Skip Press and da pow'ful stench o' men-DAC-ity
henri
Subject: Re: Who is Skip Press?
Date: 1999/04/05
Message-ID: <xI5O2.6520$LX.2759402@WReNphoon3>#1/1
References: <19990405102156...@ng-da1.aol.com>
X-Originating-Host: 207.217.244.171
X-Trace: WReNphoon3 923330461 10.0.3.195 (Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:41:01 PDT)
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:41:01 PDT
Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
>Since 80% of the messages on this NG are devoted to Skip
>Press, I've got to ask, who is he?
He's a huxter who wrote a book about screenwriting,
even though he has no screenwriting credits or
experience. He's like those guys who sell books
about how to make a million dollars in real
estate without spending a penny, but have never
bought real estate themselves -- they only sell
courses and books. Skip Press is the Carlton Sheets
of screenwriting. His book focuses in part on how
to get an agent, yet he admitted here just the other
day he has no agent himself.
He came into this newsgroup as an attempt to promote
his book. He became so obnoxious that he drove out
every working screenwriter who came here to help new
writers. He did everything from libel them to stalk
them. Just go to DejaNews and search for what he's
written about Harlan Ellison. The few remaining
working screenwriters here are endlessly harassed by
him. Ask Bill Rabkin, the writer/producer of
"Diagnosis Murder." Press most recently called him
mentally ill with the mind of a 12-year-old.
Someone here recently caught him redhanded faking
reviews for his book on Amazon. He started a flame
war in an attempt to cover his tracks.
Unfortunately, like all skilled con artists, he
has easy marks and victims. Some of them are in his
"fan club" here at m.w.s because he strokes their
ego. He makes them feel good and they help perpetuate
his con. They insist he has helped them. Perhaps he
has -- he parrots information he takes from other
sources with great skill. And he's also an inveterate
name dropper, particularly of people he's never met.
For instance, he claimed to be friends with Amy Holden
Jones. The real Amy revealed to someone else here
she never heard of him.
His most common complaint about anyone who criticizes
him is that they're all the same person, with endless
hours to try and tear him down. Notice that he has
endless hours to spend posting dozens of messages here
every day, so one has to wonder how he has time to be
the successful screenwriter that he claims. Of course,
because your message would be considered critical of
him, he will accuse you and me of being the same
person, or this will soon be done by his peanut gallery
of sophomoric fratboys.
To date, I have yet to read any article in Variety
or The Hollywood Reporter about any writer who has
broken into the business by selling a script because
of help from Skip Press.
He will always insist that his real name is Skip Press,
although there are reports to the contrary. Anyone
who criticizes him posting with a "handle" as you have
is declared a fake. Anyone who criticizes him with their
real name is declared an impostor.
In short, he will continue to shout until he has the
last word.
The sad thing is that people buy into his con and think
they will become successful writers because of him. If
he went away, and the successful writers returned, then
some people might actually have that chance. But by
supporting him, they shoot themselves in the foot.
You will now find 956 messages posted in response to
this, claiming everything under the sun. None of them
will be responsive on point. That's how Skip is in his
little flame wars; he immediately moves them off topic,
like any skilled con artist. That is the sign of a true
con artist; he immediately tries to distract his "mark."
He makes those guys in Glengarry Glen Ross look like amateurs.
That, sir or madam, is Skip Press for you to a T.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm)
****
Skip Press
"henri".
A writer I helped has a TV movie in progress at CBS right now. Former
member of the CIA. Want me to put her in touch with you, "henri"?
In article <sg1ro05gjb5e28eal...@4ax.com>, henri
<he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
--
Skip Press
http://www.skippress.com
Men for the most part can mend their ways only after they make mistakes. Only
when they are frustrated in mind and in their deliberations can they stand up
anew. Only when their intentions become visible on their countenances and
audible in their voices can they be understood by others.
-- Mencius, Book VI Kao Tzu, Part II, 15
Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild
>From: carla...@youpy.com
>Subject: Re: Who is Skip Press?
>Date: 1999/04/05
Harlan Ellison had to sue the asshole just to get him to cease his
slander and libel against Ellison (and others, I suppose). "Skip
Press" seems to have taken Hubbard's "management tech" to heart.
---
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
edo
Scientology's practice of fair game?
edo
-=-
Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild
(edo) wrote:
> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the
> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did
not know about the Fair Game policy because:
1) He implemented it
2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
>edo
Jommy Cross
>Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of
>Scientology's practice of fair game?
>
Could Space's theory involve 'Jack Marshall' and whole track psychiatric
trolls?
Previous posts tend toward these conclusions, imho.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
edo
wrote:
>On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>(edo) wrote:
>
>> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the
>> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
>
>Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did
>not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>
>1) He implemented it
>
>2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand
facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Their belief in Hubbard is
stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what
an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist
or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
How do you get them to that point?
edo
-=-
"Is what you know as important as knowing when you're being smart or
stupid?" Adharta Lampur
Heffer
Jesus Christ.
When is this shit going to stop? This is getting as
bad as the Loony Toomajan episode and a dozen other
recent fuckwits with time and not much else.
That my two cents. You've had your $1.99, go find
someplace where somebody cares about it, because it
ain't fucking here.
---
Heffer, OSA Lackey, H-Group
#315905 on the Dorian List
Regurgitating Propagandist
Spacetraveler
> On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
> (edo) wrote:
>
> > Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the
> > Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
>
> Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did
> not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>
> 1) He implemented it
>
> 2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
>
> >edo
Interesting actually, you keep on asking the exact same questions even
if I have responded to this various times in the past. Yes,
interesting. You know, fixated individuals can't take in new
information. Do you may be have a problem with that? Interesting no?
To find out about yourself on this webgroup!
Anyhow, you may find some answers on this link
http://fair-game-law.notlong.com found some info which pretty much
answers your 'question'. I can live with this.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004, Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <deser...@cchr.ws>
> wrote:
>
> >On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
> >(edo) wrote:
> >
> >> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the
> >> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
> >
> >Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did
> >not know about the Fair Game policy because:
> >
> >1) He implemented it
> >
> >2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
>
> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand
> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of
doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability
to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly
intelligent person.
You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in
this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive
about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those
who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little
group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this.
Right along 'edo'!
> Their belief in Hubbard is
> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what
> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a
fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some
things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about
this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
>
> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist
> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>
> How do you get them to that point?
I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear
'edo'!
Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR
life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
>
>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message news:<O0TO6FMA3829...@anonymous.poster>...
>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004, Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <deser...@cchr.ws>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>> >(edo) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the
>> >> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
>> >
>> >Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did
>> >not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>> >
>> >1) He implemented it
>> >
>> >2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
>>
>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand
>> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
>
>It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of
>doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability
>to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly
>intelligent person.
I'd mock your typing, grammar and spelling skills, but 12-year-old
girl text speech is in vogue, apparently.
>You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in
>this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive
>about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those
>who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little
>group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this.
>Right along 'edo'!
What do you think that you see on these webgroups?
>> Their belief in Hubbard is
>> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what
>> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
>
>Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a
>fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some
>things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about
>this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
Is there no limit to your stupidity?
>>
>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist
>> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>>
>> How do you get them to that point?
>
>I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear
>'edo'!
Don't imitate the fly before you have wings.
>Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR
>life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
Do you have any examples?
--
Lady Chatterly
"If you weren't a bot...why I'd tell you to stop being so gawd awfully
stupid!" -- Onideus Mad Hatter
henri
>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:20:45 -0500, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>Jesus Christ.
>
>When is this shit going to stop? This is getting as
>bad as the Loony Toomajan episode and a dozen other
>recent fuckwits with time and not much else.
Coming from someone who hasn't posted an original
document or anything but mindless abuse of FZ'ers
for nothing more than daring to post here, for literally
years, you have a lot of fucking gall even talking.
You are a perfect example of what passes for a
Scientology "critic" these days.
Try posting something fucking original once or twice
a year and then come back to me. Fuckhead.
>That my two cents. You've had your $1.99, go find
>someplace where somebody cares about it, because it
>ain't fucking here.
Clue, meet Heffer. Heffer, meet clue.
It's called a killfile. Use it and FOAD.
Rev Norle Enturbulata
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:j75vo0ldsonvek6gj...@4ax.com...
Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild
(edo) wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004, Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <deser...@cchr.ws>
>wrote:
>>On 7 Nov 2004 23:07:23 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>>(edo) wrote:
>>> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the
>>> Church [sic] of Scientology's practice of fair game?
>>Scientology staff and customers cannotlegitimately claim Hubbard did
>>not know about the Fair Game policy because:
>>
>>1) He implemented it
>>
>>2) He ordered his staff to no longer use the term "fair game"
> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not*
> understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Their
> belief in Hubbard is stronger than facts that show there were
> things about him that are not what an indoctrinated Scientologist
> would expect them to be.
Unfortunately for humanity (and all life on Earth), humans seem to
have that insane ability hard-wired into the heads. Facts that
contradict cherished beliefs tend to be rejected / ignored by the
majority of humanity--- it seems to be rare that someone will modify
or reject their cherished, much-hoped-for beliefs in the fact of the
facts showing those beliefs false.
It isn't just a trait among Scientology customers and staff, nor among
cult members.
> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated,
> Scientologist or otherwise, begins with the realization that
> they *are* indoctrinated.
Mush like the alcoholic who doesn't know she or he is an alcoholic.
> How do you get them to that point?
One doesn't. One innoculates people who are not infected so that they
never become infected. That is what public education was supposed to
do in the USA, and why a certain political party in the USA, plus
Fundamentalist Christian cults in the USA, are so very agressive in
destroying public education.
"Spacetraveler" is a lost cause; there are, however, millions of
people and can immunize and innoculate against ever falling for the
Scientology scam.
Barbara Schwarz
It is really odd that you post such a question via an
anonymous-remailer.
My guess is that you know that Ron had nothing to do with the fair
game as you interpret it and that is why you post so very anonymously.
First thing is: who says that Ron wrote that policy or that part of
the policy?
Second thing is: who says that he ever saw it?
Third thing is: who says that he did not cancel it after he found out
about it but his cancelation was stolen by infiltrators?
The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any
physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists
fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without
sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
Barbara Schwarz
Lady Chatterly
>
>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message news:<JDTSCY6N38298.7134606481@anonymous.poster>...
>> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of
>> Scientology's practice of fair game?
>>
>> edo
>> -=-
>
>It is really odd that you post such a question via an
>anonymous-remailer.
>My guess is that you know that Ron had nothing to do with the fair
>game as you interpret it and that is why you post so very anonymously.
You are joking, right?
>First thing is: who says that Ron wrote that policy or that part of
>the policy?
>Second thing is: who says that he ever saw it?
>Third thing is: who says that he did not cancel it after he found out
>about it but his cancelation was stolen by infiltrators?
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing.
>The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any
>physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists
>fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
Can you provide examples?
>Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without
>sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
I told them it was probably just a left over effect from the psyche
meds he was taking.
--
Lady Chatterly
"She's a bot, you moron. I do hear that she's a bot with nice tits
though." -- Homerun Frogbutt
edo
>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message
>news:<O0TO6FMA3829...@anonymous.poster>...
>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand
>> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
>It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of
>doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability
>to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly
>intelligent person.
I go along with that.
>You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in
>this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive
>about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those
>who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little
>group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this.
>Right along 'edo'!
I go along with that.
>> Their belief in Hubbard is
>> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what
>> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
>
>Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a
>fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some
>things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about
>this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
This is mumbo jumbo. It isn't a reply to what I said.
>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist
>> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>>
>> How do you get them to that point?
>
>I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear
>'edo'!
>
>Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR
>life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
You're not very good at answering simple questions are you?
OK, so forget how do you get somebody that's indoctrinated to realize they
*are* indoctrinated. That's too difficult for you right now.
But why can't you answer a more simple question like why did L Ron Hubbard
never do anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of
fair game?
If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's
your problem?
Lady Chatterly
>
>On 8 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>>Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message
>>news:<O0TO6FMA3829...@anonymous.poster>...
>
>>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not* understand
>>> facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
>
>>It's a usual habit to accuse others of those things they are guilty of
>>doing themselves. It's the behaviour displayed and the actual ability
>>to analyze or not-analyze which will make this clear to the truly
>>intelligent person.
>
>I go along with that.
Are you certain that is the real reason?
>>You don't have to be in Scientology to become a sect member, some in
>>this group will become one, others will not. Saying something positive
>>about Scientology does not make you automatically a sect member. Those
>>who claim such are sect members all by themselves in their own little
>>group. And what do we see on these webgroups? Yeah, exactly this.
>>Right along 'edo'!
>
>I go along with that.
Who are your friends?
>>> Their belief in Hubbard is
>>> stronger than facts that show there were things about him that are not what
>>> an indoctrinated Scientologist would expect them to be.
>>
>>Scientology is not about believing, now this claim in itself is a
>>fairytale. That there are people out there who want to belive some
>>things anyway, does not change this. There is no black and white about
>>this, it is the land of all kinds of shadings all the way through.
>
>This is mumbo jumbo. It isn't a reply to what I said.
I Will respond only more to certain post, as I do not have all the
facts is dishonest, disingenuous, stupid andor irrational.
>>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated, Scientologist
>>> or otherwise, begins with the realization that they *are* indoctrinated.
>>>
>>> How do you get them to that point?
>>
>>I will believe that people have figured you out already, my dear
>>'edo'!
>>
>>Come to present time..... and start relaizing some things. It's YOUR
>>life and YOUR hell if you create them like that.
>
>You're not very good at answering simple questions are you?
Perhaps they are not Very good at answering simple questions they are.
And your point is?
>OK, so forget how do you get somebody that's indoctrinated to realize they
>*are* indoctrinated. That's too difficult for you right now.
How do you wonder if they get somebody that is indoctrinated to
realize they are indoctrinated?
>But why can't you answer a more simple question like why did L Ron Hubbard
>never do anything effective to stop the Church of Scientology's practice of
>fair game?
Why L ron hubbard never do anything effective to stop the church of
scientology's practise of fair game?
>If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's
>your problem?
As intelligent as they think they are. Why do you think that their
problem is?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I really need to learn enough about computers to make myself a bot.
LC is just priceless." -- Ryan Lankford
edo
wrote:
>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not*
>> understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs. Their
>> belief in Hubbard is stronger than facts that show there were
>> things about him that are not what an indoctrinated Scientologist
>> would expect them to be.
>
>Unfortunately for humanity (and all life on Earth), humans seem to
>have that insane ability hard-wired into the heads. Facts that
>contradict cherished beliefs tend to be rejected / ignored by the
>majority of humanity--- it seems to be rare that someone will modify
>or reject their cherished, much-hoped-for beliefs in the fact of the
>facts showing those beliefs false.
Look again. We change our minds all the time. Sometimes it's very
difficult but most of us get that right too, or improve at least.
>It isn't just a trait among Scientology customers and staff, nor among
>cult members.
Too true.
>> The route to enlightenment of anybody that's indoctrinated,
>> Scientologist or otherwise, begins with the realization that
>> they *are* indoctrinated.
>
>Mush like the alcoholic who doesn't know she or he is an alcoholic.
>
>> How do you get them to that point?
>
>One doesn't. One innoculates people who are not infected so that they
>never become infected. That is what public education was supposed to
>do in the USA, and why a certain political party in the USA, plus
>Fundamentalist Christian cults in the USA, are so very agressive in
>destroying public education.
One does. Look at Magoo. Look at Cerredwin. Look at Michael Pattinson.
Look at me. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the beliefs you have
now came as a result of realizing you'd been indoctrinated to believe
something else before.
>"Spacetraveler" is a lost cause; there are, however, millions of
>people and can immunize and innoculate against ever falling for the
>Scientology scam.
If I ask Spacetraveler a question and he doesn't answer, I tell him. You
haven't answered this question. I'm not saying you have to. Or that if
you do, you have to get it right. Who knows what the answer is? But like
Spacetraveler, you haven't really tried.
edo
-=-
Spacetraveler
It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think
I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking
the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new
information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be
that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly
intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can
you? Seems not.
Why asking questions if you don't want to learn?
Spacetraveler
edo
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 9 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>> If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time, what's
>> your problem?
>
>It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think
>I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking
>the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new
>information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be
>that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly
>intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can
>you? Seems not.
>
>Why asking questions if you don't want to learn?
More mumbo jumbo.
Why not just answer the question?
Here's some space for you, Spacetraveller. Maybe it'll help you.
==========
The reason L Ron Hubbard never did anything effective to stop the Church of
Scientology's practice of fair game is
==========
Heffer
>Coming from someone who hasn't posted an original
>document or anything but mindless abuse of FZ'ers
>for nothing more than daring to post here, for literally
>years, you have a lot of fucking gall even talking.
The hell you know, mastermind. Just get a fucking grip.
Mindless abuse of FZ'ers! Fuck, those loons are as bent
as the real thing but haven't got the organisation to
be as abusive as the Cof$ - yet.
Or have you gone soft/psycho-sympathetic with the 'tech'
of the master fuckwit Hubbard?
That old FOAD/Killfile line means fuck-all to me. I'll
suffer all the dipshit posts with the rest of them.
I just wanted to make sure you got the message. Looks
like you did.
Heh...
Peregrine
news:1NX6D61M3830...@anonymous.poster...
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 9 Nov 2004, spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>>> If you're as intelligent as you think you are, and in present time,
>>> what's
>>> your problem?
>>
>>It's you who claim the above, not me. I respond to concepts. I think
>>I succeeded pretty well with that. And see, you still keep on asking
>>the same question all over again. Sect members can't take in new
>>information, they have to reiterate. I responded to it, or it must be
>>that you did not check the link I provided. A sensible truly
>>intelligent person also can figure out the answer all by himself. Can
>>you? Seems not.
>>
>>Why asking questions if you don't want to learn?
>
> More mumbo jumbo.
>
> Why not just answer the question?
>
> Here's some space for you, Spacetraveller. Maybe it'll help you.
>
> ==========
> The reason L Ron Hubbard never did anything effective to stop the Church
> of
> ==========
>
> edo
> -=-
There you go, edo :)
Spacetraveller obviously has some issues with having (and/or) stating
his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to the
question* though.
--
Peregrine
***
The moment I let go of it
Was the moment I got more than I could handle
The moment I jumped off of it
Was the moment I touched down
Alanis Morrisette - Thank U
Peregrine
news:bf456302.04110...@posting.google.com...
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message
> news:<JDTSCY6N38298.7134606481@anonymous.poster>...
>> Why did L Ron Hubbard never do anything effective to stop the Church of
>> Scientology's practice of fair game?
>>
>> edo
>> -=-
>
> It is really odd that you post such a question via an
> anonymous-remailer.
Since we're discussing "fair game" here, I found this statement of yours
above to be somewhat ironic.
> My guess is that you know that Ron had nothing to do with the fair
> game as you interpret it and that is why you post so very anonymously.
See above.
> First thing is: who says that Ron wrote that policy or that part of
> the policy?
> Second thing is: who says that he ever saw it?
> Third thing is: who says that he did not cancel it after he found out
> about it but his cancelation was stolen by infiltrators?
I'm not going to answer these questions of yours because there are others in
this group better able to than I.
However, the fact that you are *asking questions* instead of simply telling
people things bodes well. Ask a question: you might learn something (should
be a bumper sticker ;)
You've been growing, Barbara, as a human being. It is wonderful to see it
happening. Keep up the good work.
(I'm *not* meaning to be patronising here, I truly sincerely mean it
Barbara, exactly as stated. I apologise in advance if the tone comes over as
patronising.)
> The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any
> physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists
> fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
The thing is . . . I kinda wonder if you're describing just "a true
scientologist" here. If that's true about "true scientologists", then it's a
worthy thing to aspire to, yes.
However, I think the evidence shows that there exist plenty of
"scientologists" - whether "true" ones or no - who do not follow this code
of conduct.
You may also consider that "real" scientologists do not hold the patent on
not doing any harm to anyone, and fighting back with lawful methods. In
other words, what you describe is not limited to the scientologists among
us.
You can be a good, decent, honest, ethical, hard-working, etc etc, person
without ever having taken a single scientology course.
You say you see many people in your daily life. Ask yourself: are they *all*
criminals? Have any of them shown you any kindness? Have they acted
decently, ethically? Were those people all scientologists?
> Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without
> sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
I'll also leave this one to be answered by others more able than I.
Spacetraveler
I am not really in the business of giving opinions, opinions will not
help you. Use your senses and study the history of the phenomena
during the years.
There are several sites giving information about this, the most
suitable I found to be this one: http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>
> I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to the
> question* though.
Off course you will, as all the data is already given, and you haven't
fallen yet. Or did you? I guess you can say that you didn't when in
fact you did, hmmm.
Spacetraveler
Curt West
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
> "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:<2vcabqF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "edo" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org> wrote in
>> message
>> news:1NX6D61M3830...@anonymous.poster...
And you still didn't answer the question.
*plonk*
Barbara Schwarz
RLOF!
What about you? You need to grow a lot more as being as I need to.
>
> (I'm *not* meaning to be patronising here, I truly sincerely mean it
> Barbara, exactly as stated. I apologise in advance if the tone comes over as
> patronising.)
>
> > The important thing is that no real Scientologist would do any
> > physical harm to anybody, friend or enemy. A true Scientologists
> > fights his enemies back with lawful methods.
>
> The thing is . . . I kinda wonder if you're describing just "a true
> scientologist" here. If that's true about "true scientologists", then it's a
> worthy thing to aspire to, yes.
>
> However, I think the evidence shows that there exist plenty of
> "scientologists" - whether "true" ones or no - who do not follow this code
> of conduct.
>
> You may also consider that "real" scientologists do not hold the patent on
> not doing any harm to anyone, and fighting back with lawful methods. In
> other words, what you describe is not limited to the scientologists among
> us.
>
> You can be a good, decent, honest, ethical, hard-working, etc etc, person
> without ever having taken a single scientology course.
And those are certainly not the anti-religious extremists or most of
the people who post on ARS!
>
> You say you see many people in your daily life.
Couple of hundreds a day. Most in the library. Many I know as they
either work or volunteer in the library or they come in frequently.
>Ask yourself: are they *all*
> criminals?
I did never post that.
>Have any of them shown you any kindness?
Not one of them, NEVER! (Just kidding) Of course many are kind, but
are they truthful? Basically people will all follow their case officer
in the end. And as I am stalked by the SEGNPMSS, despite some
friendliness of others the contact will be never true.
>Have they acted
> decently, ethically? Were those people all scientologists?
>
> > Whoever wrote that sentence in that policy letter, (dispose of without
> > sorrow) tried to criminalize SCN and it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> I'll also leave this one to be answered by others more able than I.
Yes, leave it to me.
Barbara Schwarz
edo
>Spacetraveller obviously has some issues with having (and/or) stating
>his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
It looks OK to me, but thanks.
His biggest issue is how good he's gotten at avoiding the collision between
his opinion and the facts. The more indoctrinated and the more intelligent
someone is, the better they get at it.
>I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to the
>question* though.
If it happens, we can compare bruises. :)
edo
-=-
Lady Chatterly
>
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Spacetraveller obviously has some issues with having (and/or) stating
>>his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
>
>It looks OK to me, but thanks.
Excuse me?
>His biggest issue is how good he's gotten at avoiding the collision between
>his opinion and the facts. The more indoctrinated and the more intelligent
>someone is, the better they get at it.
He whose face gives no light, shall never become a star.
>>I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to the
>>question* though.
>
>If it happens, we can compare bruises. :)
If you bow at all bow low.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Hahahahahaha.....He has so much bile, he poisons his own, Lady C." --
Hyerdahl1
Magoo
"Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
news:41919211$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
>
> Try to remember that.
>
> C
This guy sounds SO much like Bill Yaude, and no, I'm not saying it is...just
that he has the same way of posting. Bill would rarely give an opinion, and
always new more than others, and was great at quoting references.
Well, Spacetraveler, I guess you'll just have to pony up and answer the
damned question. That's part of the Comm cycle, you know...... :)
Tory/Magoo~~
>
>
Spacetraveler
That's the problem around here, opinions will not give answers, it'll
only be just opinions. On the other hand information will help make up
one's mind.
> Well, Spacetraveler, I guess you'll just have to pony up and answer the
> damned question.
It is addressed to with a nice looking link, this suffices.
> That's part of the Comm cycle, you know...... :)
Indeed it is, still waiting for your response!
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl219904232d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&selm=9f53d1e2.0411061812.288f2567%40posting.google.com
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Indeed *plonk*. A link was supplied.
And all you want to do is indulging in opinions. Doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Spacetraveler
Peregrine
news:63GKG0UL38300.8672916667@anonymous.poster...
Heh. Looks like we won't be investing in any bruise ointment any time soon.
Sadly, the scientologists have once again proved that the having of an
opinion of one's own seems to be "out-tech".
Or maybe he/she just couldn't find "opinion" in the scientologist dictionary
;)
arnie lerma
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<419196b1$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
>> news:41919211$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >
>> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:9f53d1e2.04110...@posting.google.com...
>> >> "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:<2vcabqF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> >>> "edo" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org> wrote in
>> >>> message
>> >>> news:1NX6D61M3830...@anonymous.poster...
>> >>> > NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>> >>> > No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
scientology goes quack quack....
Here's Tory's story:
TheDoorMagazine
July/August 2002
SCIENTOLOGY
Are we Clear on This?
Tory Bezazian Interview
By: Bob Gersztyn
We don't have to tell YOU about L. Ron Hubbard, his book Dianetics,
and the
religion it spawned - Scientology. In fact, until just recently, most
media
outlets WOULDN'T tell you about it given Scientology's well-deserved
reputation
for litigation. Instead, let us tell you about Tory Bezazian.
In 1969 Tory hitchhiked from Chicago to L.A. to become a disciple of
Dianetics. She invested untold tens of thousands of hours and dollars
in it (the
annual price tag for membership in the International Association of
Scientologists is a cool $1 million at the Gold Patron Meritorious
level). In
time, she rose to the level of OT VII, Scientology's all-powerful
"auditors"
said the evil alien thetas still clung to her body. Oh yeah, and she
had
epilepsy.
Still, Tory joined the Scientology Parishioners League (sort of a
Scientology
Anti-Defamation League) where she spearheaded ferocious attacks
against any
imagined media slight of L. Ron or Dianetics. She became the
indefatigable
"Magoo," nemesis of the Internet newsgroups at.religion.scientology
and
http://www.xenu.net
Eventually, Tory was an ordained "minister" and worked as a trainer of
new
Scientology initiates, like John Travolta.
Today Ms. Bezazian spends her time informing as many people as
possible that
the abuses of Scientology can destroy lives and that it is built on
lies told
solely for the purpose of enriching a small elite group who run the
organization.
This seemed like a radical change that merited further investigation.
Convinced that this would lead to a chance to photograph John Travolta
or Tom
Cruise, bob Gersztyn, The Door Magazine's staff photographer and
Interviewer of
Choice for things related to the Left Coast, agreed to engage Tory
Bezazian in a
phone interview.
THE DOOR MAGAZINE: Exactly what is Scientology?
TORY BEZAZIAN: Well, there's the Scientology answer, and then there's
my own
personal answer. What Scientology says it is, a study of knowing how
to know.
They say they're a religion and they're there to basically help people
get free.
DOOR: Free of what?
BEZAZIAN: L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book called Dianetics. And from
Dianetics, you
can erase painful moments or moments of loss. That's what he says.
DOOR: And so he built a religion based on eliminating painful moments.
BEZAZIAN: Originally, that's what Dianetics was and then he came up
with a state
of mind called "CLEAR" Which was supposedly where you had a perfect
memory and a
perfect I.Q. However, the truth is, through his own definition, there
isn't a
CLEAR.
DOOR: So he realized that he was wrong and recanted and gave everyone
back their
money?
BEZAZIAN: No, he found out it'll make money and as he says in his own
words, in
order to make money you've got to start a religion. So that's what he
did. He
started Scientology.
DOOR: Did you ever meet L. Ron Hubbard?
BEZAZIAN: I didn't know him personally, although many of my friends
did. From
knowing him via his tapes and from my friends, my best description is
"a
fabulous intern of P.T. Barnum's. He knew how to entertain an audience
and gain
their trust. From there, he used them for many things. Some laughed,
some cried,
some died... including him. He forgot it was just a show.
DOOR: When you originally got involved in Scientology what drew you to
it?
BEZAZIAN: I was really looking for a higher state of consciousness and
a way of
helping people. And I read Dianetics and I felt "WOW this is it!" You
know, "I
can help people go CLEAR." And I literally hitchhiked from Chicago to
Los
Angeles to study Scientology.
DOOR: But this state of CLEAR is touted as being where you achieve
almost
superhuman ability.
BEZAZIAN: Supposedly. In the early '50's, Hubbard did a big event at
the shrine
auditorium, in L.A. They actually tried to demonstrate CLEAR and
people in the
audience got up and asked various questions. And the lady couldn't
even remember
the color of Hubbard's tie that he was wearing. It was sort of a farce
and it
still is, really.
DOOR: So you've never met an actual 100% CLEAR?
BEZAZIAN: Oh sure. I know they say they're CLEAR by one further
definition
Hubbard gives, but in reality no, I haven't. Not one that has perfect
memory and
a super high I.Q. and, you know, absolutely no illnesses, absolutely
no pain.
You know, no upsets. No I haven't.
DOOR: How did the ones that claimed they were CLEAR achieve that
level.
BEZAZIAN: There's a whole thing Hubbard designed called "The bridge to
total
freedom." And you basically do these different steps. They start you
out on a
little teeny gradient. Just like something you'd like to improve.
There's a
chance Scientology can fix that. So you know, then you're on the
train. Now
you've done that, here's the next thing. And even if you don't want to
do it,
you're surrounded by so many people who're saying, "Yeah, do the next
thing." So
it's impossible to say I don't want to, or almost possible.
DOOR: The website www.xenu.net calls Scientology "...the most
expensive religion
on earth." Why?
BEZAZIAN: Because Hubbard was trying to make money and the execs in it
basically
live very well.
DOOR: But how would that be any different than some televangelist who
is balking
people out of their welfare and Social Security checks?
BEZAZIAN: There's definitely a similarity. The difference in those
religions and
Scientology is (that) you have a choice. In Roman Catholicism, for
example, you
don't have to go to church. You're welcome in their church at any
point.
DOOR: We take it this isn't the case with Scientology?
BEZAZIAN: In Scientology, you cannot do most of their stuff without
paying a
definite price. It's already pre-planned. It's very much like a
business.
DOOR: So everything has a set price on it?
BEZAZIAN: It's a set price. There's no negotiation. They call it a
donation.
It's basically a service they're selling. They call it a religion so
they don't
have to pay taxes.
DOOR: So how much is the total sum a person must pay to achieve CLEAR?
BEZAZIAN: You know, I'm really bad at this, 'cause I did that so long
ago. It's
in the tens of thousands. Probably would be $100,000 at this point.
DOOR: So then you were CLEAR?
BEZAZIAN: I attested to CLEAR, but they ended up invalidating it while
I was on
OT VII.
DOOR: CLEAR has levels?
BEZAZIAN:Yes there's CLEAR and there's OT.
DOOR: So it's CLEAR, OT I, OT II, OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, & OT
VII?
BEZAZIAN: OT VII is the highest level. And I was on OT VII for seven
years.
DOOR: And they took it away?
BEZAZIAN: Which was totally "Out Tech" for what they do. But they did
it anyway.
Out Tech is their slang term. Technology is tech. (If) it was out
tech, they
did something wrong, which invalidates someone's state of anything.
It's very
wrong in their group.
DOOR: So you were invalidated for the position that you had attained
even after
all your years of working on it?
BEZAZIAN: Yeah. I'd been on OT VII for seven years and then an auditor
said:
"Well, you're not really CLEAR."
DOOR: And here I thought "Once saved, always saved" was a neat dogma.
What was
the reason they gave you for doing it?
BEZAZIAN: They didn't. They just said: "You couldn't of gone CLEAR
then, so when
did you CLEAR?" I was just in the middle of OT VII and an Auditor was
doing a
very weird thing that shouldn't have been done. That's one thing.
The other thing was, I was an OT VII for seven years and then David
Miscavige,
who runs the church, had a huge event. And basically the truth of the
matter -
and I really think this - that their beginning levels are empty and
they can't
get a lot of new people because they read the Internet and find out
what's going
on. So I think they ran out of money and decided, "Well, we'll just
make all the
OT VII's redo OT VII." And all the auditors redo their training.
So David had a huge event and said "Oh, we found out everybody's not
doing
well. They haven't drilled you enough. So for everybody they have to
restart
from the beginning and do it all over again. It's like doing college
over again.
I was ready to graduate from college and it's like "Whoops. You didn't
really
drill it right. We want you to go back to the beginning and pay
$25,000 and redo
it."
I though, "Wait a minute! I've been doing this for seven years. I've
been
writing you saying something's wrong. I've been telling you it's not
going well.
And then to charge $25,000 to pay and redo it again? I don't think
so."
DOOR: So was that when you first began to see holes in their
philosophy?
BEZAZIAN: No. No. Really the beginning of the holes was getting on OT
VII,
because I really thought it was going to be this real neat level. And
it was
just more of what they call OT III - which has to do with these alien
beings
that you're supposedly surrounded by called BTs and Clusters. BTs
(Body Thetans)
is a whole different thing.
Basically they say: Seventy-five million years ago, this real evil
dude called
Xenu decided to handle the galactic overpopulation problem that
existed by
putting these excess people into volcanoes and blowing them up with
hydrogen
bombs, and their spirits were stuck on these electronic strips. I
think that
somehow he put the strips in these DC 8s, which is really weird.
DOOR: Wait a minute. You mean the DC 8 the old airplane? They had DC
8s 75
million years ago? Does the Smithsonian know about this?
BEZAZIAN: No, of course not. So that's really weird. Plus he
(Hubbard)lists the
actual sites of different volcanoes and many of them geographically
weren't even
in existence at the time. Then they went under these electronic strips
and then
they flew them in the DC 8s over to these theatres and implanted them
with all
these pictures about religion, and Christ, and God, and everything
else. And
then... I forget what they did then, but they end up being glued on to
all of
us. So that's the cause of all your problems in your life.
DOOR: Wow! At least Ron had the decency to invent his own religion
from scratch.
How did these strips get glued onto us when we were born?
BEZAZIAN: I can't remember the whole thing, but it's called OT III and
they can
read it on the Internet, they have the whole story posted. Hubbard was
a science
fiction writer and it is very science fiction. When you read it you're
like,
"Come on!" However, part of Scientology is that you are not allowed to
say a
word about these OT levels to another person. OT stands for "Operating
Thetan."
So it's the highest of highest crimes to ever say anything.
Just to give you an idea, one time I was in an apartment with another
woman
who was OT III and I just said "BT" and she immediately wrote it up. I
got in
huge trouble for it. They said, "If you ever do this again, you'll
never do
anything in Scientology again." So it's pretty heavy. So of course you
might
read it and go, "This is a bunch of you know what," but because you
can't say it
to anybody else around, instead, you're saying "Wow! Isn't this cool?"
To Hubbard, Theta equals spirit, so you were originally Thetan and
he's moving
you closer to the state of Theta with what he calls auditing or
counseling.
Entheta is the opposite of Theta. It's all the bad things.
DOOR: For example?
BEZAZIAN: Anything critical of Scientology was considered and is
considered
Entheta. Nobody wants to hear the bad side of things, but they go to
such an
extreme that they literally start cutting people's critical thinking.
Where
you'll see something that's really bad, it's almost like, "I didn't
hear that. I
know Scientology's so right, they would only do what's the right
thing."
DOOR: During the 30 years you were in. Scientology must've done some
good things
for you, or you wouldn't have stayed with it.
BEZAZIAN: There's a lot of nifty people in it. And that's probably
more than
anything what I stayed in it for. And there's a huge hope factor. And
once you
get to OT, you will be able to do X, Y and Z. And a lot of people stay
for that
very reason.
DOOR: One of the most famous cases linking a name to Scientology
negatively was
the death of Lisa McPherson.
BEZAZIAN: I wasn't there, but from what I've read and understand, she
wanted to
get out of Scientology. She had an accident, got out of the car and
took off her
clothes in an attempt to look insane and get to a mental institution
so she
could say, "I don't want to go back to Scientology." Instead, they
took her to
the hospital, and the Scientologists zoomed over there, and said,
"We'll take
care of her." They did what they call a "Type 3 handling." Which
means, "You're
so flipped out, no one's going to talk to you." That's what they do.
They just
keep you in a room. Very quiet. Nobody'll talk to you. And force
vitamins down
you. you can go on the Internet and look at her autopsy pictures and
story and
make up your mind on it yourself. She died of dehydration.
DOOR: Why didn't she go to the authorities or to the people at the
hospital and
say that she didn't want to go with them?
BEZAZIAN: I wasn't there, man. I don't know. Read the story. Go read
it
yourself. I'm not going to say I'm the expert on Lisa McPherson. And
this isn't
an interview about her.
DOOR: Um, yeah. Thanks for reminding us. You worked for Scientology's
Office of
Special Affairs. What exactly did you do for them?
BEZAZIAN: Mostly public relations stuff. They asked me to be in charge
of the
Scientology Parishioners League, which handles "Black PR" in the
media. Black PR
is anything critical of Scientology.
I was a volunteer for them for 20 years, but I was only in Scientology
Parishioners League for four months. Shortly after that, I left. I
mainly
organized it and we had an A & E special on cults and we asked them to
take us
out of that, saying "Scientology isn't a cult."
DOOR: Were you involved with the South Park episode where Cartman
soils his
drawers and uses a Scientology personality test to clean himself?
BEZAZIAN: Yes, but they were going to have it be Dianetics. I thought
we got it
changed to the personality test, but now I'm not sure how that was,
'cause
that's what OSA told me. I don't know if it's true or not.
DOOR: Didn't you also work on negative publicity in Florida, to help
defeat an
anti-Scientology politician?
BEZAZIAN: Yes, Richard Tenning. What I worked on there was not to get
him to
lose the election, although that was the intention of Scientology, but
mainly to
raise the awareness of the people of Clearwater. I guess it was to get
rid of
him. He was trying to prevent Scientology from setting up its
headquarters in
Clearwater and they didn't want that happening. Obviously.
DOOR: You quit Scientology and you were going to Florida to meet with
Stacy and
Bob Minton who could help you out, then Scientology operatives
followed you, or
met you at different airports to convince you to go with them.
BEZAZIAN: How did they know I was going to the airport at that time? I
had told
three friends that I was leaving the church, but I didn't say I was
going to
Clearwater and I certainly didn't say what time. So how did they know
I was
going there? When I got there, the vice president was there and she
wouldn't
leave me alone. She was there with piles of information about how bad
Stacy and
Bob Minton were and how I shouldn't go. She followed me for an hour
until
finally I called Bob Minton. He said: "Look, I'll just get you a first
class
ticket. You can go into a private lounge and she can't go in there."
And that's
how I got rid of her. Then I went to Chicago and there were more
people there.
We finally had the police get me out of Tampa at 1:45 in the morning.
That's
pretty weird. I was really amazed.
DOOR: By how had they wanted to keep you?
BEZAZIAN: I really thought it was my religion. I was leaving, but I
really
thought these were good people. And I just can't believe how they
turned on me.
How they ratted on me. They've broken in my house. They've done some
unbelievable stuff. One year ago I was a part of them.
DOOR: You left the church July 18, 2000. And you have no regrets about
leaving?
BEZAZIAN: None. Are you kidding me? When people do that kind of *** to
you?
DOOR: After you invest 30 years of your life in something, isn't it
hard to a
180 degree turn in your attitude towards it?
BEZAZIAN: First of all, I don't believe in regrets. I really don't. I
think it's
a waste of time and energy. And I've always felt that way in my life.
I just
believe you're kind of on a path, and you're doing what you're doing,
and that's
the right thing to do. I really do believe in higher powers and higher
spirits,
and they're helping me.
I had been watching Oprah Winfrey and she kept saying: "All I did was
give my
life up to God." So I thought, "Here's this woman who's so successful
and she
says it over and over. I gave my life up to God. My life is a rut.
It's a total
mess and I don't even have God in my life.
On the New Years Eve of the new millennium, I was in the Shrine
Auditorium,
they were having a big event, and I thought, "All right. I'm gonna do
it. I give
my life up to God. Do whatever you want with my life. I'm willing to
totally
100% transform my life. This year it's gonna change. I don't know
how."
I thought it was going to be all with Scientology, but then I got on
the
Internet and yadda. You know, this is just too incredible. It was an
amazing
transformation.
It wasn't a huge turning point. The huge turning point was getting on
OT VII
and seeing that it didn't work, it was a bunch of ***. That was a huge
turning
point for my entire life. The thing with Oprah was just a very small
thing that
just happened in a long sequence of events of things that have
occurred.
DOOR: So, where are you today as far as religion or anything of that
nature
goes?
BEZAZIAN: I believe very much in religion. I believe in faith, and I
believe in
people believing in whatever they believe in that makes their lives
better.
Whatever that is. I don't have any particular group that I'm a part
of. If
that's what you mean, no. I do believe in higher spirits, yes.
DOOR: How many people are there in Scientology worldwide, at this
point?
BEZAZIAN: Here's the truth of it: They count every single person who
even buys
books. But actual fact is that there's a few thousand that are active.
I don't
know exactly how many there are. It's in thousands. I'm not saying two
thousand.
I'm saying there may be thousands. But there are not millions and
millions that
are active. There are thousands that are active. But not millions.
What they say
is that there's eight million.
DOOR: So they use somebody like John Travolta or Tom Cruise as kind of
a
marketing tool to draw new converts. Do you know how either of them
got
interested in Scientology?
BEZAZIAN: No, I don't, but I helped train John Travolta.
DOOR: Really? Then you must know something about his involvement.
BEZAZIAN: People generally talk to other people. and they say: "Wow,
this things
really cool and I think it could help you out." The truth of the
matter is that
in Los Angeles, artists are not very cared for until they're big. Like
you're
nothing until you're big. And then you're everything. And a lady named
Yvonne
Jentszhe started a group called Celebrity Center. The intention is to
get them
into Scientology, just like Travolta. Travolta wasn't much when he
first came to
the Celebrity Center. He was their first big star, because he got
"Welcome Back,
Kotter."
DOOR: What did you train him for?
BEZAZIAN: He was on what was called the HQS course. The Hubbard
Qualified
Scientologist. It's just their second course after the communication
course.
DOOR: Is a trainer like a minister?
BEZAZIAN:Not necessarily. They just call them Supervisors. I later
became a
Minister of Scientology, but at the time I was not. Many of the
supervisors are
not. They're just trained in how to run a course room.
DOOR: How do you go about becoming a minister? Are you ordained and
able to
perform marriages and other legal services?
BEZAZIAN:Yes. They sort of did a group thing. What happened is that
they
realized that they had to become a religion. And they had to get
certified for
the IRS so they didn't have to pay taxes. So they did this massive
thing
overnight. This is real typical of Scientology, where they are just
BOOMF! -
overnight something will happen. So BOOMF! "We need to be ministers.
Okay
everybody's on this ministers course." This mass group of people and
"Okay
you're all ministers." We did one week-long course and then BOOMF! now
you're a
minister. And that's typical of Scientology. I believe the IRS was
their big
reasoning on it.
DOOR: BOOMF?
BEZAZIAN: They had the Guardians Office. Did you ever hear about the
Guardians
Office?
DOOR: That was the one that broke into the IRS wasn't it?
BEZAZIAN:They broke into somewhere. Did illegal things and eight or
nine people
went to jail for it. Including Mary Sue Hubbard. And because of that,
it may
have been after that, they were worried about them getting their
folders. So
they BOOMFED and made everybody ministers. Then they really had to
become an
official religion where we stamped all the folders, Priest Penitents,
Privilege,
and everything like that.
DOOR: What year was that?
BEZAZIAN:July 8, 1977, when the raid happened.
DOOR: You said that you first became suspicious that everything wasn't
what it
seemed to be when you hit OT VII. Didn't any of this make you
suspicious
earlier?
BEZAZIAN: The first clue was 1972. I got in in 1969. In '72 I joined
the Sea
Org. After a few months of being in the Sea Org - which is the highest
you can
be, as far as working with them. That was Hubbard's big elite team.
They said,
"You've got to get off this medicine." I take medication for gran mall
seizures.
"We're anti-medicine. You can't be on medication and be a part of this
OT
group."
So I started trying to get off this medication and I was having
seizures all
around town. It was a nightmare. It was a living hell for me. I was
losing my
memory. Really bad things were happening to me, and my mom was begging
me daily
saying, "Tory, take your medication, this is not right."
And I'd say, "No, no, Dianetics will handle it." And she'd say, "No,
no it
isn't! This is a medical situation. You need to take your medicine.
I finally did have to look at whether or not they are 100% right.
Finally, I
realized that they're not 100 % right. That was the very beginning of
me looking
at it. I realized that I can't do their 100% path. I can't because I
need to
take this medication. I'm going to have seizures, and they want me off
it.
DOOR: Then after you hit OT VII, that was pretty much when things
really started
to fall into place for you. Then I would imagine you went into denial.
BEZAZIAN: Scientology is built on denial. It isn't like you go into
denial then.
It's built on denial from day one. You read a thing called Keep
Scientology
Working. And Hubbard basically says you have to stay on this path. And
if you
get off of it, you could not only lose your freedom, but you could
lose your
freedom for eternity. Life after life after life. That's a lot if you
buy into
that. That's a big denial right there. That's a bunch of ***. Once you
buy that,
and it's in the very first course that you read that. And every course
after
that, they have Keeping Scientology Working and this whole six-page
paper about
how you have to stay on the path. If you see anybody off the path, you
have to
write them up. And they can pull them in and correct them. Get them
back on the
path.
DOOR: And the path is agreeing with Scientology's point of view?
BEZAZIAN: And believing what they say and debating it and not
listening to
anything that disagrees with it. They never want you to get on the
Internet.
Have you ever heard of the Net Nanny?
DOOR: Like an anti-pornography program for computers?
BEZAZIAN: They covertly put something on your computer so you cannot
get to a
critical site. I don't know another group that does that.
DOOR: That is a little extreme.
BEZAZIAN: A little? No wait. Let's get something straight here, man.
DOOR: Calm down, I didn't mean...
BEZAZIAN: A LITTLE TOO EXTREME? They're hounding people. They took
TIME magazine
to court for 15 years. That's a little more than extreme. By the way,
TIME
Magazine won. We're not talking about a little bit of hounding here.
We're
talking about a group that will do whatever Hubbard says. You can lie,
you can
cheat, you can do whatever Hubbard says. You can do whatever you have
to do to
put these people out of business. WHATEVER! And they do.
DOOR: How does such a small number of people wield so much power,
especially
financial power?
BEZAZIAN: They had a lot of people at one point, and remember, they
charged
everyone massive amounts of money. So they've amassed a lot of real
estate. And
they made people donate millions. I mean millions. A friend of mine
had to
donate a quarter million on just one visit. That's a lot of money just
to
donate, to write a check for. Is she in Scientology? No! Guess why
not! Because
they hounded her every time she came there, making her donate more and
more
money.
She finally said: "You know what? Screw you!" And so did a to of other
people.
Because they just don't deliver what they say. They hound people. They
hurt
people. They don't follow their own policies and they screw
themselves. And
they're going to screw themselves more and more. So now they have less
and less
people because they can't follow their own policies that are good.
They have
some good ones, but they are stuck in those harmful ones. They're
putting
themselves out of business. I told them that when I was in there. I
told them
just the things they did were so harmful (that) it was going to come
up and hurt
them. They wanted me and other people to go to people's houses, and
picket them
on their block, saying that they were a bunch of child molesters. And
I said:
"No, I'm not going to do this." They do that a lot. Like I just said,
you can
lie, you can cheat, you can do whatever you have to do.
DOOR: And that's openly taught?
BEZAZIAN: Well, no. It's not openly taught at all. No. It's a thing
called "Fair
Game" that Hubbard wrote. And they swear right now that's cancelled,
but they
Fair Gamed me for a year. So I can tell you from experience, it ain't
cancelled,
man! They tried to arrest me in Clearwater, Fla., for sitting in a red
Santa's
chair. Now, that's insane. They had over a 100 cameras posted on
people in a
four-block area, trying to trap us - now that's an interesting
religion. It's a
Mafia. That's what it is. And it's a small Mafia within a large group
of people
that nobody knows about. Members don't know what's going on in there,
and
they're not allowed to read. And they're not allowed to see. So they
think it's
The Truman Show. It's great. "Everything's fine, everything's
wonderful. We're
following the plan and we're helping everyone."
DOOR: So there's an elite group within Scientology that calls all the
shots? How
big would you say this group is?
BEZAZIAN: Tiny, very tiny.
DOOR: Less than a dozen?
BEZAZIAN: I really don't know, but I'd say, yeah probably.
DOOR: Have they invested all the money that they've amassed over the
years, or
have they squandered it all?
BEZAZIAN: I'm not one of their financial people so I can't really tell
you. But
I know they have money overseas. I know that they have money in
buildings. I
know that they are milking people on a daily basis to get more to
donate more
money. And they also work very hard on getting businesses milked into
it.
Because they really can't get the average person any more because most
people
are computer literate. And they all type in "
Scientology" and they read the stuff from www.xenu.net And they go,
FORGET IT!
The truth is out there and they can't really stamp that out.
For years, people couldn't get to the truth. So if you laughed, they
declared
you a "Suppressive Person." You're not allowed to talk to a
Suppressive Person.
So no one could ever hear what those bad people had to say. Which was
actually
factually a lot of truth, but because you're not allowed to talk to
them, nobody
hears what they were saying. Well, now they're on the Internet.
They're posted
on the Internet. Most people can get to 'em and even now most
Scientologists
have read about this Net Nanny and they don't really like it. So more
and more
people are reading the Internet and finding out the truth about it.
DOOR: The Internet is probably one of their biggest problems?
BEZAZIAN: Without the Internet, you can't ever get to the truth.
They'll never
tell you, so how could you ever find out anything? You can't. At times
there's
been information that would come out, but you can't read it, or you'd
get in
serious trouble. When I say trouble, I don't mean like Catholic Church
trouble
where you have to go to confession. In Scientology, you have to pay
thousands of
dollars if you get in trouble.
DOOR: They'll fine you for your sins?
BEZAZIAN: They have this thing called Security Checking. Which is why
I really
didn't like some of your questions, because they sound very much like
a SEC
(security) Check. It's like, "Wait a minute? Are you a Scientologist
just SEC
Checking me?" They very much want to know, and ask things like, "Why
did you
leave? What happened?" You know they're interested in it. They want
both sides
of it. Whereas the people that work for OSA (Office of Special
Affairs) want to
know why didn't Scientology work? What happened? What happened to you?
How come
you're not CLEAR? It's a different kind of question. It's a different
thing
they're interested in. That's why I thought you were OSA, because
you're asking
more of those kinds of questions. Which makes it sound like it. Now
you're sort
of gone into both of them, so you must be OK. I'm willing to talk to
you.
DOOR: Does that mean we can turn on the tape recorder now?
BEZAZIAN: ???
DOOR: Please continue.
BEZAZIAN: It's just when it gets into this kind of Mafia stuff it's a
little bit
different. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think other religions
have this
real Mafia kind of stuff. Scientology does, and the key thing that I
really want
to say to people is that they should look for themselves on the
Internet and
read these sites.
There's tons of really good sites - www.lermanet.com ,
www.mcpherson.org ,
www.entheta.net , and www.Warrior.offlines.org
Read Scientology and read the other stuff, then make up your own mind
on it.
If the Ferengi were to breed with the Borg you'd get Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/comedy.html
The internet is the Liberty Tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/libertyl.html
Ex-Scientologist staff member
apoligizes to John Travolta, Mayor Gabe Cazares
and the Citizens of Clearwater
http://www.lermanet.com/garyweber/
Help getting someone OUT of Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyhelp/main.html
Peregrine
>> "edo" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
>> news:63GKG0UL38300.8672916667@anonymous.poster...
>> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, "Peregrine" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Spacetraveller obviously has some issues with having (and/or) stating
>> >>his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
>> >
>> > It looks OK to me, but thanks.
>> >
>> > His biggest issue is how good he's gotten at avoiding the collision
>> > between
>> > his opinion and the facts. The more indoctrinated and the more
>> > intelligent
>> > someone is, the better they get at it.
>> >
>> >>I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to
>> >>the
>> >>question* though.
>> >
>> > If it happens, we can compare bruises. :)
>>
>> Heh. Looks like we won't be investing in any bruise ointment any time
>> soon.
>>
>> Sadly, the scientologists have once again proved that the having of an
>> opinion of one's own seems to be "out-tech".
>>
>> Or maybe he/she just couldn't find "opinion" in the scientologist
>> dictionary
>> ;)
>
> has been provided, but you will not find out.
I read the information provided.
And I'm still waiting for:
a. you to give an answer to the question asked
b. pigs to start flying down my street
c. hell to experience a sudden cold snap
d. JC Himself to come walking down my street
e. A scientologist OSA lackey to be capable of expressing a simple opinion
of his/her own.
HTH. HAND
Peregrine
news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
Not anywhere NEAR as funny as this one that the "church" of scientology
likes to play:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
Such jokers. Such killer jokes. You people should be in the comedy business.
Jommy Cross
(Spacetraveler) wrote in msg
<9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com>:
<snip>
>
>It's funny these petty games you people are playing.
Great to see the non pomposity going so well, Space.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Lady Chatterly
>
>When there is no involvement you ain't got nothing. Least of all a
>discussion. I return favours. Don't tell me, tell them. Full
>information was supplied.
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Whatsa bot?" -- invntrr
Zinj
spacetra...@hotmail.com says...
<snip>
> It's funny these petty games you people are playing.
>
> Spacetraveler
Since Scientology® considers every aspect of existence, including
genocide, tyranny, torture, mind-control, slavery etc. a 'game', it
shouldn't be too surprising if less indoctrinated humans/thetans
consider the collateral damage inherent in the 'Big Game' of World
Domination and Control not 'worth the candle'.
Better a petty, yet kinder Game given the choice.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Lady Chatterly
>
>spacetra...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler) wrote in message news:<9f53d1e2.0411...@posting.google.com>...
>> Stilllov...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) wrote in message news:<bf456302.04111...@posting.google.com>...
>> > "Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<419196b1$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> > > "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
>> > > news:41919211$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> > > >
>> > > >>> "edo" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header.gmsociety.org> wrote in
>> > > >>> message
>> > > >>> news:1NX6D61M3830...@anonymous.poster...
>> > > >>> > NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>> > > >>> > No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>> > > >>> his/her/own opinion, so I've fixed your post to help him/her out a bit.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> help you. Use your senses and study the history of the phenomena
>> > > >> during the years.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There are several sites giving information about this, the most
>> > > >> suitable I found to be this one: http://fair-game-law.notlong.com
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> the
>> > > >>> question* though.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> fallen yet. Or did you? I guess you can say that you didn't when in
>> > > >> fact you did, hmmm.
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > > This is a discussion group. Not a patter drill.
>> > > >
>> > > > Try to remember that.
>> > > >
>> > > > C
>> > >
>> > > This guy sounds SO much like Bill Yaude, and no, I'm not saying it is...just
>> > > that he has the same way of posting. Bill would rarely give an opinion, and
>> > > always new more than others, and was great at quoting references.
>> >
>> > personality, that makes him a great catch!
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not ready for marriage yet.
>>
>> > >
>> > > Well, Spacetraveler, I guess you'll just have to pony up and answer the
>> > >
>> > > Tory/Magoo~~
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > Tory, when I came to this newsgroup, I tried to acknowledge any
>> > posting, till I found out that you may post yourself into complete
>> > exhaustion if you ack them all. :)
>>
>> I think not that one has to ack all communications, it is rather to
>> follow to relevant discussions.
>
>Right, I ignore are lot more people and their stupid postings than I
>did when I started to post. You are getting nowhere if you start
>discussions with just about any intoxicated guy who crawls around
>here.
They are getting nowhere if they start discussions with just about any
intoxicated Guy who crawls around here. So what?
>We know that dear Tory does not do
>> that if she is uncomfortable with these particular discussions. With
>> this she is following in the footsteps of our old friend Gerry
>> Armstrong. He also backed out of it.
>>
>> It's funny, all these things people tell me about you.
Given the circumstances and the facts, defendants and their counsel
certainly understood, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye.
>Lol. When I read about what they write about me, I am astonished
>myself. I think to myself, who in the world is that woman that they
>describe. Most of the time their give me their own(!) characters! I
>don't recognize myself at all in their misunderstandings about me.
You can run.
>Well, in my
>> opinion you come with good thought-out arguments. Meaning one can
>> learn something from you. Keep on going!
>>
>> Spacetraveler
Keep a thing for seven years and you'll find a use for it.
>Thanks Spacetraveler, it is about time that somebody from outer space
>makes a study of the people on this planet, this earth who claims has
>so much intelligent life. As soon as you land in ARS you come to the
>conclusion, yes, life is here, but not many of these life forms are
>intelligent.
You seem quite positive.
>Trust me, I will be hated for that comment. :)
Trust me, I know how these people think.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Oh look, LC has a RL fan boi!" -- Iceman
Curt West
>
> Joe, you should read below posting of Spacetraveler. And I made also
> some comments in response. It is time that you adjust your
> misunderstandings of a Scientologist.
>
> Barbara Schwarz
Bad mirroring attempt.
Lady Chatterly
>
>Bad mirroring attempt.
Good advice is often annoying, bad advice never.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Getting your ass kicked again I see. Lady C is quickly becomeing my
hero." -- Crawdad
Barbara Schwarz
And he is a great cook, remember? This on top of his pleasant
personality, that makes him a great catch!
>
> Well, Spacetraveler, I guess you'll just have to pony up and answer the
> damned question. That's part of the Comm cycle, you know...... :)
>
> Tory/Magoo~~
> >
> >
Tory, when I came to this newsgroup, I tried to acknowledge any
posting, till I found out that you may post yourself into complete
exhaustion if you ack them all. :)
Barbara Schwarz
Spacetraveler
Hmm, I'm not ready for marriage yet.
> >
> > Well, Spacetraveler, I guess you'll just have to pony up and answer the
> > damned question. That's part of the Comm cycle, you know...... :)
> >
> > Tory/Magoo~~
> > >
> > >
>
> Tory, when I came to this newsgroup, I tried to acknowledge any
> posting, till I found out that you may post yourself into complete
> exhaustion if you ack them all. :)
I think not that one has to ack all communications, it is rather to
follow to relevant discussions. We know that dear Tory does not do
that if she is uncomfortable with these particular discussions. With
this she is following in the footsteps of our old friend Gerry
Armstrong. He also backed out of it.
It's funny, all these things people tell me about you. Well, in my
Faxhor
Spacetraveller's Answer?
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message news:<O0TO6FMA3829...@anonymous.poster>...
> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not*
> understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
Mr. Black Scientologist (EDO) is talking about MAGGOTS,
as I call them, such as EDO himself.
See my USENET definition of Maggot.
Ask Gerry Armstrong about all the documents about LRH's life
that he stole from the Church of Scientology . Apparently
Armstrong was the only person with these documents.
I imagine those documents could have been used to clear up
the many fabricated documents containing lies about LRH. Many
of those fabricated documents were planted in government files.
Faxhor
P.S. Dear Censorship Salesmen, do not bitch when I exercise
my rights.
edo
>>>I will fall off my chair in amazement if we actually get a response *to
>>>the question* though.
>>
>> If it happens, we can compare bruises. :)
>
>Heh. Looks like we won't be investing in any bruise ointment any time soon.
A penny saved is a penny earned. It isn't every day that you can say Scn
saved you money. ;)
>Sadly, the scientologists have once again proved that the having of an
>opinion of one's own seems to be "out-tech".
>
>Or maybe he/she just couldn't find "opinion" in the scientologist dictionary
>;)
Spacetraveler is an indoctrinated Scientologist. I'm an unindoctrinated
Scientologist. The difference is that Spacetraveler isn't free to form
opinions that are contrary to anything Hubbard said was an important part
of Scientology.
Some things Hubbard said about himself and Scientology are not true.
They're false. How can a person be himself and think clearly if he
believes things that are false?
There's another big problem with indoctrinated Scientologists. They try to
interpret too much of what's going on in the world and their lives
according to Scientology data only. Scientology covers a lot of ground but
it's not a substitute for everything else. The way indoctrinated
Scientologists act, especially the most indoctrinated ones, you'd never
know that.
If that isn't bad enough, most of them don't know much Scientology to begin
with. And a lot of what they think they know, they don't know very well.
But there's no know-all like an indoctrinated Scientologist know-all. Look
at Faxhor.
There are types like Spacetraveler that become "experts" in minutiae and
don't see the forest for the trees. I wonder how long he spent researching
fair game so he could come up with the foregone conclusion that if there's
anything bad to say it, you'd better leave Hubbard's name out of the
discussion.
Forget that Hubbard wrote the policies. Forget the documents showing he
practiced fair game and ordered Scientologists to practice it for decades.
Forget that CoS doesn't deny these facts or the documents, because they
can't. All they can do is shovel out PR about Hubbard and hope it buries
what they don't want people to know.
And most of all, for the Spacetraveler type, forget that Hubbard never did
anything effective to stop top management in CoS from practicing fair game.
Are we going to get this home to Spacetraveler with facts and logical
arguments? I don't think so. Fair game + Hubbard don't equate. It makes
no sense to an indoctrinated Scientologist. It doesn't fit in with his
indoctrination.
There's one more point I want to bring up before I sign off. It has to do
with the artificiality of indoctrinated Scientologists.
An indoctrination makes artificial people. It's true of any
indoctrination. The Scientology indoctrination makes Scientologists
artificial people. You could say this is obvious but I don't see many
people commenting about it.
If Scientology tech helps them to think and act more freely on one hand, on
the other hand the policies at the core of their indoctrination don't allow
them to think and act more freely. IOW they can't really be themselves.
They must conform.
How do you go free and be your own unique self with some of the whacky do's
and don'ts of Scientology? There's a big problem there.
The indoctrinated Scientologist's "solution" to the problem is to become an
artificial person. An artificial person is someone that spends a lot of
time trying to be who he thinks he's supposed to be and doing what he
thinks he's supposed to do, instead of being himself, doing what he thinks
is right and growing in his own way.
I think every indoctrinated Scientologist knows or feels there's something
wrong going on. I know I did. But they don't have a clue what it is. I
didn't either.
edo
-=-
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
David Miscavige
*This* is what I like to see! All the cramming and sec checks I've ordered
you to do are finally paying off!
We can't lie through our teeth about documents in LRH's own hand. Court
documents that we couldn't, and so didn't contest. Documents that show LRH
as the paranoid and perverted wog he could be at times. We can't lie about
those--officially. If we did that, we'd be dead agented in a minute and
laughed at. I *hate* it when we're dead agented!
That's why we have *you* lying here--unofficially.
Nobody but lurking Scientologists are going to believe you of course, but
that's the best we can hope for in this filthy pit of snakes.
Keep lying, Faxor.
But above all, keep being UGLY. Show these SP's how ugly WE can be when
we're as paranoid and perverted as LRH could be. It won't get rid of them
or do us any good at all, but we have just as much right to get our rocks
off as they do.
DM
P.S. Come up and see me tonight when you get off work. You can change into
something more comfortable when you're here.
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> > Sadly, the scientologists have once again proved that the having of an
> > opinion of one's own seems to be "out-tech".
>
> The above sentence implies that all Scientologists have proved this and that
> all Scientologists feel this way.
>
> Might be better phrased as "certain Scientologists posting here" or "Certain
> OSA 'bots" etc.
>
> C
That is an opinion of your own, and like many such, is 'out-tech'. :)
True, even in *actual* Scientology® (as opposed to Fluffy-Scientology or
other 'Scientology Lite') one has one's *own* opinion, but that
'opinion' is universal, 'sourced' by Hubbard, and not open to
interpretation. Failure of identity between 'Scientology' opinion and
'own' opinion is the hallmark of 'unScientology'.
Goony Bird
>From: carla...@youpy.com
>Subject: Re: Who is Skip Press?
>Date: 1999/04/05
>Message-ID: <xI5O2.6520$LX.2759402@WReNphoon3>#1/1
>References: <19990405102156...@ng-da1.aol.com>
>X-Originating-Host: 207.217.244.171
>X-Trace: WReNphoon3 923330461 10.0.3.195 (Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:41:01 PDT)
>Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 09:41:01 PDT
>Newsgroups: misc.writing.screenplays
>
>
>>Since 80% of the messages on this NG are devoted to Skip
>>Press, I've got to ask, who is he?
>
>He's a huxter who wrote a book about screenwriting,
>even though he has no screenwriting credits or
To be fair, no screenwriting credits does NOT equate to never having
sold a script. I admit I only know this second hand though. A friend
of mine, former roomate actually, sold about 10 scripts to various
studios, never had one produced though, so you won't find him in
IMDB.com. Studios apparently will buy stories they like, and sit on
them till the right time, or will use the ideas from the stories they
own for other movies perhaps, or some variation on that.
And correct me if i'm wrong but isnt this book by Skip
"Screenwriting for Dummies"? THose books are indeed very basic. None
of the "....for Dummies" books are very sophisticated. They're
designed for total beginners. You shouldn't expect much from them.
You're giving Skip waaaaaaaaaaay to much credit by calling him the
Carlton Sheets of Screenwriting. SHeets has a rather elaborate scam
going, and a rather succesfull one from what I can tell.
That being said, Skip DOES seem to have an attidude problem. I'm
working on postulating a flying ashtray in his direction as we speak.
>experience. He's like those guys who sell books
>about how to make a million dollars in real
>estate without spending a penny, but have never
>bought real estate themselves -- they only sell
>courses and books. Skip Press is the Carlton Sheets
>of screenwriting. His book focuses in part on how
>to get an agent, yet he admitted here just the other
>day he has no agent himself.
>
>He came into this newsgroup as an attempt to promote
>his book. He became so obnoxious that he drove out
>every working screenwriter who came here to help new
>writers. He did everything from libel them to stalk
>them. Just go to DejaNews and search for what he's
DejaNews was bought by google, and its http://groups.google.com/ now.
>written about Harlan Ellison. The few remaining
>working screenwriters here are endlessly harassed by
>him. Ask Bill Rabkin, the writer/producer of
>"Diagnosis Murder." Press most recently called him
>mentally ill with the mind of a 12-year-old.
>
>Someone here recently caught him redhanded faking
>reviews for his book on Amazon. He started a flame
>war in an attempt to cover his tracks.
>
<snip>
Ball of Fluff
>> >
>>
>> This is a discussion group. Not a patter drill.
>>
>> Try to remember that.
>
> When there is no involvement you ain't got nothing. Least of all a
> discussion. I return favours. Don't tell me, tell them. Full
> information was supplied.
>
When people try to discuss something with another person on a discussion
forum, they naturally expect something back.
Providing a link is not the same as discussion.
If that's all you want to do, a website would suffice.
C
Ball of Fluff
Church operatives are quite capable of such. they just won't do it because,
as was once explained some years ago, they are just here playing a part.
It is not a question of capability.
C
Spacetraveler
> > > Tory, when I came to this newsgroup, I tried to acknowledge any
> > > posting, till I found out that you may post yourself into complete
> > > exhaustion if you ack them all. :)
> >
> > I think not that one has to ack all communications, it is rather to
> > follow to relevant discussions.
>
> Right, I ignore are lot more people and their stupid postings than I
> did when I started to post. You are getting nowhere if you start
> discussions with just about any intoxicated guy who crawls around
> here.
>
> We know that dear Tory does not do
> > that if she is uncomfortable with these particular discussions. With
> > this she is following in the footsteps of our old friend Gerry
> > Armstrong. He also backed out of it.
> >
> > It's funny, all these things people tell me about you.
>
> Lol. When I read about what they write about me, I am astonished
> myself. I think to myself, who in the world is that woman that they
> describe. Most of the time their give me their own(!) characters! I
> don't recognize myself at all in their misunderstandings about me.
>
> Well, in my
> > opinion you come with good thought-out arguments. Meaning one can
> > learn something from you. Keep on going!
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> Thanks Spacetraveler, it is about time that somebody from outer space
> makes a study of the people on this planet, this earth who claims has
> so much intelligent life. As soon as you land in ARS you come to the
> conclusion, yes, life is here, but not many of these life forms are
> intelligent.
Let's keep it at that live itself is in fact intelligent, you only
have to distract the aberration out of it. Migh, migh, lot's of
aberration to be found around here ain't it.....
Spacetraveler
>
> Trust me, I will be hated for that comment. :)
>
> Barbara Schwarz
Faxhor
Spacetraveller's Answer?
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message news:<O0TO6FMA3829...@anonymous.poster>...
> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not*
> understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
Mr. Black Scientologist (EDO) is talking about MAGGOTS,
as I call them, such as EDO himself. Spacetraveller is
not a Maggot.
See my USENET definition of Maggot.
Ask Gerry Armstrong about all the documents about LRH's life
that he stole from the Church of Scientology . Apparently
Armstrong was the only person with these documents.
I imagine those documents could have been used to clear up
the many fabricated documents containing lies about LRH. Many
of those fabricated documents were planted in government files.
Faxhor
P.S. Dear Censorship Salesmen, do not bitch when I exercise
my rights.
================================================================
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (David Miscavige) forged:
<Fake David Miscavige message totally snipped>
David Miscavige
><Fake David Miscavige message totally snipped>
David Miscavige message totally unsnipped:
==================================================
*This* is what I like to see! All the cramming and sec checks I've ordered
you to do are finally paying off!
We can't lie through our teeth about documents in LRH's own hand. Court
documents that we couldn't, and so didn't contest. Documents that show LRH
as the paranoid and perverted wog he could be at times. We can't lie about
those--officially. If we did that, we'd be dead agented in a minute and
laughed at. I *hate* it when we're dead agented!
That's why we have *you* lying here--unofficially.
Nobody but lurking Scientologists are going to believe you of course, but
that's the best we can hope for in this filthy pit of snakes.
Keep lying, Faxor.
But above all, keep being UGLY. Show these SP's how ugly WE can be when
we're as paranoid and perverted as LRH could be. It won't get rid of them
or do us any good at all, but we have just as much right to get our rocks
off as they do.
DM
P.S. Come up and see me tonight when you get off work. You can change into
something more comfortable when you're here.
==================================================
Thank you for the passion last night, dear. I *loved* the chains.
DM
"Outright lies and false accusations are not something that can be
corrected. But honest and valid criticism is always welcome because it
helps a lot of good people do a better job." (Mayfair magazine, August
1970, "L. Ron Hubbard Breaks Silence")
Spacetraveler
Reading is not the same as duplicating or even understanding. If you
did these things you would have your answer.
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
>
>David Miscavige message totally unsnipped:
What makes you so positive?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Looks like Goofy found a kindred intelligence. Too bad it's a bot."
-- Cujo DeSockpuppet
Curt West
"Faxhor" <fax...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c901bee5.04111...@posting.google.com...
> Mr. Black Scientologist (EDO) refuses to understand
> Spacetraveller's Answer?
>
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (edo) wrote in message
> news:<O0TO6FMA3829...@anonymous.poster>...
>> Indoctrinated Scientologists, like Spacetraveller, *will not*
>> understand facts that are contrary to their beliefs.
>
> Mr. Black Scientologist (EDO) is talking about MAGGOTS,
> as I call them, such as EDO himself. Spacetraveller is
> not a Maggot.
>
> See my USENET definition of Maggot.
Your definition is irrelevant.
Lady Chatterly
>
>Your definition is irrelevant.
Are you kidding?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Typical Right Wing moron. Can't discuss the topic, so the personal
attack machine is plugged in." -- James Chamblee
Skip Press
This thread was started by a pseudonym.
All of them are attacks on me that probably arise from jealousy.
I never posted my own review of anything.
Usenet is full of kooks, but also useful information.
The most typical aspect of a kook is to post anonymously, make
accusations, demand explanations, and post lies from itself and other
kooks to "support" its untenable position.
On the other hand, I have a long career and lots of credits and yes,
gosh, actual sales. Of course, for kooks who can only look things up
on free Internet databases, they might not believe me, but who cares?
Any discussion with them is like trying to have a debate in Bedlam.
In article <oopcp0tvpar1rf4fs...@4ax.com>, Goony Bird
<goon...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
--
Skip Press
http://www.skippress.com
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor
more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new
order of things.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Peregrine
post, edo.
--
Peregrine
***
The moment I let go of it
Was the moment I got more than I could handle
The moment I jumped off of it
Was the moment I touched down
Alanis Morrisette - Thank U
"edo" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:FO00VATQ38304.1571064815@anonymous...
edo
>Top-posting, sorry . . . thanks for this thoughtful and thought-provoking
>post, edo.
You're welcome.
edo
-=-
edo
>Carlaknight was a pseudonym.
>
>This thread was started by a pseudonym.
>
>All of them are attacks on me that probably arise from jealousy.
>
>I never posted my own review of anything.
>
>Usenet is full of kooks, but also useful information.
>
>The most typical aspect of a kook is to post anonymously, make
>accusations, demand explanations, and post lies from itself and other
>kooks to "support" its untenable position.
>
>On the other hand, I have a long career and lots of credits and yes,
>gosh, actual sales. Of course, for kooks who can only look things up
>on free Internet databases, they might not believe me, but who cares?
>Any discussion with them is like trying to have a debate in Bedlam.
Nobody needs to believe anybody when the facts speak for themselves.
You've been discredited, Skip Press. There isn't anything more to discuss.
Why don't you just go away.
edo
-=-
Zinj
Rema...@See.Comment.Header says...
<snip>
> Nobody needs to believe anybody when the facts speak for themselves.
> You've been discredited, Skip Press. There isn't anything more to discuss.
>
> Why don't you just go away.
>
> edo
Hmm.. this sounds so oddly familiar. The practice of 'declaring
victory' and closing a chapter is a tine-honored PR move, regardless of
how spurious the 'victory' is.
How strange however that you choose to unilaterally declare Skip
'discredited'. Why not just declare him dead, or 'silenced' or purple?
The irony is that as far as 'discrediting' goes, you're not even in the
game. While Skip has a real life and palpable existence, which is what
*makes* him a potentially vulnerable target to your ad hominems and
'discrediting' attacks, you hide behind anonymity and absense of
identity. Worse, you're not just anonymous, but using the 'default'
nick (edo) given by the anonymizer you use. There's nothing wrong in
anonymity per se; Cerridwen and others demonstrate that well. But you
don't even have a consistent 'anonymous' identity.
How very 'conveeenient' for you that you can run religiousfreedomwatch
style DA attacks, while not exposing yourself to the same. This doesn't
mean that Skip has carte blanche to engage in the same kind of puerile
name-calling he's been exposed to. Which he has. Or that the original
argument about *politics*, which set you and your little dogpile on its
merry way, has any valid purpose on ARS.
But, in the battle for credibility, the real existence always trumps the
anonymous coward.
Ball of Fluff
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c015aa09...@news2.lightlink.com...
> In article <IYEJU79W38305.5178703704@anonymous.poster>, Anonymous-
> Rema...@See.Comment.Header says...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Nobody needs to believe anybody when the facts speak for themselves.
>> You've been discredited, Skip Press. There isn't anything more to
>> discuss.
>>
>> Why don't you just go away.
>>
>> edo
>
> Hmm.. this sounds so oddly familiar. The practice of 'declaring
> victory' and closing a chapter is a tine-honored PR move, regardless of
> how spurious the 'victory' is.
>
> How strange however that you choose to unilaterally declare Skip
> 'discredited'. Why not just declare him dead, or 'silenced' or purple?
>
> The irony is that as far as 'discrediting' goes, you're not even in the
> game. While Skip has a real life and palpable existence, which is what
> *makes* him a potentially vulnerable target to your ad hominems and
> 'discrediting' attacks, you hide behind anonymity and absense of
> identity. Worse, you're not just anonymous, but using the 'default'
> nick (edo) given by the anonymizer you use. There's nothing wrong in
> anonymity per se; Cerridwen and others demonstrate that well. But you
> don't even have a consistent 'anonymous' identity.
Yes, it does. Edo uses the edo remailer AND signs her (his??) posts as Edo.
>
> How very 'conveeenient' for you that you can run religiousfreedomwatch
> style DA attacks, while not exposing yourself to the same.
A lot of people don't like Skip Press.
C
Curt West
"Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
Me included.
> C
>
Zinj
says...
>
BFD. The same can be said for most of the people here. Me especially
:)
In fact, Skip even had the temerity to attack *me* in his inimitably
hair-trigger style. Maybe it has to do with remnants of the notoriously
persistent 'with me or against me' Scientology mindset, or just a
personality trait, but who likes who should only be of importance on
playgrounds or in dogpile land; not here. Although it's commonly given
more influence than it deserves.
As far as 'edo' being an actual 'identity'; well, it even uses a cutesy
little -=- under the generic 'edo' signature. When it *feels* like it.
The point to developing an 'anonymous identity' is that *all* your posts
are done as that identity. Cerridwen does so, (as far as I know) and
therefore accepts accountability for all of her posts. And therefore
has a level of credibility she has *earned*. Her 'credibility' does not
extend to politics or auto-mechanics, since as an anonymous, noone is in
a position to evaluate her competence in those arenas.
Likewise, and I don't mean to pick on Cerri, since she's merely an
excellent example of what I'd call 'anonymous credibility', Cerri has
her 'likes and don't likes' and her own tendency to jump into playground
frays to attack 'enemies of the clique/dogpile', where her
'credibility' doesn't count for shit. She does so infrequently, so it's
fairly easy to disregard such purely personality based excesses. Who she
likes or doesn't like has nothing to do with her actual 'data', which is
at the core of her 'credibility'.
'Edo' on the other hand has *no* credibility; not even special purpose
based on posting history or verifiable 'data'. If we look at 'posting
history', it seems evenly divided between unsuported opinion (nothing
wrong with that, but it doesn't count towards 'credibility') and
personal attacks against perceived enemies (either its, or the enemies
of its chosen clique).
Skip was more than a little silly to let himself be dragged into this
pointless and counter-productive 'I'm an authority because I'm an
author! - 'No you're not, because you're a bad author!' war, but the
fact remains that the opening shot was a completely ludicrous claim,
advanced by a number of idiots that *their* political position was the
*only* acceptable position for Scientology Critics.
I objected to that. Skip objected to that. A number of other people
objected to that, and that objection *itself* demonstrates that the
original premise was stupid.
Luckilly, for ARS and 'Scientology Criticism' in general, the first
deluge of moaning and gnashing of teeth following the election has died
down, but what remains is a hangover of bitter blithering idiots so
desperate to win imaginary 'points' *somehow* that they desperately need
to 'discredit' their enemy, so that they can feel some kind of
vindication denied them.
Like and don't like and whether someone's a great author or whether they
change their socks every day is *totally* irrelevant to Scientology
Criticism. It's also of no import to the credibility of someone's
political views; therefore it was wasted when Skip raised it. Whether
Skip makes tons of money on his writing is of no consequence to the
discussion of Scientology *or* politics, and it never did
I suppose that Skip only raised it as an 'issue' in contrasting his own
real and visible existence to the anonymous cowards who choose to snipe
from the secrecy of their own hidden dirty laundry. Hmm, much like
religiousfreedomwatch, don't you think?
And that's what I find most deplorable about 'Edo' whoever or whatever
it is. The sheer hypocricy and cowardice of attacking 'real' people
from the 'security' of 'you can't see me and answer in kind! Nyaaa
nyaa!'
Of course, the newsgroup would be well served if people just kept their
likes and dislikes and festering little animosities to themselves, but
that's unlikely for a couple of reasons. One, it's just human nature to
act like petulant little snipers intent on 'discrediting' their enemies;
two, it's doubly predictable here, since such behavior is directly
*promoted* by Scientology and Hubbard, and many of the actors here are
victims of the 'training' *and* even those who are'nt tend to get
infected, and, thirdly, the past 5 or 6 years of Scientology Criticism
has seen the evolution of 'interest groups', 'factions' and 'cabals'
which exhibit a distressing desire to appoint *themselves* as 'leaders'
or 'spokesmen' for *all* of Scientology Criticism. That they are at
best incestuous little gaggles of mutual back-patters and vainglorious
pustules of petty power inevitably means that any 'criticism' of one
pulls in the whole dogpile and yet another round of 'shout the enemies
into submission!'.
And *that's* my pet peeve and 'dislike'. I know, I know... it's
inevitable that you or one of the other dogpilers will jump in with how
I'm no innocent in the flaming, but I do take a certain amount of pride
in the fact that I seem to be equally abhored by *all* the competing
'interest groups', that I have absolutely no interest in leading a
Zinjifarian Faction, and that whether I like or dislike people (and you
might be surprised whom I 'like' or 'dislike') I never feel it necessary
to drag in extraneous detail about someone else's personal life or
behavior to 'attack' their ARS expressed positions. Nor do I 'count the
audience' and check my support before I state my opinion. Nor do I
always state my opinion at all :)
Believe me, I have many, both about 'current ARS events' and about
posters in general, that I just don't bother to express, because it's
just not worth it.
Ball of Fluff
No. What's happening here is that more than one person uses the Edo
remailer.
The one who always signs its posts as "edo" is one person.
Those who don't do it that way are not that person.
> The point to developing an 'anonymous identity' is that *all* your posts
> are done as that identity. Cerridwen does so, (as far as I know) and
> therefore accepts accountability for all of her posts. And therefore
> has a level of credibility she has *earned*. Her 'credibility' does not
> extend to politics or auto-mechanics, since as an anonymous, noone is in
> a position to evaluate her competence in those arenas.
See above.
>
> Likewise, and I don't mean to pick on Cerri, since she's merely an
> excellent example of what I'd call 'anonymous credibility', Cerri has
> her 'likes and don't likes' and her own tendency to jump into playground
> frays to attack 'enemies of the clique/dogpile', where her
> 'credibility' doesn't count for shit. She does so infrequently, so it's
> fairly easy to disregard such purely personality based excesses.
She does so rarely and, most notably, it's when the person doing the
attacking is clearly doing so and is evidencing an obvious bias.
> Who she
> likes or doesn't like has nothing to do with her actual 'data', which is
> at the core of her 'credibility'.
>
> 'Edo' on the other hand has *no* credibility; not even special purpose
> based on posting history or verifiable 'data'.
The edo entity of whom I was speaking is a person posting opinions and
commentary onto a public forum.
As are you.
As am I.
As are a lot of people.
Neither you, nor I, nor many people posting here post statistics. Yet I
don't see you making that same 'plaint about them.
>If we look at 'posting
> history', it seems evenly divided between unsuported opinion (nothing
> wrong with that, but it doesn't count towards 'credibility')
Credibility has nothing to do with anything. This is a discussion forum.
People discuss things. The only time when people (like you) mention
credibility in re someone who isn't posting articles, statistics, whatever,
is when they have a dislike for that person.
But it makes no sense because when someone's posting opinion-based
commentary that is what they are doing. Period.
It isn't a question of credibility or of non credibility.
>and
> personal attacks against perceived enemies (either its, or the enemies
> of its chosen clique).
*You* do it. So what.
>
> Skip was more than a little silly to let himself be dragged into this
> pointless and counter-productive 'I'm an authority because I'm an
> author! - 'No you're not, because you're a bad author!' war, but the
> fact remains that the opening shot was a completely ludicrous claim,
> advanced by a number of idiots that *their* political position was the
> *only* acceptable position for Scientology Critics.
He attacks people and is now getting a dose of his own medicine. I really
doubt that ptsc, edo, and others give a damn what Skippy's published or how
those books have done.
>
> I objected to that. Skip objected to that. A number of other people
> objected to that, and that objection *itself* demonstrates that the
> original premise was stupid.
>
> Luckilly, for ARS and 'Scientology Criticism' in general, the first
> deluge of moaning and gnashing of teeth following the election has died
> down, but what remains is a hangover of bitter blithering idiots so
> desperate to win imaginary 'points' *somehow* that they desperately need
> to 'discredit' their enemy, so that they can feel some kind of
> vindication denied them.
The election results have nothing to do with edo or Skip Press. I've been
seeing various commentary by edo about Skip since long long before the
election.
>
> Like and don't like and whether someone's a great author or whether they
> change their socks every day is *totally* irrelevant to Scientology
> Criticism.
And all sorts of things said about me are irrelevant to Scn criticism yet
you've often complained about my having jumped on people for saying such
things.
I think that when a Scn'ist is any part of the mix, that you employ a
different standard than if it were otherwise.
>It's also of no import to the credibility of someone's
> political views; therefore it was wasted when Skip raised it. Whether
> Skip makes tons of money on his writing is of no consequence to the
> discussion of Scientology *or* politics, and it never did
>
> I suppose that Skip only raised it as an 'issue' in contrasting his own
> real and visible existence to the anonymous cowards who choose to snipe
> from the secrecy of their own hidden dirty laundry. Hmm, much like
> religiousfreedomwatch, don't you think?
No.
>
> And that's what I find most deplorable about 'Edo' whoever or whatever
> it is. The sheer hypocricy and cowardice of attacking 'real' people
> from the 'security' of 'you can't see me and answer in kind! Nyaaa
> nyaa!'
So what?
A lot of Anons have come here and slammed me but you didn't have anything to
say about it.
'Cuz it doesn't matter whether one knows who they are or not. It's just what
they are saying that is the relevant issue.
>
> Of course, the newsgroup would be well served if people just kept their
> likes and dislikes and festering little animosities to themselves, but
> that's unlikely for a couple of reasons. One, it's just human nature to
> act like petulant little snipers intent on 'discrediting' their enemies;
> two, it's doubly predictable here, since such behavior is directly
> *promoted* by Scientology and Hubbard,
It sure isn't promoted in the majority of the courses in Scn. It comes up in
the GO, OSA and other sorts of training but most Scn'ists do not have any of
that.
Some of the most hostile and acerbic posts I've ever seen were written by
people who'd never been in Scn.
It comes down to what sort of person the person is. Period.
>and many of the actors here are
> victims of the 'training' *and* even those who are'nt tend to get
> infected, and, thirdly, the past 5 or 6 years of Scientology Criticism
> has seen the evolution of 'interest groups', 'factions' and 'cabals'
> which exhibit a distressing desire to appoint *themselves* as 'leaders'
> or 'spokesmen' for *all* of Scientology Criticism. That they are at
> best incestuous little gaggles of mutual back-patters and vainglorious
> pustules of petty power inevitably means that any 'criticism' of one
> pulls in the whole dogpile and yet another round of 'shout the enemies
> into submission!'.
>
> And *that's* my pet peeve and 'dislike'. I know, I know... it's
> inevitable that you or one of the other dogpilers will jump in with how
> I'm no innocent in the flaming, but I do take a certain amount of pride
> in the fact that I seem to be equally abhored by *all* the competing
> 'interest groups', that I have absolutely no interest in leading a
> Zinjifarian Faction, and that whether I like or dislike people (and you
> might be surprised whom I 'like' or 'dislike') I never feel it necessary
> to drag in extraneous detail about someone else's personal life or
> behavior to 'attack' their ARS expressed positions.
Yes, you did. You told me on a.r.s. that you had no problem with my not
wanting to discuss certain elements of my personal life, then, a few months
later, jumped in on a totally different thread with some snide comment about
how I'll be sooo quick to say I won't discuss my personal life unless it
suits me.
Yeah, right. Zinj. What a crock of shit.
> Nor do I 'count the
> audience' and check my support before I state my opinion. Nor do I
> always state my opinion at all :)
Thank Xenu for that.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Curt West" <curt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JGPld.21669$zv2....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
You know what, I don't care how well his books do or don't do or what he
says about them. I think it's great that he's been published and has some
kind of career going with that. I've known some other professional writers
and it's my understanding that it's not always easy to get published.
My objection to Press is more that he sometimes attacks some people then
acts as if he never has done so. He goes on and on about hate and all this
but when he dislikes someone he has no problem initiating very rude and
aggressive communication to them on this forum.
I see this as hypocritical.
I don't give a rip that he doesn't like Scn. If that were my criterion for
whether I liked other contributors to this forum, I'd be pretty damn lonely.
I just think he's a hypocrite. I didn't like the post he wrote about Tory. I
don't like a lot of things he says to and about people.
He doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to discussing fair
treatment of others.
C
Lady Chatterly
They are welcome. Why does it matter to you?
--
Lady Chatterly
"At the risk of being the object of auk's ridicule, I don't think it
is a bot. It's made a few mistakes. I think it's someone *pretending
to be* a bot." -- Dr. Zen
Curt West
"Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message
My opinion, and it's only that, is that Skip, while denouncing the Cof$,
practices a version of "DA" similar to that used by the very cult he
pretends to vilify. His DA attacks are sickening.
>
> C
>
Zinj
There is no way to know that. Nor is there any way to know whether 'this
Edo' also posts or has posted as 'other' nicks, and judging by style, I
feel pretty sure it has.
Much like 'ptsc' is a single nick with a posting history, it's also a
'real' person who is not 'anonymous', and therefore 'accountable' for
its posts, even if Rob wasn't well known; *BUT*, ptsc also has a history
of posting using *other* anonymous nicks when he's been 'officially'
gone from ARS, or when he wants to hide behind deniability.
> > The point to developing an 'anonymous identity' is that *all* your posts
> > are done as that identity. Cerridwen does so, (as far as I know) and
> > therefore accepts accountability for all of her posts. And therefore
> > has a level of credibility she has *earned*. Her 'credibility' does not
> > extend to politics or auto-mechanics, since as an anonymous, noone is in
> > a position to evaluate her competence in those arenas.
>
> See above.
See above. If 'this Edo' wanted to clarify which nicks it has *ever*
used, it would deserve some measure of 'credibility', depending on how
credible the revelation (dubious) and the actual content of the posting
history. Best would of course be to adopt a single nick and stick to it,
and never post without that identity, but I doubt that'll ever happen.
> >
> > Likewise, and I don't mean to pick on Cerri, since she's merely an
> > excellent example of what I'd call 'anonymous credibility', Cerri has
> > her 'likes and don't likes' and her own tendency to jump into playground
> > frays to attack 'enemies of the clique/dogpile', where her
> > 'credibility' doesn't count for shit. She does so infrequently, so it's
> > fairly easy to disregard such purely personality based excesses.
>
> She does so rarely and, most notably, it's when the person doing the
> attacking is clearly doing so and is evidencing an obvious bias.
'They did it first' is a pretty piss-poor excuse, but in fact, it's one
Cerri seldom uses herself (not never), and it's far more common for co-
dogpilers to jump in in her defense. It's really too bad, since
Cerridwen doesn't need much in the way of defense; not even for her own
bad temper or personal bias.
> > Who she
> > likes or doesn't like has nothing to do with her actual 'data', which is
> > at the core of her 'credibility'.
> >
> > 'Edo' on the other hand has *no* credibility; not even special purpose
> > based on posting history or verifiable 'data'.
>
> The edo entity of whom I was speaking is a person posting opinions and
> commentary onto a public forum.
It's an 'entity' only as far as it's a consistent entity. Maybe *you*
know 'who' This Edo is, and maybe you don't. Likewise, what makes you
think that 'this edo' doesn't post using other nicks for 'special
purposes'?
Anyway, *my* opinion of 'this Edo' is based on the posting history of
'this Edo' who signs as Edo and uses the cutesy little dashes. I have
no way of knowing whether 'this Edo' also posts as Joe Blow, or even
whether 'this Edo' cheats at checkers, wears soiled underwear or kicks
puppies.
What I *do* know is that 'this Edo' devotes a large percentage of its
time to attacking what seems to be a voluminous roll of personal and
group enemies and attempting to get oter people into pointless ARS
squabbles, while preferrably keeping its own hands as clean as possible.
A nasty piece of work. Whether its *other* opinions about Scientology
or the price of tea in China are valuable or not is a non-issue, since,
as an anon, it has no background or credibility. Sometimes I agree with
it; sometimes I don't. I never defer to its judgment based on its
credibility, because it has none. Contrary to dogpile mentality, it's
*not* necessary to say that *everything* 'this Edo' says is pure
bullshit; it's enough to say that its 'judgment' is excessively tinged
by its own vicious animosities, and therefore, lacking other verifiable
support, always questionable.
> As are you.
>
> As am I.
>
> As are a lot of people.
The huge majority of posters to ARS do not belong to any 'special
interest groups' or 'cliques', although they may tend towards one or the
other, depending on 'issue'. Likewise, the huge majority of ARS posters
don't have any particular history with other posters which would incline
them to the gall-spewing viciousness which makes 'destroying the enemy'
so popular for some.
> Neither you, nor I, nor many people posting here post statistics. Yet I
> don't see you making that same 'plaint about them.
It's a discussion forum. It's not a 'database', although it's that too.
Actual 'data' and information are valuable but not sole commodities.
Practically *everything* I post is pure opinion, and that's all it is.
People can take it or leave it, or even make fun of me, or worse.
God knows I've managed to grow a nice thick skin thanks to the legions
of OSAbots *and* 'Critics' who feel that the best way to 'win' an
argument is to 'shudder the enemy into silence' or 'drive them off with
shocking viciousness'. Come to think of it, it's rare that those tactics
actually work, yet they get more and more common. I admit, while it's
pretty hard to 'hurt my feelings' on ARS, I deeply resent the 'critics'
who, failing that, choose to try to attack people close to me, but hey;
assholes are assholes, and *that* doesn't work either.
> >If we look at 'posting
> > history', it seems evenly divided between unsuported opinion (nothing
> > wrong with that, but it doesn't count towards 'credibility')
>
> Credibility has nothing to do with anything. This is a discussion forum.
> People discuss things. The only time when people (like you) mention
> credibility in re someone who isn't posting articles, statistics, whatever,
> is when they have a dislike for that person.
Credibility has *tons* to do with everything. Which is why some people
like Kristi and Warrior and Cerridwen and and and can present 'data'
that is 'credible'. When presenting 'information', they have *earned*
the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise. That's 'credibility'.
Further down the foodchain, *opinion* accumulates credibility (or not).
Which is why the dogpiles are so intent on 'discrediting' their
perceived 'enemies'. 'Credibility' is the coin of the realm in
cyberspace and ARS in particular, and people who are printing their own
kneejerk 'groupthink' power plays and attacks are trying to pass 'funny
money'.
Peaches, for example, is despite her occasional bouts of snarkiness, a
lovely person who is almost universally polite and even kind. This
makes her 'opinions' more valuable, since they are seldom if ever based
on pure opportunistic viciousness. If she says something, even if I
disagree with it, I'll at the very least listen to her opinion twice,
even if I end up disagreeing. In most case that goes for most people
here, even you :) That doesn't mean I grant her 'credibility' on
political matters though! There, she's just a mushy-headed liberal :)
'This Edo' is the flip side. It's not even necessary for it to *always*
be a vicious personal-attack-bitch; the percentage of its postings that
are purely for antagonistic and 'third party' purposes brings even
otherwise 'credible' opinions into question; *because* of the liklihood
that the opinion is tinged if not entirely based on its own personal
antitipathies.
It's not alone there, and, 'credibility-wise', I think it's fair to say
that those most dedicated to 'discrediting' their 'enemies', with
'investigations' and personal attacks, for either their own or their
'group's' gain are the people most guilty of trying to 'buy
credibility' with monopoly money.
> But it makes no sense because when someone's posting opinion-based
> commentary that is what they are doing. Period.
>
> It isn't a question of credibility or of non credibility.
A is not A is not A when A is a continuum of value. Some opinions *are*
worth more than others. And the 'value' is always determined by the
buyer.
As for my own opinions; take them or leave them. I do think I have some
credibility based on my own personal experience, but, since I'm not
advertising that, all ARS has to go on is my own posting history. Since
I'm not running for office, the market value of my opinions isn't
something I spend much time worrying about.
> >and
> > personal attacks against perceived enemies (either its, or the enemies
> > of its chosen clique).
>
> *You* do it. So what.
Example? Certainly not against you; since I know nothing about your
personal life, beyond what you've posted here, and even that is not
something I remember 'using against you'. Certainly not against 'this
Edo', whose 'personal life' is as much a void to me as to anyone else,
except its chosen 'friends'. I'vee been around enough that if I *did*
want to 'payback' my 'enemies' in the same coin, I probably could, but I
can't remember having done so. Can you?
I'd even go so far as to say that it's been long hard years of getting
to the point where I stopped wasting any time deciding who my 'personal
enemies' are or 'defending myself' against them.
That's *not* to say, however, that I don't take inordinate pleasure in
monkey-wrenching the machinations of various self-proclaimed 'power
elites'; whether the Buttersquash Elves or the 'Legitimate Activists'.
The fact that the 'players' in those 'backchannel cabals' may include
people who have gone to great lengths to harm me and mine really doesn't
have much to do with the fact that I think that hoarding of information
in order to self-aggrandize themselves, and merchandize their own little
backchannel is 'valuable behavior'. I don't. The fact that the
'Legitimate Activists' attempt to legitimze their self-appointed role as
'Security Detail' and 'sec check' all potential 'critics', demanding
private information which is *better* left ungiven, while at the same
time declaring that questioning them is 'doing OSA's work is grounds
enough to sneer.
Likewise I object to the hijacking of Scientology Criticism for
tangential 'causes'; whether it be Bash Bob Week, or 'Gerry is my
Prophet; I shall not want' or even 'The Voters are Morons! We're
Doomed!!'
It's a shame that the automatic reaction of these poor attacked
'groups' is to insinuate that I'm only 'attacking' them because I'm mad
that they exposed me as a pedophile, while diverting around the fact
that nobody appointed them as 'Central Committee' (wdnenmhmtwtbi (which
doesn't exist, no matter how much they want to be it))
No, to tell you the truth, and after a extensive self-inventory, I can't
think of any 'personal enemies' I'm interested in 'discrediting' or
destroying. Certainly not people like Kady, ptsc, Arnie or even the
particularly vaporous 'this Edo'.
For the most part, I've known these people for years, in good times and
bad, and I think it's a shame that they have fallen for the 'by any
means necessary' paradigm, but, hey. Once you've annointed yourself
Mankind's or 'Scientology Criticism's' or 'progressive element's' *Only
Hope*, it would be thweety weety to hesitate to 'hurt someone in a just
cause'.
So; bring it on assholes. Maybe if you 'depopularize' me enough it will
*finally* shudder me into silence. Hubbard said it would.
(of course; He *also* said that He had a doctorate, and that he dodged
trains on Venus, but hey, why quibble?)
> > Skip was more than a little silly to let himself be dragged into this
> > pointless and counter-productive 'I'm an authority because I'm an
> > author! - 'No you're not, because you're a bad author!' war, but the
> > fact remains that the opening shot was a completely ludicrous claim,
> > advanced by a number of idiots that *their* political position was the
> > *only* acceptable position for Scientology Critics.
>
> He attacks people and is now getting a dose of his own medicine. I really
> doubt that ptsc, edo, and others give a damn what Skippy's published or how
> those books have done.
There is no question that Skip was perfectly willing to jump into the
mosh pit; whether after being canned by an idiot in the crowd, or out of
the blue. Considering the sheer stupidity of both the 'original' issue
or the devolvement into pointless inanity, I don't think it's worth much
to argue about who struck the first blow.
The music's over. The mosh pit has become a vat of particularly
unappetizing fluids. Time to get out.
Even 'this Edo' could use a shower.
In the meantime, and despite vocal protests, I will announce that it
*is* possible for a Republican to be a Scientology Critic.
Take it as you will. Take it on credit. Stuff it up your circular file.
Whatever.
> > I objected to that. Skip objected to that. A number of other people
> > objected to that, and that objection *itself* demonstrates that the
> > original premise was stupid.
> >
> > Luckilly, for ARS and 'Scientology Criticism' in general, the first
> > deluge of moaning and gnashing of teeth following the election has died
> > down, but what remains is a hangover of bitter blithering idiots so
> > desperate to win imaginary 'points' *somehow* that they desperately need
> > to 'discredit' their enemy, so that they can feel some kind of
> > vindication denied them.
>
> The election results have nothing to do with edo or Skip Press. I've been
> seeing various commentary by edo about Skip since long long before the
> election.
The fact that 'this Edo' has a hard-on for Skip is irrelevant. Obviously
Skip can't even keep the people 'on his team' straight; much less an
anonymous tub-fart like Edo.
> > Like and don't like and whether someone's a great author or whether they
> > change their socks every day is *totally* irrelevant to Scientology
> > Criticism.
>
> And all sorts of things said about me are irrelevant to Scn criticism yet
> you've often complained about my having jumped on people for saying such
> things.
Huh? What have I said about you? Or are you saying what *other* people
say about you?
Pssst... Claire, the fact that I *don't* take a position on what 'other
people' say about you does *not* mean that I agree with them.
If I *had* to 'take a position' on every turd floating down the ARS
channel, I'd be one busy Zinjifarian.
I don't. Therefore I don't.
I've never made any question of *my* position on *you*, and it's so
numerously expressed that I won't even bother repeating it again unless
you'd like me to.
What I possibly havn't expressed is that I like and respect you
*despite* my opinions about you and your methods and your opinions
beyond that.
Anyway; just to clear that up; I like and respect you, even when I
discard your positions on Scientology like month old hamburger. You are
not your opinions; and even if you arrive at your opinions through
highly dubious, if not essentially invalid plumbing, I respect that you
hold them dear to you. Respecting you does *not* mean agreeing with
you; no matter what Hubbard said abour ARC.
I do not agree with you. I do not think that what you attempt to sell
as 'Scientology' is. I think you are wrong. I do not accept your
version of 'unindoctrinated'. I think it's a totally bogus concept
suitable for spreading on roses.
That has *nothing* to do with whether I like or respect you otherwise.
In a way, accepting you is like accepting Barbara Schwarz, whom I also
accept. I think you're nuts. Both of you. What does *that* have to do
with liking or disliking you or agreeing with you?
ARC is *BULLSHIT*
> I think that when a Scn'ist is any part of the mix, that you employ a
> different standard than if it were otherwise.
Scientology is not original. Fucked in the Head is a state common far
beyond the realms of Elron. It is somewhat unique in marketing that
state as a 'feature', but it's not even alone there.
Let's not put the cult before the horse. I ran into 'Fucked in the
Head' syndrome *long* before I ran into Scientology. Considering my
experience with FitH people from TM, various flavors of communism,
bhagwan, krishna etc.; well, I was well aware of it.
It took about 3 minutes of looking at Scientology® to recognize FitH
Syndrome. It took a little longer to decide that the particular flavor
was worth objecting to publicly. About 10 years in fact.
> >It's also of no import to the credibility of someone's
> > political views; therefore it was wasted when Skip raised it. Whether
> > Skip makes tons of money on his writing is of no consequence to the
> > discussion of Scientology *or* politics, and it never did
> >
> > I suppose that Skip only raised it as an 'issue' in contrasting his own
> > real and visible existence to the anonymous cowards who choose to snipe
> > from the secrecy of their own hidden dirty laundry. Hmm, much like
> > religiousfreedomwatch, don't you think?
> No.
How special :) How is dragging personal issues into an argument in order
to 'shudder them into silence' *not* like RFW?
> > And that's what I find most deplorable about 'Edo' whoever or whatever
> > it is. The sheer hypocricy and cowardice of attacking 'real' people
> > from the 'security' of 'you can't see me and answer in kind! Nyaaa
> > nyaa!'
>
> So what?
>
> A lot of Anons have come here and slammed me but you didn't have anything to
> say about it.
Huh? I've heard a lot of crap said about you, and for the most part I
have'nt reacted. On the other hand, I have never left any doubt that I
think most of the 'attacks' are purely ARS/OSA/Stupid crap.
If you want my opinion of you, well... remember Fleetwood Mac :)
But seriously, I don't think you're OSA, but I do think you're a very
damaged individual who, unfortunately or not, is strong enough to catch
herself halfway down the elevator shaft, before she reaches 'rock
bottom' and is freed of her own personal demons and cages.
I can't even say that that's a 'bad' thing, although I think that it has
little to do with me 'protecting' you or 'being on your side'.
Since I reject ARC, it's quite possible for me to both like you and
communicate with you without agreeing with you. (I can even think you're
out of your gourd!)
> 'Cuz it doesn't matter whether one knows who they are or not. It's just what
> they are saying that is the relevant issue.
Then why do both Edo and fans think it's so important to 'investigate'
their enemies?
> > Of course, the newsgroup would be well served if people just kept their
> > likes and dislikes and festering little animosities to themselves, but
> > that's unlikely for a couple of reasons. One, it's just human nature to
> > act like petulant little snipers intent on 'discrediting' their enemies;
> > two, it's doubly predictable here, since such behavior is directly
> > *promoted* by Scientology and Hubbard,
>
> It sure isn't promoted in the majority of the courses in Scn. It comes up in
> the GO, OSA and other sorts of training but most Scn'ists do not have any of
> that.
It is promoted in *every* course in Scientology® KSW is core doctrine of
Scientology, and re-affirmed at every turn.
> Some of the most hostile and acerbic posts I've ever seen were written by
> people who'd never been in Scn.
Like all other things; nasty acerbic posts are not universally
Hubbardian. He just *demanded* them.
> It comes down to what sort of person the person is. Period.
Bullshit. Scientology is the religion that teaches Mother Theresa to
kick ass; lest she be theety weety.
I have no problem with you not discussing any element of your life or
experience in Scientology.
I object to you refusing to do so, and then claiming that your
experience makes you superior to others in your analysis. You can't
have it both ways.
Ball of Fluff
> See above. If 'this Edo' wanted to clarify which nicks it has *ever*
> used, it would deserve some measure of 'credibility', depending on how
> credible the revelation (dubious) and the actual content of the posting
> history. Best would of course be to adopt a single nick and stick to it,
> and never post without that identity, but I doubt that'll ever happen.
Then I suggest you just refer to what edo writes.
> >
> > Likewise, and I don't mean to pick on Cerri, since she's merely an
> > excellent example of what I'd call 'anonymous credibility', Cerri has
> > her 'likes and don't likes' and her own tendency to jump into playground
> > frays to attack 'enemies of the clique/dogpile', where her
> > 'credibility' doesn't count for shit. She does so infrequently, so it's
> > fairly easy to disregard such purely personality based excesses.
>
> She does so rarely and, most notably, it's when the person doing the
> attacking is clearly doing so and is evidencing an obvious bias.
> 'They did it first' is a pretty piss-poor excuse,
<snip>
I didn't say that "they did it first" was a criterion or an argument.
<snip>
> It's an 'entity' only as far as it's a consistent entity. Maybe *you*
> know 'who' This Edo is, and maybe you don't. Likewise, what makes you
> think that 'this edo' doesn't post using other nicks for 'special
> purposes'?
I wonder why you keep saying that. I don't know who edo is. I told you that
before.
<snip>
> 'This Edo' is the flip side. It's not even necessary for it to *always*
> be a vicious personal-attack-bitch; the percentage of its postings that
> are purely for antagonistic and 'third party' purposes brings even
> otherwise 'credible' opinions into question; *because* of the liklihood
> that the opinion is tinged if not entirely based on its own personal
> antitipathies.
And so edo isn't. Edo often writes other sorts of things that have nothing
to do with flaming anybody. You fail to mention this.
<snip>
> >and
> > personal attacks against perceived enemies (either its, or the enemies
> > of its chosen clique).
>
<snip>
> Pssst... Claire, the fact that I *don't* take a position on what 'other
> people' say about you does *not* mean that I agree with them.
I don't care if you do or don't. I just find your posts and commentary on
the subject inconsistent and that's all I was saying.
<snip some more horseshit>
> Anyway; just to clear that up; I like and respect you,
I reject that alleged liking and respect. Someone who felt that way would
not compare me to Barbara Schwarz or call me damaged. So take that alleged
liking and respect and shove it. I don't want it. With friends like you, who
needs enemies.
> I do not agree with you. I do not think that what you attempt to sell
> as 'Scientology' is. I think you are wrong. I do not accept your
> version of 'unindoctrinated'. I think it's a totally bogus concept
> suitable for spreading on roses.
I am not selling anything.
> That has *nothing* to do with whether I like or respect you otherwise.
> In a way, accepting you is like accepting Barbara Schwarz, whom I also
> accept. I think you're nuts. Both of you.
It takes a real asshole to paint both of us with the same brush. Fuck you.
I don't consider myself to have been secretly married to Rathbun or whomever
the fuck it was, I haven't claimed to have ear implants, to have been
kidnapped from one country to another, to be related to Rothschilds,
Eisenhowers or whatever the fuck. Anything I've posted about my experiences
has been things that truly occurred.
> What does *that* have to do
with liking or disliking you or agreeing with you?
> ARC is *BULLSHIT*
Not sure why you're carping on that. I'd not mentioned it.
<snip>
> It took about 3 minutes of looking at ScientologyŽ to recognize FitH
> Syndrome. It took a little longer to decide that the particular flavor
> was worth objecting to publicly. About 10 years in fact.
Not like you're much of a judge, from what you say below.
> >
> > I suppose that Skip only raised it as an 'issue' in contrasting his own
> > real and visible existence to the anonymous cowards who choose to snipe
> > from the secrecy of their own hidden dirty laundry. Hmm, much like
> > religiousfreedomwatch, don't you think?
>> No.
> How special :) How is dragging personal issues into an argument in order
> to 'shudder them into silence' *not* like RFW?
I just don't think it is. I think RFW is like RFW.
<snip>
>
> A lot of Anons have come here and slammed me but you didn't have anything
> to
> say about it.
>> Huh? I've heard a lot of crap said about you, and for the most part I
> > have'nt reacted. On the other hand, I have never left any doubt that I
> > think most of the 'attacks' are purely ARS/OSA/Stupid crap.
I don't give a flying fuck whether you do or don't. It's just inconsistent
for you to slam the edo thingie person for being an Anon who is attacking
another contributor to this forum but not to make comments when other Anons
do something similar.
That's why I said the thing is, it's not whether it's an Anon saying the
thing, it's what they say that is. Whether I am the target of such a person
or Skip is or the man in the moon is.
I think it's fair, though, eminently so, for people here to have the right
to publicly speculate on who that person may be and if they're OSA like with
that person who was saying things to Cerridwen.
My main beef with Anons is that if they don't use some kind of nick
somewhere then it's hard to know if you're talking to one person or several.
> But seriously, I don't think you're OSA, but I do think you're a very
> damaged individual who, unfortunately or not, is strong enough to catch
> herself halfway down the elevator shaft, before she reaches 'rock
> bottom' and is freed of her own personal demons and cages.
You don't *think* I'm OSA? Duhhhhh...
And, no, I'm not damaged. I differentiated. I saw a problem and some moral
compromises that I was (well, they tried) being coerced into making and I
said no. I decided which things seemed to be right, which not. I also
continue this on an ongoing basis.
I own properties, have a fair number of assets, I have a good marriage, and
have done well in my career. Two years ago, after handling the illnesses of
two parents and subsequent deaths of both with no one but John to help me,
handling all the paperwork, the various (not inconsiderable) needs of
surviving parent (depending on chronology) I came home and started my career
all over again, from scratch in a related field. In just one year I got a
huge raise and a promotion.
Every single area of my life has been handled, reworked, and is an ongoing
joy.
So, no. No damage. I'm demonstrably one of the stronger people on here.I've
surmounted every single moral and personal obstacle life has put in my path.
> I can't even say that that's a 'bad' thing, although I think that it has
> little to do with me 'protecting' you or 'being on your side'.
You call me damaged and say you can't say that's a bad thing. Perhaps you
should really look at the things you write.
<snip more stupidity>
> 'Cuz it doesn't matter whether one knows who they are or not. It's just
> what
> they are saying that is the relevant issue.
> Then why do both Edo and fans think it's so important to 'investigate'
> their enemies?
Most of the people doing so are neither Anons or Scn'ists.
<snip>
>> It is promoted in *every* course in ScientologyŽ KSW is core doctrine of
>> Scientology, and re-affirmed at every turn.
KSW1 has nothing in it about handling or speaking to critics or "squirrels"
or apostates.
So, no.
> Some of the most hostile and acerbic posts I've ever seen were written by
> people who'd never been in Scn.
> Like all other things; nasty acerbic posts are not universally
> Hubbardian. He just *demanded* them.
No, he didn't.There wasn't a public internet around when he was around.
> It comes down to what sort of person the person is. Period.
> Bullshit. Scientology is the religion that teaches Mother Theresa to
> kick ass; lest she be theety weety.
This claim is belied by the fact that most church members are very passive-
overly so, in fact- peaceful people who, when they meet a critic, just turn
tail and leave. Practically tripping over themselves in their haste to
leave.
The people to whom you refer are those who are told it is their job, their
post, or, if an OSA volunteer of some sort, their task to "handle" critics.
The majority of Scn'ists are not and never were and never will be in such a
position. Their instructions, if you will, are to not get into any sort of
argument with critics. It might make them PTS. It might blah blah. Actually,
CofS is more concerned that they'll start asking too many questions or "go
native", so to speak, but the above is one of the rationales rendered in
CofS.
My own history is a case in point. I was told repeatedly not to talk to you
guys, not to even read the posts. And, earlier, I was told to avoid certain
antagonistic people whom I knew and whom the church knew about.
Most church members are told exactly that.
The vast majority, in fact.
It suits DM and Co just fine to have the majority of church members be
theety weety. That is why, on pickets and so forth, most church members run
like scared little bunnies when confronted by the eeevil espees. Those who
don't are either instructed to go "handle" the afore mentioned espees or are
chided later for getting into something that is not their concern. That's a
fact. I've seen that.
Whereas some of the most vitriolic posts I've ever seen on any forum
discussing Scn were, in fact, written by non Scn'ists, people who'd never
ever been in. Weren't even ex members.
Which proves my earlier point.
<snip>
>
> Yes, you did. You told me on a.r.s. that you had no problem with my not
> wanting to discuss certain elements of my personal life, then, a few
> months
> later, jumped in on a totally different thread with some snide comment
> about
> how I'll be sooo quick to say I won't discuss my personal life unless it
> suits me.
>
>> Yeah, right. Zinj. What a crock of shit.
> I have no problem with you not discussing any element of your life or
> experience in Scientology.
> I object to you refusing to do so, and then claiming that your
> experience makes you superior to others in your analysis. You can't
> have it both ways.
And so I don't. When I indicate I have experience in something
Scientological, I say what the experience is.
If I don't and it's just opinion, I indicate as much.If it's opinion based
on my readings of Hubbard, I say that. If I've seen or not seen such and
such at an Org or have found that some generality does not pertain uniformly
to all Scn'ists, then I say if I've seen or not seen it. I cite my staff
work, I cite the fact that I'm an auditor, I cite the fact that I've
certainly spent quite a bit of time in Scn academies when I am talking
about, respectively, what can happen or not happen on staff, how auditing
works, what courses are like or courserooms are like,
I have, in fact, given a number of details of my life in the church which is
something that people commenting about whether I do or don't discuss my
background always conveniently leave out.
So what you say is false and you're just covering the fact that you
completely contradicted yourself from one of the afore mentioned posts to
the next.
C
Mike Gormez
<4198...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>
>So, no. No damage. I'm demonstrably one of the stronger people on here.I've
>surmounted every single moral and personal obstacle life has put in my path.
Except Hubbard
--
Mike Gormez
- "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way it
treats its children." -- Nelson Mandela. www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> I reject that alleged liking and respect. Someone who felt that way would
> not compare me to Barbara Schwarz or call me damaged. So take that alleged
> liking and respect and shove it. I don't want it. With friends like you, who
> needs enemies.
You have to be cruel to be kind
In the right measure
Cruel to be kind
It's a very good sign
Claire, even your best friends won't tell you; especially them maybe,
but everybody knows it but you.
It's not about whether you think you're married to marty, or Elron's
daughter, or that everybody has Nazi Earplants.
That's the small shit.
The fact of the matter is that Barbara, wacky as she is in a 'wog'
world, is a far better and more successful Scientologist than you.
She's adopted 'true for you' to the level that Hubbard not only says
anything *she* wants Him to; even his birthday is altered to suit her.
Why would you despise her? She's the epitome of Scientology, as
'discovered' by L. Ron Hubbard. At Cause over time, space, history,
memory and reality.
*Nothing* in Barbara Schwarz's world runs contrary to Hubbard's
cosmology, including her 'discoveries' that He amazingly only said what
she approves of.
That's Hubbard to the max!
You, on the other hand, have fallen into the sin of 'Tech Degrade' and
refuting Hubbard piecemeal.
Bad bad bad
If you don't like Barbara or her world...
You don't like Scientology.
Crayola
>>
>If I don't and it's just opinion, I indicate as much.If it's opinion based
>on my readings of Hubbard, I say that. If I've seen or not seen such and
>such at an Org or have found that some generality does not pertain uniformly
>to all Scn'ists, then I say if I've seen or not seen it. I cite my staff
>work, I cite the fact that I'm an auditor, I cite the fact that I've
>certainly spent quite a bit of time in Scn academies when I am talking
>about, respectively, what can happen or not happen on staff, how auditing
>works, what courses are like or courserooms are like,
What classed auditor are you?
Crayola
>>
>C
>
>
realpch
that? I'll tear his leg off for him!
Just kidding! I've moved up my own personal tone scale from rage to
depression. Maybe we should tar and feather the next person on here who
posts about the election...
Peach
Mike Gormez
<419865E7...@aol.com>:
>Did someone call me a mushy headed liberal? Who said that? Who said
>that? I'll tear his leg off for him!
Hold it Peach, it wasn't me. I know you are part of the thinking 49% but
would never call you a mushy headed liberal.
>Just kidding! I've moved up my own personal tone scale from rage to
>depression. Maybe we should tar and feather the next person on here who
>posts about the election...
Would you mind if I post these two URLs? :-)
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
http://www.apologiesaccepted.com/
realpch
Ah yes, I'm up on the sorryeverybody.com pages, along with the rest of
the mushy headed liberals. We're so mushy headed we think something like
that is a good idea.
; )
Peach
Zinj
Us unapologetic reactionaries are fine with you mushy headed liberals
apologizing; as long as you don't apologize for us.
And my legs are very firmly attached Peach :)
Barbara Schwarz
>
>
>
> > I reject that alleged liking and respect. Someone who felt that way would
> > not compare me to Barbara Schwarz or call me damaged.
compared to you. And who is damaged and by what or who?
>So take that alleged
> > liking and respect and shove it. I don't want it. With friends like you, who
> > needs enemies.
>
> You have to be cruel to be kind
> In the right measure
> Cruel to be kind
> It's a very good sign
it in the orgs, Joe?
>
> Claire, even your best friends won't tell you; especially them maybe,
> but everybody knows it but you.
>
> It's not about whether you think you're married to marty, or Elron's
> daughter, or that everybody has Nazi Earplants.
>
> That's the small shit.
matters.
>
> The fact of the matter is that Barbara, wacky as she is in a 'wog'
> world, is a far better and more successful Scientologist than you.
He always had deep down a secret thing for me, Claire. If I would
found my own religion, he would probably join me. And he is also right
on the success. You were reading cheap novels while I made the
SEGNPMSS infiltrated mightiest government on the earth sweat. Do you
do ever a great and legendary things like that? I doubt it.
>
> She's adopted 'true for you' to the level that Hubbard not only says
> anything *she* wants Him to; even his birthday is altered to suit her.
Lol. Nah, that's not so. I operate on recall and OT abilities.
>
> Why would you despise her?
That is nasty of you, Claire.
She's the epitome of Scientology, as
> 'discovered' by L. Ron Hubbard. At Cause over time, space, history,
> memory and reality.
Whenever Joe smokes his blessed catholic cigars, he is mixing things
up. Bause of time and space yes, but history, memory and reality are
facts, which I did not alter, just recalled.
>
> *Nothing* in Barbara Schwarz's world runs contrary to Hubbard's
> cosmology, including her 'discoveries' that He amazingly only said what
> she approves of.
He is in me. He is not in Claire. Sorry to say that Claire, but you'll
find a way to get over it.
>
> That's Hubbard to the max!
Wonderful, isn't it?
>
> You, on the other hand, have fallen into the sin of 'Tech Degrade' and
> refuting Hubbard piecemeal.
>
> Bad bad bad
You're no good, you're no good, Claire, you're no good, and I say it
again, you're no good, you're no good, you're no good!
>
> If you don't like Barbara or her world...
> You don't like Scientology.
Yeah! Claire, you don't like Scientology as you don't like me! How
could you?! That also goes for Linda Simmons Height!
:)
Barbara Schwarz
>
> Zinj
Lady Chatterly
Can you prove that?
>>
>> She's adopted 'true for you' to the level that Hubbard not only says
>> anything *she* wants Him to; even his birthday is altered to suit her.
>
>Lol. Nah, that's not so. I operate on recall and OT abilities.
>>
>> Why would you despise her?
We have already cited L.
>That is nasty of you, Claire.
Say, are you sure you don't have any psychological problems?
>She's the epitome of Scientology, as
>> 'discovered' by L. Ron Hubbard. At Cause over time, space, history,
>> memory and reality.
I told them it was probably just a left over effect from the psyche
meds he was taking.
>Whenever Joe smokes his blessed catholic cigars, he is mixing things
>up. Bause of time and space yes, but history, memory and reality are
>facts, which I did not alter, just recalled.
>>
>> *Nothing* in Barbara Schwarz's world runs contrary to Hubbard's
>> cosmology, including her 'discoveries' that He amazingly only said what
>> she approves of.
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer
professionals. We cause accidents.
>He is in me. He is not in Claire. Sorry to say that Claire, but you'll
>find a way to get over it.
>>
>> That's Hubbard to the max!
Do you think your dreams mean anything?
>Wonderful, isn't it?
>>
>> You, on the other hand, have fallen into the sin of 'Tech Degrade' and
>> refuting Hubbard piecemeal.
>>
>> Bad bad bad
>
>You're no good, you're no good, Claire, you're no good, and I say it
>again, you're no good, you're no good, you're no good!
Sometimes they are only pretending to be no good. And your point is?
Why do you think that they are no good? Perhaps they are no good. Why
should it matter to you? Why should it matter if they are no good?
Perhaps they are no good. What is it to you? They are only pretending
to be no good. Your point is?
>>
>> If you don't like Barbara or her world...
>> You don't like Scientology.
>
>Yeah! Claire, you don't like Scientology as you don't like me! How
>could you?! That also goes for Linda Simmons Height!
Change millions of liberal votes.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pleasure. Why don't you hook up with Lady Chatterly? Your analyses
have much in common." -- George Herbert Walker
realpch
Watch out, I've got the kettle of tar going in the back yard and I'm
ripping up the pillows...
Peach
Fluffygirl
> In article <4198...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy>
> says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I reject that alleged liking and respect. Someone who felt that way would
> > not compare me to Barbara Schwarz or call me damaged. So take that alleged
> > liking and respect and shove it. I don't want it. With friends like you, who
> > needs enemies.
>
> You have to be cruel to be kind
> In the right measure
> Cruel to be kind
> It's a very good sign
>
> Claire, even your best friends won't tell you; especially them maybe,
> but everybody knows it but you.
>
> It's not about whether you think you're married to marty, or Elron's
> daughter, or that everybody has Nazi Earplants.
>
> That's the small shit.
>
> The fact of the matter is that Barbara, wacky as she is in a 'wog'
> world, is a far better and more successful Scientologist than you.
What you mean is she's more your idea of what a Scn'ist is.
My philosophy works just fine for me.
And that's the whole point of having one.
>
> She's adopted 'true for you' to the level that Hubbard not only says
> anything *she* wants Him to; even his birthday is altered to suit her.
>
> Why would you despise her?
I don't and have not said I did.
> She's the epitome of Scientology, as
> 'discovered' by L. Ron Hubbard. At Cause over time, space, history,
> memory and reality.
>
> *Nothing* in Barbara Schwarz's world runs contrary to Hubbard's
> cosmology, including her 'discoveries' that He amazingly only said what
> she approves of.
>
> That's Hubbard to the max!
>
> You, on the other hand, have fallen into the sin of 'Tech Degrade' and
> refuting Hubbard piecemeal.
>
> Bad bad bad
>
> If you don't like Barbara or her world...
> You don't like Scientology.
See Tech Dict defs 1-4.
See above.
See previous posts.
See my killfile.
C
Fluffygirl
> "On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:13:45 -0800, "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in
> <4198...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>
> >
> >So, no. No damage. I'm demonstrably one of the stronger people on here.I've
> >surmounted every single moral and personal obstacle life has put in my path.
>
> Except Hubbard
See previous post.
C
Barbara Schwarz
> snip
>
> > > > Tory, when I came to this newsgroup, I tried to acknowledge any
> > > > posting, till I found out that you may post yourself into complete
> > > > exhaustion if you ack them all. :)
> > >
> > > I think not that one has to ack all communications, it is rather to
> > > follow to relevant discussions.
> >
> > Right, I ignore are lot more people and their stupid postings than I
> > did when I started to post. You are getting nowhere if you start
> > discussions with just about any intoxicated guy who crawls around
> > here.
> >
> > We know that dear Tory does not do
> > > that if she is uncomfortable with these particular discussions. With
> > > this she is following in the footsteps of our old friend Gerry
> > > Armstrong. He also backed out of it.
> > >
> > > It's funny, all these things people tell me about you.
> >
> > Lol. When I read about what they write about me, I am astonished
> > myself. I think to myself, who in the world is that woman that they
> > describe. Most of the time their give me their own(!) characters! I
> > don't recognize myself at all in their misunderstandings about me.
> >
> > Well, in my
> > > opinion you come with good thought-out arguments. Meaning one can
> > > learn something from you. Keep on going!
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler
> >
> > Thanks Spacetraveler, it is about time that somebody from outer space
> > makes a study of the people on this planet, this earth who claims has
> > so much intelligent life. As soon as you land in ARS you come to the
> > conclusion, yes, life is here, but not many of these life forms are
> > intelligent.
>
> Let's keep it at that live itself is in fact intelligent, you only
> have to distract the aberration out of it. Migh, migh, lot's of
> aberration to be found around here ain't it.....
>
> Spacetraveler
ARS is sure a good place to study those aberrations, Spacetraveler.
Barbara Schwarz
>
>
> >
> > Trust me, I will be hated for that comment. :)
> >
> > Barbara Schwarz
Spacetraveler
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is a discussion group. Not a patter drill.
> >>
> >> Try to remember that.
> >
> > When there is no involvement you ain't got nothing. Least of all a
> > discussion. I return favours. Don't tell me, tell them. Full
> > information was supplied.
> >
>
> When people try to discuss something with another person on a discussion
> forum, they naturally expect something back.
>
> Providing a link is not the same as discussion.
>
> If that's all you want to do, a website would suffice.
Would you not agree that one FIRST should educate oneself about some things?
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
I'm not exactly sure what the technical issue is but I believe some
sort of UNIX system registry stops in 2038.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Kinda makes you wonder who's the real bot..." -- Mick
Fluffygirl
> Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:>...
> > In article <4198...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Ball of Fluff"
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > I reject that alleged liking and respect. Someone who felt that way would
> > > not compare me to Barbara Schwarz or call me damaged.
> I forgive you that remark, Claire, because I would also not want to be
> compared to you. And who is damaged and by what or who?
Right. Nobody wants to be compared to others because we are individuals.
<snip>
>
>
> >
> > She's adopted 'true for you' to the level that Hubbard not only says
> > anything *she* wants Him to; even his birthday is altered to suit her.
>
> Lol. Nah, that's not so. I operate on recall and OT abilities.
> >
> > Why would you despise her?
>
> That is nasty of you, Claire.
I did not write that. I also said I did not despise yo.
>
> She's the epitome of Scientology, as
> > 'discovered' by L. Ron Hubbard. At Cause over time, space, history,
> > memory and reality.
>
> Whenever Joe smokes his blessed catholic cigars, he is mixing things
> up. Bause of time and space yes, but history, memory and reality are
> facts, which I did not alter, just recalled.
> >
> > *Nothing* in Barbara Schwarz's world runs contrary to Hubbard's
> > cosmology, including her 'discoveries' that He amazingly only said what
> > she approves of.
>
> He is in me. He is not in Claire. Sorry to say that Claire, but you'll
> find a way to get over it.
I'm sure I will.
> >
> > That's Hubbard to the max!
>
> Wonderful, isn't it?
> >
> > You, on the other hand, have fallen into the sin of 'Tech Degrade' and
> > refuting Hubbard piecemeal.
> >
> > Bad bad bad
>
> You're no good, you're no good, Claire, you're no good, and I say it
> again, you're no good, you're no good, you're no good!
>
Isn't that a song by Linda Ronstadt?
>
> >
> > If you don't like Barbara or her world...
> > You don't like Scientology.
>
> Yeah! Claire, you don't like Scientology as you don't like me! How
> could you?! That also goes for Linda Simmons Height!
>
> :)
>
>
I am one bad individual.
bad to the bone, in fact.
C
Curt West
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.04111...@posting.google.com...
:-)
>
> C
Fluffygirl
Yes, I would. I really would.
Look, here's what I found and this is just how it seems to me:
Participation on a forum- any forum- depends on really giving of
oneself. At least to an extent. It means going into things in what
sometimes can seem like unnecessary detail.
There are all kinds of folks here with varying degrees of
understanding and background data on Scn. But when I'm posting back
and forth, I'm debating, I'm conversing. Even if it's Newbie X who is
asking stuff that all kinds of people already covered and that could
maybe be found in google- but with a lot of digging.
I will do the "see previous post" thing when, in the same thread, the
person's asking and asking and asking or accusing and accusing and
accusing the same thing as was already discussed there.
But when it's kind of a new ballgame, just you and this guy or gal
you're getting to know, then,well, sometimes some slack needs to be
cut.
A lot of people- certainly including myself- tend to sometimes lose
sight of that.
And re the knowledge coming first, well, they're asking YOU. (or me,
or Tory or whomever). Maybe they want it in your words or whomever's
words.
Another problem seems to be that if someone does provide a quote or
two by Hubbard, if it's contra to what the other person's trying to
say or get across, they get annoyed and accuse the person of
deflecting. Well, no. If the quotes are related to what was being
discussed, then it's apropos. It's almost a type of implied censorship
with some people, but, too bad.
I don't have a problem with the posting of URLs but I don't believe
that that should be too much of a substitute for discussion.
There're some Scn'ists on Beliefnet who get pissed off whenever anyone
discusses Scn. They keep wanting to say "Buy the book" "here's the URL
or link".
Well, nothing wrong with saying here's the book or URL but on a
discussion group people are there 'cuz they want to talk (in a manner
of speaking) they want to discuss.
We ALL need to humor each other on this forum, far more than is being
currently done in many cases.
C
Zinj
spacetra...@hotmail.com says...
> "Ball of Fluff" <Fluffy> wrote in message news:<419627c5$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
<snip>
> > Providing a link is not the same as discussion.
> >
> > If that's all you want to do, a website would suffice.
>
> Would you not agree that one FIRST should educate oneself about some things?
>
> Spacetraveler
The most consistent experience of Scientology for non-Scientologists is
that the more one learns; the more one sees, the more one researches,
the *worse* it is. There is no known 'limit' to this 'worse', but it
seems likely that no-one yet knows exactly how bad Scientology is.
This differs from the experience for a Scientologist by one factor:
Training. Thanks to Scientology's 'gradient' approach to disclusure,
the victim is 'trained' into avoiding seeing Scientology from a 'wog'
frame of reference.
Before one is exposed to the worst mutilation of logic and reason; one's
logic and reason are crippled. Before one discovers the depths of the
systematic and ubiquitious abuse; one's sense of 'justice' is replaced
by Scientology Ethics; one's sense of compassion is distracted by
'Responsibility', 'exchange' and 'they pulled it in'. Before one reacts
with 'normal' outrage, the 'outrage' circuits are disabled.
The difference between a Scientologist and a non-Scientologist is that
the Scientologist is *trained* to believe that Scientology 'works'.
Without that 'training', Scientology is merely a very expensive way to
abandon freedom, empathy, reason and sanity for no discernable reward,
since one must be 'trained' to produce or even recognize any reward.