?
>
> And ~you~ talk about the claims made by Scientology!
Please WONDERFULR - don't talk so much - show us !
But you are not going to do that - it doesn't work that way in $cio-world.
If you try -- you have to admit it doesn't work and you are so eager to
BELIEVE it works.
Because the $cio-version of psychoanalysis (audit) probably made you fell
better for some time you BELIEVE anything in $cio-world works.
--
Åke Wiman