newbie on newsgroup
kristal...@home.com
this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
"hello all"
I am a daughter of the cult.....both my parents have been involved in
the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
Anyhow just wanted to greet you all people and figure out how to get rid
of all this ******* spam.Can anyone help me out??
Keith Henson
: hi just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as a new subscriber to
: this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
: "hello all"
: I am a daughter of the cult.....both my parents have been involved in
: the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
: The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
Good for you! (and attest to SP 1)
: My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
: nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
Hope he is saving part of it to live on when he is offloaded.
: Anyhow just wanted to greet you all people and figure out how to get rid
: of all this ******* spam.Can anyone help me out??
There are several methods, but if I tell you here, they will figure some
way to defeat them. Will email you. Keith Henson
Tilman Hausherr
>I am a daughter of the cult.....both my parents have been involved in
>the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
>The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
How come that you aren't involved? (Or were you involved for some time?)
>Anyhow just wanted to greet you all people and figure out how to get rid
>of all this ******* spam.Can anyone help me out??
There is not much you can do (unless you know how to read headers - then
you can complain to the ISPs). If you use an offline reader (e.g. Free
Agent, www.forteinc.com ), you can download a lot and then quickly skip
spam. Or download only the headers, and the bodies later - the spams are
usually cancelled within hours / minutes.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Clearwater pictures: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4497/clearwater/index.html
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Enzo Piccone
> hi just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as a new subscriber to
> this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
> "hello all"
> I am a daughter of the cult
A daughter of the cult? Priceless! L&G (laughing and gagging)
Welcome to a.r.s., Krista! :)
.....both my parents have been involved in
> the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
> The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
> My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
> nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
> Anyhow just wanted to greet you all people and figure out how to get rid
> of all this ******* spam.Can anyone help me out??
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
Rondata
you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
bad :) Welcome!
Rhonda
Darryl Clemmons
>hi just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as a new subscriber to
>this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
>"hello all"
>I am a daughter of the cult.....both my parents have been involved in
>the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
>The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
>My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
>nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
Thirty dollars a week!? How does he afford his rice and beans?
Rondata
Well, if you go to "El pollOT Loco" for their scieno-special..
You can ask for rice and beans (hold the chicken) and its quite
affordable..
Rhonda
Keith Henson
: Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
: you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
: bad :) Welcome!
: Rhonda
: Enzo Piccone wrote:
If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
Darryl Clemmons
>
>>My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
>>nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
>
>75-82. But the pay was only $17.50 per week back then.
>
> Rev. Dennis Erlich **the inFormer**
> <http://www.informer.org>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
>
Wow! Sea Orgers are now making $30 a week! Gee, SO's are making
71% more now than they did back in the early 80's. . What did they do
to deserve such a pay raise?! The membership is still at 8 million
strong. I thought Elron said not to reward a downstat. Boy, I bet
Elron is turning over in his grave!
Darryl
Tommy
>
> kristal...@home.com wrote:
>
> > hi just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as a new subscriber to
> > this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
> > "hello all"
>
> A daughter of the cult? Priceless!
No - it has a price.
> L&G (laughing and gagging)
>
Choke on truth. Gag on reality. She's out, and she will tell others.
Tommy
--
BRAIN, 1. another part of the nervous system which receives and
sends impulses to the body parts. (SPB) 2. a neuro-shock
absorber. It has very little to do with thinking. (SH Spec 75,
6608C16)
Obviously.
Martin Hunt
>hi just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as a new subscriber to
>this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
>"hello all"
>I am a daughter of the cult.....both my parents have been involved in
>the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
>The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
>My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
>nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
>Anyhow just wanted to greet you all people and figure out how to get rid
>of all this ******* spam.Can anyone help me out??
Welcome to ars. The best way to get rid of the spam is to
inform the world about Scientology so that they get no more
recruitment and disappear - because, when Scn is gone, the
spam attacks will stop. :-)
Try asking your ISP admin to use Cleanfeed, Spamhippo, and/or
NoCeMs. Oh, wait, I just noticed you're using @home.com; belay
that. Start by getting a real ISP.
Good to have you aboard, Krista; I used to know someone in
Scientology by that name in Vancouver, BC. Blond, 20ish, smoked
a lot, did some reception work when I was DPS. 'Zat you? :-)
ttyl,
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is a ruthless, destructive, and vindictive organization."
- James Randi
.
.
.
.
Martin Hunt
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
>before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
I think Krista's using Roger's wave, I think she's from BC and
I think I know her.
Martin Hunt
dcle...@nospam.com (Darryl Clemmons) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 08:47:15 GMT, kristal...@home.com wrote:
>
>>hi just wanted to say hello and introduce myself as a new subscriber to
>>this sometimes hard to follow newsgroup.
>>"hello all"
>>I am a daughter of the cult.....both my parents have been involved in
>>the COS for over twenty-five years now.....(weep weep)
>>The GREATEST part of it I AINT.
>>My father..godbless his brainwashed mind has given his life up tp that
>>nasty sea org and makes a whopping $30 a week-COOL HUH????hahahaha
>
>Thirty dollars a week!? How does he afford his rice and beans?
Food is free - as long as you're upstat and haven't lost your
eating privileges/food card in the five card system.
And it's not just beans and rice; often, there's greasy utility-grade
pork chops as well. :-)
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is a ruthless, destructive, and vindictive organization."
- James Randi
.
.
.
.
.
Darryl Clemmons
wrote:
>
>
>Food is free - as long as you're upstat and haven't lost your
>eating privileges/food card in the five card system.
>
>And it's not just beans and rice; often, there's greasy utility-grade
>pork chops as well. :-)
>
Greasy pork chops, yuck!! Is losing your eating privilege a punishment
or a reward?
Darryl
gerry armstrong
>> >
> krista responds:
> thanks for the welcome :-)
>it's nice to see some fun be made of my newbieness.....
>oh and by the way..i like to think i was born a SP...horns and all.
You might be the first Natural SP on ars. ARSCC Certs & Awards keeps
track of these things.
When the horns played, was there a snapping sound, and perhaps a
chariot?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>krista
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>: Keith Henson wrote:
>:
>: > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
>: > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
>: > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
>: > : bad :) Welcome!
>: >
>: > : Rhonda
>: >
>: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
>: >
>: > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
>: > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climbing the ranks. :-)
>Keith Henson
>
>: Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
>: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
>: the newsgroup? :)
>
>What lie enzo? The SP grade chart is years old, and well known. You
>consider yourself a scientologist. All it takes to go from SP1 to SP2
>is a response from from a scientologist, and you responded.
>
>Only way this could be incorrect is if you are no longer a scientologist.
No, I take Enzo's response to a recent query to be that he is an
admitted $cientologist. So you're right, Keith, Enzo lied.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>In which case, congratulations! Keith Henson
Enzo Piccone
Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
ROF.
Enzo Piccone
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:34:23 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
> >: Keith Henson wrote:
> >:
> >: > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
> >: > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
> >: > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
> >: > : bad :) Welcome!
> >: >
> >: > : Rhonda
> >: >
> >: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> >: >
> >: > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> >: > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climbing the ranks. :-)
> >Keith Henson
> >
> >: Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
> >: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> >: the newsgroup? :)
<snip>
Rondata
>
> UFOVIKI wrote:
>
> > Does that mean I'm an SP2? Wow!------my post had a response from a $cio
> > too---the same day as my postings. Moving up fast in the ranks. Am printing up
> > flyers as I am typing. Will see the Hicksville $cio's on Saturday! Later--V
>
> Rondata, Keith, Chris, Gerry -- look at the confusion you're creating
> for these hapless newbies.
>
> Talk about setting a bad example for budding SP's.
>
Think about all the confusion Scientology creates for "hapless newbies"
every day!
Rhonda
Martin Hunt
arms...@dowco.com (gerry armstrong) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:30:27 GMT, kristal...@home.com wrote:
>
>> krista responds:
>> thanks for the welcome :-)
>>it's nice to see some fun be made of my newbieness.....
>>oh and by the way..i like to think i was born a SP...horns and all.
>
>You might be the first Natural SP on ars. ARSCC Certs & Awards keeps
>track of these things.
Krista was suppressive even when she was doing some reception work
and practically her whole family was in the cult; she's a natural
born espee, and cute to boot.
I admired her aloofness from it all. She gives me hope for sanity
in an insane world.
Podkayne-Xenu
> Keith Henson wrote:
>
> > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
> > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
> > : bad :) Welcome!
> >
> > : Rhonda
> >
> > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> >
> > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
>
> Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
> to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> the newsgroup? :)
What lie?
Besides, I bet Krista knows all about SPs already.
Krista - if your dad's in the Sea Org, did he have to disconnect from
you? You've probably got an interesting story. Did you go to Scn schools
or real ones? Have you seen the story of Dennis's daughters? I'm not
sure where it's webbed.
To forestall another Dennis DA post - given a choice between my father and
Dennis, I'd pick Dennis - he knows how to admit when he's made a mistake.
Even if *every single one* of the DA stories were true.
--
"Dear Joe. I'm sorry but no go on coming out of isolation yet"
-- Sacred Co$ Scripture
Read more Heinlein
Podkayne-Xenu
> This lie, Chris: "get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough
> about what you wrote, and claim SP2."
>
> I'm neither an official nor a semi-official nor any other kind of
> subscriber than who I've stated I am on a number of occasions since I
> began writing articles to a.r.s..
You're here, you claim to be a Scn in good standing, ordinary Scns have
been told not to post to ars else they lose their good standing, what
other conclusion can be drawn?
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> <snip>
Speaking of quoting, perhaps you could help me with something Lurky's
been ignoring:
What does Source say about Thetans who screwed up when postulating their
brains in ways that can be corrected by modern surgery or drugs? After
all, PCs make mistakes in MEST all the time, no? So why should the MEST
switching centers they use to control their bodies and receive sensory
data always go right, when almost everything else can go wrong?
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my BTs have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> gerry armstrong wrote:
> Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
> Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
Speaking of selective thinking, perhaps you could help me with something
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> Enzo Piccone wrote:
> > Rondata, Keith, Chris, Gerry -- look at the confusion you're creating
> > for these hapless newbies.
> > Talk about setting a bad example for budding SP's.
> Think about all the confusion Scientology creates for "hapless newbies"
> every day!
I'll say! When Lurky claimed that there is no such thing as brain disease,
except perhaps tumors, and that everything else is just made up by eeevile
psychs, I became extremely confused!
It seems nobody wants to tell me what Source says about Thetans who
screwed up when postulating their brains in ways that can be corrected by
modern surgery or drugs! After all, PCs make mistakes in MEST all the
time, no? So why should the MEST switching centers they use to control
their bodies and receive sensory data always go right, when almost
everything else can go wrong for them?
Enzo Piccone
> > > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> > >
> > > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> > > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
> >
> > Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
> > to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> > the newsgroup? :)
>
> What lie?
Pod, would you mind directing me to wherever on the web are listed the
SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
where they are.
Or anyone else, please.
As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
also be appreciated.
Enzo Piccone
> In article <36EF15...@hermes.it>, en...@hermes.it wrote:
>
> > This lie, Chris: "get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough
> > about what you wrote, and claim SP2."
> >
> > I'm neither an official nor a semi-official nor any other kind of
> > subscriber than who I've stated I am on a number of occasions since I
> > began writing articles to a.r.s..
>
> You're here, you claim to be a Scn in good standing, ordinary Scns have
> been told not to post to ars else they lose their good standing, what
> other conclusion can be drawn?
Yo, Pod.
Here are some statements of fact for you and for anyone else who might
be interested in taking them into consideration.
I've been here for over a year. I was, and I remain, a Sci't in good
standing.
No one asked me here. No one has asked me to leave or to remain. No
Sci't has communicated to me that there might be any consequences
whatsoever either to my having been here or to my remaining here.
No one tells me what to write or what not to write. No one has "hatted"
me to participate here. No one has given me authorisation to be here.
No Sci't has communicated to me that they disapprove of my being here.
I've written on a number of occasions that any Sci't is free to
participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wants and cares to
do. And if, obviously, he's prepared to be responsible for doing so and
for what he communicates. And by this I mean nothing other than what
anyone else might mean by such a statement as it might concern
participating in any activity and assuming one's responsibilities for
doing so.
No Sci't has communicated to me anything contrary to the paragraph above
since I began making this statement here nearly eight months ago. I
didn't then, and I don't now, expect any Sci't to do so. If, however, a
Sci't ever might, I'd be pleased to set him straight.
The only persons who have communicated to me anything contrary to what
I've described in the penultimate paragraph are some ex-Sci'ts and some
non-Sci'ts here.
The most notable is Warrior. But then Warrior has his head so firmly up
his bot on this subject, that he seem incapable of getting it out long
enough to understand anything I communicate to him. If he ever manages
a more enduring feat of head-extrication -- but that doesn't currently
seem likely, so why bother at this point to even speculate.
I've no problem with anyone here being, or remaining, sceptical about
anything I've written above or anything else I've written. It would,
however, behoove anyone who would challenge the veracity of any of my
statements of fact to do so without at the same time engaging in the
robotic assumptions, the robotic think, and the robotic allegations of
which these same people normally accuse Sci'ts.
Rondata
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
Rhonda
><snip>
>
> Pod, would you mind directing me to wherever on the web are listed the
> SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
> year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
> day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
> where they are.
>
> Or anyone else, please.
>
> As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
> also be appreciated.
>
Jay Hill
>
> Podkayne-Xenu wrote:
>
> > > > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> > > > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
> > >
> > > Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
> > > to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> > > the newsgroup? :)
> >
> > What lie?
>
> SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
> year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
> day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
> where they are.
>
> Or anyone else, please.
>
> As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
> also be appreciated.
>
> E
Why don't you ask someone in your cult to stop it?
Enzo Piccone
> http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
>
> Rhonda
Thanks much, Rhonda.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
> ><snip>
> >
> > Pod, would you mind directing me to wherever on the web are listed the
> > SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
> > year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
> > day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
> > where they are.
> >
> > Or anyone else, please.
> >
> > As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
> > also be appreciated.
> >
> > E
Enzo Piccone
and Keith Henson's.
The "SP Levels" are described in the following file:
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
SP2 is described as follows:
"SP2 can be earned by receiving an acknowledgement from a Scientologist.
This generally takes the form of a response to your message on the
newsgroup, but in the case of protests, will generally be achieved by a
Scientologist talking to you. The response can be (and generally is)
completely inane - it is the fact that you have received the response
that counts, not the quality of the response."
My response to Rhonda's and Keith's observations was in error.
My mistaken impression regarding SP2 was similar to Chris Leithiser's:
"get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough about what you
wrote, and claim SP2."
My apologies for this error.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
> Keith Henson wrote:
>
> > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
> > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
> > : bad :) Welcome!
> >
> > : Rhonda
> >
> > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> >
> > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
>
> Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
> to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> the newsgroup? :)
>
Rondata
just a response/acknowledgement is all that is needed. Good or Bad wins
SP2 :)
I personally like the civil responses instead of the pissed off ones.
Makes for better conversation! :)
Rhonda
Keith Henson
: I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
: and Keith Henson's.
snip
: My apologies for this error.
Accepted. Keith Henson
PS, this is, in my opinion, strong evidence that enzo is posting here on
his own and not under official orders. It would be unthinkable for wgert
or one of the other bots to admit error.
Ethan
<snip>
>My apologies for this error.
>E
Thanks for being a gentleman.
--
"You have to scrape bottom to appreciate life and start living
again." --Frank Sinatra
Ethan
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:34:23 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>> >: Keith Henson wrote:
>> >:
>> >: > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
>> >: > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
>> >: > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
>> >: > : bad :) Welcome!
>> >: >
>> >: > : Rhonda
>> >: >
>> >: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
>> >: >
>> >: > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
>> >: > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climbing the ranks. :-)
>> >Keith Henson
>> >
>> >: Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
>> >: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
>> >: the newsgroup? :)
>> >
>> >What lie enzo? The SP grade chart is years old, and well known. You
>> >consider yourself a scientologist. All it takes to go from SP1 to SP2
>> >is a response from from a scientologist, and you responded.
>> >
>> >Only way this could be incorrect is if you are no longer a scientologist.
>>
>> No, I take Enzo's response to a recent query to be that he is an
>> admitted $cientologist. So you're right, Keith, Enzo lied.
>
>Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
What exactly do you mean when you set the word minds in quotes?
>
>Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you are alluding to
here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be good, in
anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would include in
your detailing all the evidence you have to support any assertions of
fact.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>ROF.
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:34:23 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>> >: Keith Henson wrote:
>> >:
>> >: > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
>> >: > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
>> >: > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
>> >: > : bad :) Welcome!
>> >: >
>> >: > : Rhonda
>> >: >
>> >: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
>> >: >
>> >: > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
>> >: > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climbing the ranks. :-)
>> >Keith Henson
>> >
>> >: Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
>> >: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
>> >: the newsgroup? :)
>
><snip>
Don't be bashful, Enzo. Tell everyone what trick you've pulled today.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Dave Bird
>
>I've written on a number of occasions that any Sci't is free to
>participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wants and cares to
>do. And if, obviously, he's prepared to be responsible for doing so and
>for what he communicates. And by this I mean nothing other than what
>anyone else might mean by such a statement as it might concern
>participating in any activity and assuming one's responsibilities for
>doing so.
This is what Scientologists call an "acceptable truth", but for wogs
is perilously close to a lie. First, there is a published policy
telling members to steer clear, "we don't need any more K/Rs" etc,
signed by no less than Ron Chester (Rod Fletcher).
Second, any Scientologist on the net is encouraged to have a
cookie-cutter web page and use the scieno-sitter censorware
so they can't read or write this newsgroup.
What happens beyond this if anyone chooses to post I don't know,
perhaps ex-members would tell us what happened when they did?
I suspect it is slacker in mainland Europe than in America.
-- __
.,-;-;-,. /'_\ : They seek her here, they seek her there, :
_/_/_/_|_\_\) / : those critics seek her everywhere --- :
'-<_><_><_><_>=/\ : is she in LA or gone for a swim, :
jgs `/_/====/_/-'\_\ : that demmed elusive Terrapin ? :
........"".....""....""..:>>>>>>>>>>> WHO IS THE MOCK TURTLE <<<<<<<<<
{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/people/turtle.html"}????{/a}
Dead ElRon
>
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:47:14 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
>wrote:
>>
>>Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
>
>What exactly do you mean when you set the word minds in quotes?
>
>>
>>Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
>
>For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you are alluding to
>here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be good, in
>anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would include in
>your detailing all the evidence you have to support any assertions of
>fact.
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>>
>>ROF.
>>
>>E
Enzo is a prime example of a 1.1 personality. He's a total asshole.
Dead ElRon
http://www.xenu.net
Dead ElRon
>
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:54:32 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
>wrote:
some shit
>>> >Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
some more shit
>>> >: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
yet more shit
>>> >: Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
>>> >: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
>>> >: the newsgroup? :)
>Don't be bashful, Enzo. Tell everyone what trick you've pulled today.
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
I heard that enzo finally learned how to wipe his ass. Now he's been
trying to figure out what to do with his shit. He obviously thinks he's
supposed to write with it using his fingers. Today he discovered that
it is difficult to write with shit created from beans. Get really stoned,
enzo. Eat wet cement.
Dead ElRon
http://www.xenu.net
Martin Hunt
>I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
>and Keith Henson's.
>
>The "SP Levels" are described in the following file:
>http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
>
>SP2 is described as follows:
>
>"SP2 can be earned by receiving an acknowledgement from a Scientologist.
>This generally takes the form of a response to your message on the
>newsgroup, but in the case of protests, will generally be achieved by a
>Scientologist talking to you. The response can be (and generally is)
>completely inane - it is the fact that you have received the response
>that counts, not the quality of the response."
>
>My response to Rhonda's and Keith's observations was in error.
Enzo, you have gained the ability to Admit Mistakes; this is a
step in the right direction. Soon, you may find you have the
ability gained to Read Criticism, Evaluate Data, or even Have
Critical Thoughts. Beyond that, it's all gravy:
Tone Ability
Level: Gained:
4.0 - Ability to Have Total Freedom
3.5 - Ability to See Fraud
3.3 - Ability to Think for Oneself
2.71 - Ability to Question LRH
2.1 - Ability to Understand Criticism
2.0 - Ability to Receive Criticism
(complete chart available upon request)
You'll leave Scientology soon; it's beginning to ooze out of
your psyche. If you stop to think about it (I know, a cardinal
sin, thinking, but give it a try anyway) you'll realize that
you're too smart for Xenu and the Body Thetans. And if it's
only the lower level stuff that works and is applicable, why
even bother with the bridge at all?
Martin Hunt
>Pod, would you mind directing me to wherever on the web are listed the
>SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
>year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
>day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
>where they are.
>
>Or anyone else, please.
>
>As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
>also be appreciated.
Sure:
From cultxpt
Subject: SP levels
Date: 9 Jul 1995 05:33:28 GMT
SP = Suppressive Person. These are the SP levels;
SP1 you become a public church critic (posting, picketing, whatever)
SP2 the church reacts to your actions in some way
SP3 you get a personal response from the church
SP4 you are threatened with a lawsuit or Fair Game
SP5 you are sued and/or Fair Gamed
SP6 you win their suit or stop the Fair Gaming
SP7 you sue them
SP8 you win your lawsuit
SP9 you collect damages
And the New SP levels:
SP - honorary SP status given to active scns who effectively shoot
themselves in the foot. They can't be compared to real critics
awarded a level, since they are also working hard on the other
side, which tends to cancel out any good they do.
SP1 - critic publicly criticizes scientology on the internet with
a post to a newsgroup or discussion on IRC.
SP2 - critic publicly criticizes scientology on the internet with
over 100 critical posts, receives a Kobragram, or sets up a
critical webpage.
SP3 - critic publicly criticizes scientology on the radio, mentions
scientology in a critical context in a published book or
magazine article, or constructs and maintains a large critical
webpage with over 3 Megabytes of material, or has their webpage
removed through actions taken by scientology, or has their posts
cancelled by a scientologist, or is a multiple Kobragram recipient.
SP4 - critic pickets scientology. Stars denote number of times, "SP4***"
means three separate pickets. For picketers extraordinaire, this
can be changed to a number or approximation as: "SP4-100" SP4 also
attained by critic placing cult secrets on a webpage or posting
them to the net.
SP5 - critic publicly criticizes scientology in a published book
with a significant amount of material (such as an entire chapter),
or critic appears on TV and criticizes scientology in some depth
and at some length, or writes a magazine article of some length
and significance critical of scientology (think Behar in Time).
SP6 - critic publicly criticizes scientology in a published book
devoted to scientology. (net books qualify for SP5).
SP7 - critic is raided by scientology, or significantly fair-gamed.
(think staged car crash, GOSA operative in a relationship,
visits home and threatens, etc.) or gets between one and five
people to leave scientology.
SP8 - critic engages in legal battles with scientology, is sued or
sues, or collects small damages (less than $100,000), or gets
more than five people to leave scientology.
SP9 - critic collects large damages against scientology ($100,000 or
more) or, through critical or legal activity, removes one entire
scientology org or mission.
SP10 - critic removes more than one scientology org or mission, or
removes a high level org such as Flag, the Flagship, a SH or AO.
SP100 - critic removes scientology from an entire country completely;
country must have at least 4 orgs or missions, and all official
scientology activities (Narconon, other front groups, political
infiltration and manipulation, etc.) must come to a halt.
(freezone activities are allowed).
SP1000 - critic removes scientology altogether. (award may be shared
by all critics SP1 or above when the goal is achieved).
HTH. [p/m]
Enzo Piccone
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:47:14 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
> wrote:
>
> >gerry armstrong wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:34:23 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
> >> >: Keith Henson wrote:
> >> >:
> >> >: > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
> >> >: > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
> >> >: > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
> >> >: > : bad :) Welcome!
> >> >: >
> >> >: > : Rhonda
> >> >: >
> >> >: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> >> >: >
> >> >: > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> >> >: > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climbing the ranks. :-)
> >> >Keith Henson
> >> >
> >> >: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> >> >: the newsgroup? :)
> >> >
> >> >consider yourself a scientologist. All it takes to go from SP1 to SP2
> >> >is a response from from a scientologist, and you responded.
> >> >
> >> >Only way this could be incorrect is if you are no longer a scientologist.
> >>
> >> No, I take Enzo's response to a recent query to be that he is an
> >> admitted $cientologist. So you're right, Keith, Enzo lied.
I made a mistake. I corrected myself when I became aware of it as
such. There's a difference between this and lying.
And it should have been clearly evident as a mistake to both you and
Keith the moment I made it, as it would otherwise have been absurd for
me, or for anyone else, to have written what I wrote.
> >Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
>
> What exactly do you mean when you set the word minds in quotes?
I meant the same as I'd expect anyone else would have meant by putting
the word in quotation marks. I was expressing an opinion with regard to
either you or Keith having used your minds at all. (It's called
~satire~, Gerry.)
> >Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
>
> For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you are alluding to
> here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be good, in
> anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would include in
> your detailing all the evidence you have to support any assertions of
> fact.
For the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand what Gerry was getting
at, I'd suggest he was convinced my putting ~minds~ in quotation marks
was to indicate that his and Keith's comments were not the expression of
their having engaged in analytical thought, but of their having basked
in what Scn claims to be "reactive thought," itself the product of the
"reactive mind."
If my suggestion is correct, and observing your conduct in this
discussion, such a conviction as yours might just be considered to lend
support to this theory.
What I should think would be evident to anyone, however, is that your
"understanding" of some things I might write is coloured by the
conviction that I, as a Sci't, must perforce think in the robotic terms
of which you, yourself, are convinced Sci'ts think. In other words, it
would appear that some of your own "thinking" is in fact on automatic.
Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
insightful than you appear to be. (Just some friendly advice.)
Enzo Piccone
> No problemo... It is probably a common mistake.. No need to be "upset"..
> just a response/acknowledgement is all that is needed. Good or Bad wins
> SP2 :)
The challenge now ahead of me is to break my own record, if indeed a
record it was, and make an SP2 even more quickly. A Sci't at cause over
SP's! ;)
> I personally like the civil responses instead of the pissed off ones.
> Makes for better conversation! :)
Agreed. But it's an uphill battle -- and a lot of hill.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
> Enzo Piccone wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
> > and Keith Henson's.
> >
> > The "SP Levels" are described in the following file:
> > http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
> >
> > SP2 is described as follows:
> >
> > "SP2 can be earned by receiving an acknowledgement from a Scientologist.
> > This generally takes the form of a response to your message on the
> > newsgroup, but in the case of protests, will generally be achieved by a
> > Scientologist talking to you. The response can be (and generally is)
> > completely inane - it is the fact that you have received the response
> > that counts, not the quality of the response."
> >
> > My response to Rhonda's and Keith's observations was in error.
> >
> > My mistaken impression regarding SP2 was similar to Chris Leithiser's:
> > "get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough about what you
> > wrote, and claim SP2."
> >
> > My apologies for this error.
> >
> > E
> > --
> > Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
> >
> > > Keith Henson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > > > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
> > > > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
> > > > : bad :) Welcome!
> > > >
> > > > : Rhonda
> > > >
> > > > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
> > > > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climing the ranks. :-) Keith Henson
> > >
> > > Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
> > > to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
> > > the newsgroup? :)
> > >
Enzo Piccone
>
> Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
> : I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
> : and Keith Henson's.
>
>
> : My apologies for this error.
>
> Accepted. Keith Henson
Thank you.
Enzo Piccone
> Enzo wrote:
> <snip>
> >My apologies for this error.
>
>
> Thanks for being a gentleman.
Thanks for the compliment.
Btw, and before I forget yet again, I think it's neat that you've chosen
a Frank Sinatra quote for your signature. Perhaps this or similar isn't
uncommon -- I don't know, as I'm quite unfamiliar with Usenet outside of
Scn-related newgroups -- but it certainly has a look of originality
here.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
Enzo Piccone
> In article <36F171...@hermes.it>, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>
> >I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
> >and Keith Henson's.
> >
> >http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
> >
> >SP2 is described as follows:
> >
> >"SP2 can be earned by receiving an acknowledgement from a Scientologist.
> >This generally takes the form of a response to your message on the
> >newsgroup, but in the case of protests, will generally be achieved by a
> >Scientologist talking to you. The response can be (and generally is)
> >completely inane - it is the fact that you have received the response
> >that counts, not the quality of the response."
> >
> >My response to Rhonda's and Keith's observations was in error.
>
> step in the right direction. Soon, you may find you have the
> ability gained to Read Criticism, Evaluate Data, or even Have
> Critical Thoughts. Beyond that, it's all gravy:
Thanks for the chuckles, Martin.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
> Tone Ability
> Level: Gained:
>
> 4.0 - Ability to Have Total Freedom
> 3.5 - Ability to See Fraud
> 3.3 - Ability to Think for Oneself
> 2.71 - Ability to Question LRH
> 2.1 - Ability to Understand Criticism
> 2.0 - Ability to Receive Criticism
>
> (complete chart available upon request)
>
> You'll leave Scientology soon; it's beginning to ooze out of
> your psyche. If you stop to think about it (I know, a cardinal
> sin, thinking, but give it a try anyway) you'll realize that
> you're too smart for Xenu and the Body Thetans. And if it's
> only the lower level stuff that works and is applicable, why
> even bother with the bridge at all?
>
Enzo Piccone
I've read about a third of your article, Gerry. I hope I didn't miss
anything Earth-shattering.
What I did read prompts me to give you the Warrior-Bot Award for this
week. Congratulations and very well done.
You, like Warrior, appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
exists at all -- to get beyond some of your robo-think.
Or as I commented yesterday, I think it was, "Warrior has his head so
firmly up his bot on this subject, that he seems incapable of getting it
out long enough to understand anything I communicate to him."
Bot on, Gerry. Bot on, boys.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
> On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:37:16 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
> wrote:
>
> >Podkayne-Xenu wrote:
> >
> >> In article <36EF15...@hermes.it>, en...@hermes.it wrote:
> >>
> >> > This lie, Chris: "get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough
> >> > about what you wrote, and claim SP2."
> >> >
> >> > I'm neither an official nor a semi-official nor any other kind of
> >> > subscriber than who I've stated I am on a number of occasions since I
> >> > began writing articles to a.r.s..
> >>
> >> You're here, you claim to be a Scn in good standing, ordinary Scns have
> >> been told not to post to ars else they lose their good standing, what
> >> other conclusion can be drawn?
> >
> >Yo, Pod.
> >
> >Here are some statements of fact for you and for anyone else who might
> >be interested in taking them into consideration.
> >
> >I've been here for over a year. I was, and I remain, a Sci't in good
> >standing.
> >
> >No one asked me here. No one has asked me to leave or to remain. No
> >Sci't has communicated to me that there might be any consequences
> >whatsoever either to my having been here or to my remaining here.
> >
> >No one tells me what to write or what not to write. No one has "hatted"
> >me to participate here.
>
> Of course you're hatted to participate here. You were in the GO for
> how many years?
>
> If you continued to be a $cientologist in good standing after that,
> Enzo, you were fully hatted to participate here. The GO performed in
> the pre-internet age the same function you perform here.
>
> >No one has given me authorisation to be here.
>
> When you're here after your authorization to be here is cancelled;
> that will be newsworthy.
>
> >No Sci't has communicated to me that they disapprove of my being here.
> >
>
> That means you're doing what you're authorized to do. Lots of
> $cientologists have communicated that they disapprove of my being
> here. But I am being honest when I say I truly am not authorized to be
> here.
>
> >I've written on a number of occasions that any Sci't is free to
> >participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wants and cares to
> >do. And if, obviously, he's prepared to be responsible for doing so and
> >for what he communicates. And by this I mean nothing other than what
> >anyone else might mean by such a statement as it might concern
> >participating in any activity and assuming one's responsibilities for
> >doing so.
> >
> >No Sci't has communicated to me anything contrary to the paragraph above
> >since I began making this statement here nearly eight months ago. I
> >didn't then, and I don't now, expect any Sci't to do so. If, however, a
> >Sci't ever might, I'd be pleased to set him straight.
>
> And as I've communicated above, that would indicate that you are
> authorized. We count on you actually to put the $cientologists
> straight. We would much rather that you and your fellow $cientologists
> set each other straight, so that we to whom that hat dump has fallen
> can get onto our next exciting projects in life.
>
> >
> >The only persons who have communicated to me anything contrary to what
> >I've described in the penultimate paragraph are some ex-Sci'ts and some
> >non-Sci'ts here.
> >
> >The most notable is Warrior. But then Warrior has his head so firmly up
> >his bot on this subject, that he seem incapable of getting it out long
> >enough to understand anything I communicate to him.
>
> Now you know that this is a lie. Try to curb this tendency to say
> things which are patently untrue. It appears as filler, and insults
> everyone including yourself.
>
> > If he ever manages
> >a more enduring feat of head-extrication -- but that doesn't currently
> >seem likely, so why bother at this point to even speculate.
>
> That's more of the same vacuous filler. Curb that. Warrior has been a
> great help to you and very patient with your Dev-T and outbursts. You
> treat people on ars worse than you would treat $cientology's leaders.
> That's bigotry. I would treat $cientology's leaders just the same.
>
> >
> >I've no problem with anyone here being, or remaining, sceptical about
> >anything I've written above or anything else I've written. It would,
> >however, behoove anyone who would challenge the veracity of any of my
> >statements of fact to do so without at the same time engaging in the
> >robotic assumptions, the robotic think, and the robotic allegations of
> >which these same people normally accuse Sci'ts.
>
> Before I challenge the veracity of your statements of fact, please
> supply the following information:
>
> Identify each of the robotic assumptions, robotic think and robotic
> allegations to which you refer.
>
> Please identify who are "these same people."
>
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
Enzo Piccone
> In article <36F0DF...@hermes.it>, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>
> >Pod, would you mind directing me to wherever on the web are listed the
> >SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
> >year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
> >day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
> >where they are.
> >
> >Or anyone else, please.
> >
> >As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
> >also be appreciated.
>
> Sure:
>
> From cultxpt
> Subject: SP levels
> Date: 9 Jul 1995 05:33:28 GMT
Thanks, Martin, but this actually contains an error similar to the one I
made myself:
> SP2 the church reacts to your actions in some way
The correct reference was posted by Rhonda and is
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html.
Zinj
>
>Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
>don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
>insightful than you appear to be. (Just some friendly advice.)
>
>E
I think Hubbard said it best Enzo:
'The overt screams loudly'
Zinj
Rondata
and *everything* :) :) :)
Rhonda
Enzo Piccone wrote:
>
> Martin Hunt wrote:
>
> > In article <36F171...@hermes.it>, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
> >
> > >I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
> > >and Keith Henson's.
> > >
> > >The "SP Levels" are described in the following file:
> > >http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
> > >
> > >SP2 is described as follows:
> > >
> > >"SP2 can be earned by receiving an acknowledgement from a Scientologist.
> > >This generally takes the form of a response to your message on the
> > >newsgroup, but in the case of protests, will generally be achieved by a
> > >Scientologist talking to you. The response can be (and generally is)
> > >completely inane - it is the fact that you have received the response
> > >that counts, not the quality of the response."
> > >
> > >My response to Rhonda's and Keith's observations was in error.
> >
> > Enzo, you have gained the ability to Admit Mistakes; this is a
> > step in the right direction. Soon, you may find you have the
> > ability gained to Read Criticism, Evaluate Data, or even Have
> > Critical Thoughts. Beyond that, it's all gravy:
>
> Thanks for the chuckles, Martin.
>
> E
> --
> Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
>
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>I've read about a third of your article, Gerry. I hope I didn't miss
>anything Earth-shattering.
No. It's obvious you only missed two-thirds.
>
>What I did read prompts me to give you the Warrior-Bot Award for this
>week. Congratulations and very well done.
I will put it in my trophy cabinet. Thank you.
>
>You, like Warrior, appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
>exists at all -- to get beyond some of your robo-think.
The beauty, and were it not missed, irony, of your making such a
statement, and even the beauty of even your failure to answer
questions, is that you are representative of $cientology. Your
organization, as you know, claims to have superior psychological tech,
by which it makes people more able, more rational and better
communicators. So every statement by $cientologists which is base or
silly or ignorant or which avoids answering questions or addressing
issues lives forever as proof of $cientology's utter failure.
For me personally, it is always beneficial to my legal situation with
$cientology that its representatives attack me with their forever
base, silly or ignorant ops and communications. The attacks by you and
your fellow $cientologists, are hurtful, just because they are base,
silly or ignorant, and designed to hurt, but they are helpful in
resolving your organization's endless war on me and other people of
good will.
Nevertheless, I urge you to do something impermissible in $cientology.
Meditate upon the value, nature and equality of those people here to
whom you have brought your offering of base, silly or ignorant
communications. Even if that meditation should shake the foundations
of your faith in $cientology.
But because you launched the attack, as will forever be seen, I would
like to know, exactly what are your observations which led you to
conclude that I "appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
exists at all -- to get beyond some of [my] robo-think?"
Please define your term "robo-think." It's an insult, right?
And please provide any examples you have of my "robo-think.
>
>Or as I commented yesterday, I think it was, "Warrior has his head so
>firmly up his bot on this subject, that he seems incapable of getting it
>out long enough to understand anything I communicate to him."
And I'll say again in response, "Now you know that this is a lie. Try
to curb this tendency to say things which are patently untrue. It
appears as filler, and insults everyone including yourself."
>
>Bot on, Gerry. Bot on, boys.
I am sure we will all get by admirably.
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:47:14 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >gerry armstrong wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:34:23 GMT, Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>> >> >: Keith Henson wrote:
>> >> >:
>> >> >: > Rondata <51...@whoever.com> wrote:
>> >> >: > : Wow krista! If you can, for some reason, skip SP1 (like kindergarden,
>> >> >: > : you know?) then you just achieved an SP2 rating on the first post! Not
>> >> >: > : bad :) Welcome!
>> >> >: >
>> >> >: > : Rhonda
>> >> >: >
>> >> >: > : Enzo Piccone wrote:
>> >> >: >
>> >> >: > If I got the time zones right, Krista was SP1 for a little over 6 hours
>> >> >: > before Enzo jumped her to SP2. That's climbing the ranks. :-)
>> >> >Keith Henson
>> >> >
>> >> >: Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
>> >> >: to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
>> >> >: the newsgroup? :)
>> >> >
>> >> >What lie enzo? The SP grade chart is years old, and well known. You
>> >> >consider yourself a scientologist. All it takes to go from SP1 to SP2
>> >> >is a response from from a scientologist, and you responded.
>> >> >
>> >> >Only way this could be incorrect is if you are no longer a scientologist.
>> >>
>> >> No, I take Enzo's response to a recent query to be that he is an
>> >> admitted $cientologist. So you're right, Keith, Enzo lied.
>
>I made a mistake. I corrected myself when I became aware of it as
>such. There's a difference between this and lying.
You've admitted you made a mistake. And that's good.
But, for the sake of education and hence safety, let's go back to the
real nature of your mistake. Based on faulty knowledge (the "mistake")
you accused some of the guys of getting pretty hard up. You accused
them of having a need they didn't have. And you accused them of lying
to newbies.
You didn't just say, "I believe the information supplied is in error,
and this newbie hasn't reached SP2. And here is my evidence to support
my belief." You attacked these innocent people you call "some of you
guys."
The error, the mistake, was the choice to attack. On, as it turned
out, faulty data, you attacked. The attack contained lies, and the
reason it contained lies was you chose to generate them.
So, it is good to make it clear what you are apologizing for when you
apologize.
This particular error -- attack, as the solution to all sorts of
problems, or the response to all sorts of situations, where attack is
not the logical nor logically appropriate solution or response -- was
I believe a key part of Hubbard's pathology. He put that pathology
into policy, with, for example, his "Attack the Attacker" doctrine.
Anyone can see that attack is the response of almost all
$cientologists who participate here to all sorts of situations, where
attack is not the logical nor logically appropriate response. It is
reflective of the $cientology pathology.
A pretty good rule is that attack is, in almost all cases, not the
appropriate response. It's better in almost all cases where the
opportunity to attack is presented to do nothing. These rules are,
naturally, qualified by safety, courtesy and wisdom.
>
>And it should have been clearly evident as a mistake to both you and
>Keith the moment I made it, as it would otherwise have been absurd for
>me, or for anyone else, to have written what I wrote.
Well if by absurd you mean not the logical nor logically appropriate
response, then yes. We know that for many of your communications
because, for someone here to advertise a superior technology of
rationality, pretty well all your attacks are not the logical nor
logically appropriate response.
>
>> >Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
>>
>> What exactly do you mean when you set the word minds in quotes?
>
>I meant the same as I'd expect anyone else would have meant by putting
>the word in quotation marks. I was expressing an opinion with regard to
>either you or Keith having used your minds at all. (It's called
>~satire~, Gerry.)
Right. Exactly. It was, as I thought, an insult. Well, I won't speak
for myself, but you are utterly wrong about Keith. He has a wonderful
mind and he uses it wonderfully. You could learn so much from Keith if
you would just be brave enough to open your mind. Your attack on Keith
is reflective of Hubbard's endless attacks on his equals and person
from whom he could have learned so much.
>
>> >Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
>>
>> For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you are alluding to
>> here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be good, in
>> anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would include in
>> your detailing all the evidence you have to support any assertions of
>> fact.
>
>For the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand what Gerry was getting
>at, I'd suggest he was convinced my putting ~minds~ in quotation marks
>was to indicate that his and Keith's comments were not the expression of
>their having engaged in analytical thought, but of their having basked
>in what Scn claims to be "reactive thought," itself the product of the
>"reactive mind."
>
>If my suggestion is correct, and observing your conduct in this
>discussion, such a conviction as yours might just be considered to lend
>support to this theory.
>
>What I should think would be evident to anyone, however, is that your
>"understanding" of some things I might write is coloured by the
>conviction that I, as a Sci't, must perforce think in the robotic terms
>of which you, yourself, are convinced Sci'ts think. In other words, it
>would appear that some of your own "thinking" is in fact on automatic.
Whatever you've said here, you didn't respond to what I wrote, so I'll
repeat it.
You wrote "Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?"
And I responded:" For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you
are alluding to here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be
good, in anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would
include in your detailing all the evidence you have to support any
assertions of fact."
Now would still be a good time to respond sincerely to what I had
sincerely written.
>
>Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
>don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
>insightful than you appear to be.
I'm quite sure I'm very different from how I appear to be to you. I'm
also quite sure that none of the more intelligent or insightful who
participate here pull it off with you. I am not among them, except
that, with all of my very limited intelligence and insight, they still
make me welcome here. To my credit, don't you think, even with my
admittedly very limited intelligence and insight, I still tell the
truth.
> (Just some friendly advice.)
That wasn't really friendly advice at all, now was it? It was
unhelpful, in fact unintelligent and uninsightful, and rather
suppressive.
Enzo Piccone
Earlier Gerry:
>> >> No, I take Enzo's response to a recent query to be that he is an
>> >> admitted $cientologist. So you're right, Keith, Enzo lied.
As you seem to enjoy hair-splitting, shall we start with this one?
What's this "response to a recent query" that you took? I've been known
by one and all here to be a Sci't since the first article I wrote over a
year ago. Were you pretending otherwise?
Earlier me:
> >I made a mistake. I corrected myself when I became aware of it as
> >such. There's a difference between this and lying.
Back to Gerry:
> You've admitted you made a mistake. And that's good.
Take a tip, Gerry: your attempts to come off as patronising don't make
it either.
But let's get on with the show.
> But, for the sake of education and hence safety, let's go back to the
> real nature of your mistake. Based on faulty knowledge (the "mistake")
> you accused some of the guys of getting pretty hard up. You accused
> them of having a need they didn't have. And you accused them of lying
> to newbies.
Following is the sum of what I wrote:
"Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
the newsgroup? :)"
One sentence. Intended as a simple, a.r.s. "gotcha." Intended as
seriously as the smilie that ended it.
The gotcha didn't fly, as we know, because I misunderstood the
qualifications for "SP2." A misunderstanding at least one other person
shared with me in this thread. A misunderstanding someone else has
written is not uncommon.
I later asked where I could find the reference. It was pointed out to
me, I looked it up, corrected my statement, and apologised for my
error.
The several responses I've read to that apology accepted it.
And then we have you.
I'm snipping the remainder of what you wrote to save you embarrassment,
if you're still capable of such, as it's nothing more than a
continuation of your pseudo-expertise into robo-scientology, which
appears to be the only "scientology" with which you've anything
intelligent to say -- and when you do manage to say something
intelligent about it, which unfortunately isn't often.
Me again:
> >And it should have been clearly evident as a mistake to both you and
> >Keith the moment I made it, as it would otherwise have been absurd for
> >me, or for anyone else, to have written what I wrote.
Back to you:
> Well if by absurd you mean not the logical nor logically appropriate
> response, then yes.
Thank you.
> >> >Another example of great "minds" selectively thinking alike.
> >>
> >> What exactly do you mean when you set the word minds in quotes?
> >
> >I meant the same as I'd expect anyone else would have meant by putting
> >the word in quotation marks. I was expressing an opinion with regard to
> >either you or Keith having used your minds at all. (It's called
> >~satire~, Gerry.)
>
> Right. Exactly. It was, as I thought, an insult. <snip more pseudo-expertise>
And you needed my confirmation that my statements above were satire?
ROF
> >> >Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?
> >>
> >> For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you are alluding to
> >> here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be good, in
> >> anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would include in
> >> your detailing all the evidence you have to support any assertions of
> >> fact.
> >
> >For the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand what Gerry was getting
> >at, I'd suggest he was convinced my putting ~minds~ in quotation marks
> >was to indicate that his and Keith's comments were not the expression of
> >their having engaged in analytical thought, but of their having basked
> >in what Scn claims to be "reactive thought," itself the product of the
> >"reactive mind."
> >
> >If my suggestion is correct, and observing your conduct in this
> >discussion, such a conviction as yours might just be considered to lend
> >support to this theory.
> >
> >What I should think would be evident to anyone, however, is that your
> >"understanding" of some things I might write is coloured by the
> >conviction that I, as a Sci't, must perforce think in the robotic terms
> >of which you, yourself, are convinced Sci'ts think. In other words, it
> >would appear that some of your own "thinking" is in fact on automatic.
>
> Whatever you've said here, you didn't respond to what I wrote, so I'll
> repeat it.
I did indeed respond to what you wrote. You wrote, "What exactly do you
mean when you set the word minds in quotes?"
Then you continued as follows:
> You wrote "Or are we "just alleging" it, Gerry?"
>
> And I responded:" For everyone's benefit, Enzo, please detail what you
> are alluding to here in what you've set off in quotes. It would be
> good, in anticipation of people's subsequent queries, if you would
> include in your detailing all the evidence you have to support any
> assertions of fact."
And I took that to mean that we were still on the same subject: minds,
and how yours and Keith's had worked to transform my error into a lie.
> Now would still be a good time to respond sincerely to what I had
> sincerely written.
Still playing pretend-thick, are we?
Your infamous "just allege it" line is familiar to any a.r.s. regular.
I wasn't commenting on its veracity or lack thereof, as I don't have the
"elements," as we say here in Italy, to make such an adjudication.
I referred to it because it's what you were doing in your last. It's
what you're doing here. Just alleging it. You're merely been alleging
that I've been lying.
You make the same allegation in another article to this thread, but
we'll get to that when I'm finished here.
So, having clarified things for you, I shouldn't think you'd now find a
quibble with my quoting you the following:
"Now would still be a good time to respond sincerely to what I had
sincerely written."
Having responded sincerely to what you wrote, I'm quoting you here to
observe that you did not respond at all to my response. It concerned
your thinking being on automatic. Now would still be a good time to
respond.
> >Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
> >don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
> >insightful than you appear to be.
>
> I'm quite sure I'm very different from how I appear to be to you.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. What is evident to anyone, however, is that
you're presumptous in the matter of how you might appear to me at all.
I'm
> also quite sure that none of the more intelligent or insightful who
> participate here pull it off with you. I am not among them, except
> that, with all of my very limited intelligence and insight, they still
> make me welcome here. To my credit, don't you think, even with my
> admittedly very limited intelligence and insight, I still tell the
> truth.
The nods you may get when you preach to the choir don't impress me.
And there are only two things for which I'd give you unqualifed credit
myself.
The first is sanctimony.
The second is the reverence with which you treat your belief that you
understand anything more about Scn than those negative aspects of it
that took you, apparently, ten years as a Sci't to begin noticing at
all.
> > (Just some friendly advice.)
>
> That wasn't really friendly advice at all, now was it? It was
> unhelpful, in fact unintelligent and uninsightful, and rather
> suppressive.
It certainly wasn't complimentary. But it was friendly. The difficulty
with giving you such advice is that you've difficulty accepting it as
such. But I won't take this as cause not to repeat it.
Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
insightful than you appear to be. Or, I will add now, any less
sanctimonious. (Just some friendly advice.)
Enzo Piccone
> >You, like Warrior, appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
> >exists at all -- to get beyond some of your robo-think.
>
> The beauty, and were it not missed, irony, of your making such a
> statement, and even the beauty of even your failure to answer
> questions, is that you are representative of $cientology. Your
> organization, as you know, claims to have superior psychological tech,
> by which it makes people more able, more rational and better
> communicators. So every statement by $cientologists which is base or
> silly or ignorant or which avoids answering questions or addressing
> issues lives forever as proof of $cientology's utter failure.
You're ranting, Gerry.
Understand that here you're not in a discussion with "[my] organization"
or with a "representative of $cientology" or with a "proof of
$cientology's utter failure." You're having a discussion with a single
individual: me.
Hello?
<snip two paragraphs of further generic ranting>
> But because you launched the attack, as will forever be seen, I would
> like to know, exactly what are your observations which led you to
> conclude that I "appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
> exists at all -- to get beyond some of [my] robo-think?"
>
> Please define your term "robo-think." It's an insult, right?
No, Gerry, it was an attempt to flatter you, but once again I appear to
have been grossly misunderstood.
In other words, get real. I've come here right after replying to your
other message in this thread, and your pretending, when it's convenient,
to be Saint Gerry dragged innocently into a conflict with the C of S or
with me -- my tolerance for this kind of bullshit is beginning to wear
thin.
By "robo-think" I intend robotic "thinking." ~Thinking~ in quotation
marks because it's not actual thinking; it's not actual thought. It's
the incapacity to process information byond confines imposed by the only
person who can impose such confines: the person, himself.
> And please provide any examples you have of my "robo-think.
Try the following, which is the last thing you wrote here.
> And I'll say again in response, "Now you know that this is a lie. Try
> to curb this tendency to say things which are patently untrue. It
> appears as filler, and insults everyone including yourself."
Just keep alleging it, Gerry.
But you might also wish to entertain the thought that when you write
things like this -- and regardless of which of us might be considered
more credible by those who don't already understand the issue under
discussion -- you, yourself, come off unequivocally as a hypocrite.
So, my own statements of fact remain. As does your robo-think, which is
evidently making it impossible for you to figure out what to do with
them. Except, of course, to just keep alleging that they're lies.
Dead ElRon
>And then we have you.
>
because he (gerry armstrong) makes enzo look like a fool.
by snipping, enzo thinks he's saving face or looking
smart. in reality, enzo always avoids the difficult
questions, just like lurkmonster. enzo's uncapable of
honest and rational discussion.
my advice: realize this and repeat your questions.
eventually enzo may gain the ability to answer honestly
without writing attack-laden filler posts.
poor deluded clams...
Dead ElRon
William Barwell
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>>
*********************** DELETED *********************
> krista responds:
> thanks for the welcome :-)
>it's nice to see some fun be made of my newbieness.....
>oh and by the way..i like to think i was born a SP...horns and all.
>krista
Oh, no, now you have done it! Horns! Now everybody will be wearing
horns at the next pickets.
Stop giving the SPs ideas.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
Martin Hunt
>> From cultxpt
>> Subject: SP levels
>> Date: 9 Jul 1995 05:33:28 GMT
>
>Thanks, Martin, but this actually contains an error similar to the one I
>made myself:
>
>> SP2 the church reacts to your actions in some way
An error? But these are the original SP levels from the person who
came up with the concept, Jeff Jacobsen. How can they have an error
when they are pure Source? I think you have an M/U, buster!
>The correct reference was posted by Rhonda and is
>http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html.
Squirrel data; off-Source, off-policy. This is really just verbal
tech; please wordclear, re-read, and star-rate the previous post
with the true data. If you still haven't got it, I'll arranged
some FDSing. Beyond that, well, we'll have to call in the cramming
officer. And you *know* what happens when that "fails".
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is a ruthless, destructive, and vindictive organization."
- James Randi
.
.
.
.
.
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>Earlier Gerry:
>
>>> >> No, I take Enzo's response to a recent query to be that he is an
>>> >> admitted $cientologist. So you're right, Keith, Enzo lied.
>
>As you seem to enjoy hair-splitting, shall we start with this one?
>What's this "response to a recent query" that you took? I've been known
>by one and all here to be a Sci't since the first article I wrote over a
>year ago. Were you pretending otherwise?
No. I accept that you are an admitted $cientologist. There's no need
to complicate that fact.
>
>Earlier me:
>
>> >I made a mistake. I corrected myself when I became aware of it as
>> >such. There's a difference between this and lying.
>
>Back to Gerry:
>
>> You've admitted you made a mistake. And that's good.
>
>Take a tip, Gerry: your attempts to come off as patronising don't make
>it either.
For whom do you speak if you are but an individual as you assert. So,
be specific. You mean my attempts at communication which you alone
interpret as patronising don't make it with you.
And to be clear, you should describe what making it with you is like.
>
>But let's get on with the show.
>
>> But, for the sake of education and hence safety, let's go back to the
>> real nature of your mistake. Based on faulty knowledge (the "mistake")
>> you accused some of the guys of getting pretty hard up. You accused
>> them of having a need they didn't have. And you accused them of lying
>> to newbies.
>
>Following is the sum of what I wrote:
>
>"Boy, some of you guys must be getting pretty hard up to figure you need
>to feed this lie to newbie's within how many hours of their arrival on
>the newsgroup? :)"
>
>One sentence. Intended as a simple, a.r.s. "gotcha." Intended as
>seriously as the smilie that ended it.
No, no, no. I spelled out for you what a simple ars gotcha would have
been. "I believe the information supplied is in error, and this newbie
hasn't reached SP2. And here is my evidence to support my belief."
>
>The gotcha didn't fly, as we know, because I misunderstood the
>qualifications for "SP2."
No, the gotcha didn't fly because it was so indicative of
$cientology's stupid solution to too many things -- attack.
>A misunderstanding at least one other person
>shared with me in this thread. A misunderstanding someone else has
>written is not uncommon.
Absolutely. Misunderstandings are extremely common. They are so common
that it becomes stupid of $cientologists to use attack as a solution.
Don't go falsely accusing honest people of lying; find your
misunderstoods.
>
>I later asked where I could find the reference. It was pointed out to
>me, I looked it up, corrected my statement, and apologised for my
>error.
>
>The several responses I've read to that apology accepted it.
>
>And then we have you.
Yep. Not like everyone else. Rather torpedoes your robothink theory,
wouldn't you agree?
>
>I'm snipping the remainder of what you wrote to save you embarrassment,
>if you're still capable of such, as it's nothing more than a
>continuation of your pseudo-expertise into robo-scientology,
Oh, you must give me the specifics so that I can cognite on what
you're talking about.
>which
>appears to be the only "scientology" with which you've anything
>intelligent to say --
Please list for me and everyone else who might have read your words
here all the unintelligent things I've said about $cientology. Tell me
so that I have the opportunity to correct them. If there's nothing to
correct don't lie about what I've said.
You see, you were wrong. You went by another mu. Don't attack; clean
up your misunderstoods.
>
>> Now would still be a good time to respond sincerely to what I had
>> sincerely written.
>
>Still playing pretend-thick, are we?
You use that pronoun correctly. You are, but no, I'm not. I'm merely
trying to get you to use your God-given mind for something other than
attacking the enemies your cult manufactures.
>
>Your infamous "just allege it" line is familiar to any a.r.s. regular.
>I wasn't commenting on its veracity or lack thereof, as I don't have the
>"elements," as we say here in Italy, to make such an adjudication.
If you do not have the elements to make the adjudication you've been
making, then accept my word. Will you do that?
>
>I referred to it because it's what you were doing in your last.
That's false. My allegations are allegations. My facts are facts. My
conclusions are conclusions. When I have made allegations I have
always been willing to support them with evidence. You are lying
again. I urge you to stop.
> It's
>what you're doing here. Just alleging it. You're merely been alleging
>that I've been lying.
You did lie. You're continuing to lie. You can lie the rest of your
life. All the lies you can tell until the end of your life will not be
the truth.
>
>You make the same allegation in another article to this thread, but
>we'll get to that when I'm finished here.
>
>So, having clarified things for you, I shouldn't think you'd now find a
>quibble with my quoting you the following:
No quibble. I am more certain than ever that you lie. This bad habit
from $cientology is, however, easy to cure. Just tell the truth. But
remember, $cientology can't help you with that. $cientology just
reinforces your dishonesty. That's why every critic is justified in
opposing $cientology. Your cult strips its devotees of honesty.
>
>"Now would still be a good time to respond sincerely to what I had
>sincerely written."
>
>Having responded sincerely to what you wrote, I'm quoting you here to
>observe that you did not respond at all to my response. It concerned
>your thinking being on automatic. Now would still be a good time to
>respond.
>
>> >Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
>> >don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
>> >insightful than you appear to be.
>>
>> I'm quite sure I'm very different from how I appear to be to you.
>
>Perhaps. Perhaps not. What is evident to anyone, however, is that
>you're presumptous in the matter of how you might appear to me at all.
No. You're wrong again. I've left it open. You can be right about me.
And again you're speaking for all those other people, while claiming
to be an individual. You couldn't possibly know what is evident to all
the people here other than yourself unless you're not operating as an
individual here at all. Or both. Again I ask you to be brave and be
honest. Admit you're faking honesty.
>
>I'm
>> also quite sure that none of the more intelligent or insightful who
>> participate here pull it off with you. I am not among them, except
>> that, with all of my very limited intelligence and insight, they still
>> make me welcome here. To my credit, don't you think, even with my
>> admittedly very limited intelligence and insight, I still tell the
>> truth.
>
>The nods you may get when you preach to the choir don't impress me.
>
>And there are only two things for which I'd give you unqualifed credit
>myself.
>
>The first is sanctimony.
Thank you. Don't forget that this is alt.religion.$cientology, not
alt.religion.gerryarmstrong. So every attack by a $cientologist on
anyone here is a stake driven down in the $cienocorral. $cientology's
sanctimoniousness you place forever up as fair game. When you, a
representative of $cientology, accuse others of lies, your
organization's lies remain fair game. Every time you belittle someone
here your organization is fair game for belittling. That's the effect
of $cientology's sanctimony. And it is that sanctimony, your
sanctimony as $cientology's representative, at which you would be wise
to point your finger.
>
>The second is the reverence with which you treat your belief that you
>understand anything more about Scn than those negative aspects of it
>that took you, apparently, ten years as a Sci't to begin noticing at
>all.
Well then, it might be appropriate of me to ask, although it took me
ten years to disabuse myself of the "negative aspects" of the
$cientology cult, you have still, even with my pioneering the route
out, not been able to yourself with all your decades as a
representative of the cult. Surely you must see that this shows, even
by $cientology's standards, that I must be more able and aware than
you. Surely you understand this.
>
>> > (Just some friendly advice.)
>>
>> That wasn't really friendly advice at all, now was it? It was
>> unhelpful, in fact unintelligent and uninsightful, and rather
>> suppressive.
>
>It certainly wasn't complimentary. But it was friendly. The difficulty
>with giving you such advice is that you've difficulty accepting it as
>such. But I won't take this as cause not to repeat it.
>
>Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
>don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
>insightful than you appear to be.
Oh, here's my response. Still as valid as ever.
I'm also quite sure that none of the more intelligent or insightful
who participate here pull it off with you. I am not among them, except
that, with all of my very limited intelligence and insight, they still
make me welcome here. To my credit, don't you think, even with my
admittedly very limited intelligence and insight, I still tell the
truth.
> Or, I will add now, any less
>sanctimonious. (Just some friendly advice.)
And where was that equally friendly advice I had for you. Oh yes.
Don't forget that this is alt.religion.$cientology, not
alt.religion.gerryarmstrong. So every attack by a $cientologist on
anyone here is a stake driven down in the $cienocorral. $cientology's
sanctimoniousness you place forever up as fair game. When you, a
representative of $cientology, accuse others of lies, your
organization's lies remain fair game. Every time you belittle someone
here your organization is fair game for belittling. That's the effect
of $cientology's sanctimony. And it is that sanctimony, your
sanctimony as $cientology's representative, at which you would be wise
to point your finger.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>> >You, like Warrior, appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
>> >exists at all -- to get beyond some of your robo-think.
>>
>> The beauty, and were it not missed, irony, of your making such a
>> statement, and even the beauty of even your failure to answer
>> questions, is that you are representative of $cientology. Your
>> organization, as you know, claims to have superior psychological tech,
>> by which it makes people more able, more rational and better
>> communicators. So every statement by $cientologists which is base or
>> silly or ignorant or which avoids answering questions or addressing
>> issues lives forever as proof of $cientology's utter failure.
>
>You're ranting, Gerry.
If by this statement you mean that unfortunately for the cult of
$cientology, Gerry, you're completelty right, then I would have to
agree with you.
Your communications are very effective for demonstrating that
$cientology is an utter failure. For that I am grateful that you
exchange these communications with me, even if your unmerited attacks
on me and others are so hurtful.
>
>Understand that here you're not in a discussion with "[my] organization"
>or with a "representative of $cientology" or with a "proof of
>$cientology's utter failure." You're having a discussion with a single
>individual: me.
You are a representative of $cientology. Continuing to deny that fact
will not make it untrue, but the denial will make you appear stupid.
What is so hard to admit in the fact that you are a representative of
$cientology? I would think you would be proud of that fact, if you
were in fact proud of $cientology.
>
>Hello?
>
><snip two paragraphs of further generic ranting>
Well, I'll just unsnip them here so that others can see that your
evaluation and invalidation are off the mark.
For me personally, it is always beneficial to my legal situation with
$cientology that its representatives attack me with their forever
base, silly or ignorant ops and communications. The attacks by you and
your fellow $cientologists, are hurtful, just because they are base,
silly or ignorant, and designed to hurt, but they are helpful in
resolving your organization's endless war on me and other people of
good will.
Nevertheless, I urge you to do something impermissible in $cientology.
Meditate upon the value, nature and equality of those people here to
whom you have brought your offering of base, silly or ignorant
communications. Even if that meditation should shake the foundations
of your faith in $cientology.
See, not further generic ranting at all. Actually it's just friendly
advice.
>
>> But because you launched the attack, as will forever be seen, I would
>> like to know, exactly what are your observations which led you to
>> conclude that I "appear to have a diminished capacity -- if it still
>> exists at all -- to get beyond some of [my] robo-think?"
>>
>> Please define your term "robo-think." It's an insult, right?
>
>No, Gerry, it was an attempt to flatter you, but once again I appear to
>have been grossly misunderstood.
Good. That's a good cognition. It starts with another lie -- that
robo-think was an attempt to flatter me -- but ends at least with a
good realization that you have been grossly misunderstood.
The important thing now is to be really clear that $cientology can not
help you with this. Your being grossly misunderstood is because of
$cientology. If you can take a positive step to remove yourself from
$cientology's influence you will begin the process toward being
understood. Remember, $cientology grossly misunderstand everyone, and
you're no different.
>
>In other words, get real. I've come here right after replying to your
>other message in this thread, and your pretending, when it's convenient,
>to be Saint Gerry dragged innocently into a conflict with the C of S or
>with me -- my tolerance for this kind of bullshit is beginning to wear
>thin.
Oh, boy, I can't wait to see what happens when your tolerance is
completely gone. You should be intolerant with $cientology. It has
been promising you rationality and the ability to communicate well
throughout your whole $cientology career, and it has never delivered.
You have every right to be intolerant. You should give David Miscavige
a piece of your mind.
But as for your being intolerant with St. Gerry, that would be really
stupid now wouldn't it? You can go ahead and do it; but I don't
imagine you'd be much more intolerant than you are now. I'll wait
tolerantly to see.
And it would be good as a representative of $cientology that you
understand very clearly that your communications are the measure of
your organization's rationality or irrationality, good or evil
intentions, ability or inability, OTness or subwog stupidity. I would
give it a little thought before you spend much more time communicating
anything base or silly or ignorant or avoiding answering questions or
addressing issues.
>
>By "robo-think" I intend robotic "thinking." ~Thinking~ in quotation
>marks because it's not actual thinking; it's not actual thought. It's
>the incapacity to process information byond confines imposed by the only
>person who can impose such confines: the person, himself.
Okay. Please then identify each instance where I did what you accuse
me of here.
>
>> And please provide any examples you have of my "robo-think.
>
>Try the following, which is the last thing you wrote here.
>
>> And I'll say again in response, "Now you know that this is a lie. Try
>> to curb this tendency to say things which are patently untrue. It
>> appears as filler, and insults everyone including yourself."
So you're saying here that robo-think is an accurate statement of
facts and opinions coupled with helpful advice. Earlier you said that
robo-think is "not actual thinking; it's not actual thought. It's
the incapacity to process information byond confines imposed by the
only person who can impose such confines: the person, himself."
So there again you lie. Now it is very good, as I've said, to shake
off your $cientology training which brought you to lie so much. You
can be free. You can stand up to the $cientology organization. Stand
up and tell the truth.
>
>Just keep alleging it, Gerry.
>
>But you might also wish to entertain the thought that when you write
>things like this -- and regardless of which of us might be considered
>more credible by those who don't already understand the issue under
>discussion -- you, yourself, come off unequivocally as a hypocrite.
Another lie. Wow, you are really doing yourself a great disservice
today. And although you might think you're doing a service for
$cientology, remember that eventually your lies for the organization
are doing it too a great disservice. Let's hear the truth from Enzo!
>
>So, my own statements of fact remain. As does your robo-think, which is
>evidently making it impossible for you to figure out what to do with
>them. Except, of course, to just keep alleging that they're lies.
No, no, no. Your lies have gone far past the allegation stage. They
have been proven lies beyond a doubt. That challenge is met. The only
challenge remaining is the challenge to you to tell the truth.
Enzo Piccone
> But then, you must have missed entirely all the correspondence that
> those "hatted" to "handle" the net sent to all scientologists, i.e.,
> ordering them to NOT communicate on a.r.s. in any way; ordering them t o
> leave all communication with the critics to, well, to whatever HAT was
> designated to "handle" critics. Why do you seem incapable of reading
> and remembering that post from Chester that has neen posted and posted
> and posted again?
Chester is a non-staff Sci't who was/is a director of TNX, a privately
administered mailing list for Sci'ts who wish to subscribe to it.
In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
numbered in the hundreds.
He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
do so.
And that is all.
> Why do you think that denying there is a policy in place in the Church
> of Scientology to prevent members of the Church of Scientology from reading
> and posting to a.r.s. will persuade any of us who have read Ron Chester's
> instructions to the members of your organization that it Never Happened?
I've not denied, but have confirmed, that there is a body of Scn policy
which would preclude Sci'ts other than those whose organisational task
it might be, to read and/or participate in a.r.s. discussion. In other
words, I've confirmed what has already been written here about this.
I've gone on to state that there are many, many other references in Scn
doctrine, quite apart from this body of policy, equally applicable and
even more valid, which may be cited and which make reading and/or
participating in a.r.s. discussion by *any* Sci't perfectly acceptable.
In a disrelated thread, and on another subject, a critic mentioned one
of these: the Creed of the Church. I added another just in passing
myself, as it's one of my own favourites: LRH's last definition of
~responsibility~.
As I've written, there are many such references, and they are by no
means esoteric, let alone unknown to Sci'ts. Much of this material is
fundamental Scn doctrine, and Sci'ts become familiar with it in their
earliest courses.
> >The only persons who have communicated to me anything contrary to what
> >I've described in the penultimate paragraph are some ex-Sci'ts and some
> >non-Sci'ts here.
> >
> >The most notable is Warrior. But then Warrior has his head so firmly up
> >his bot on this subject, that he seem incapable of getting it out long
> >enough to understand anything I communicate to him. If he ever manages
> >a more enduring feat of head-extrication -- but that doesn't currently
> >seem likely, so why bother at this point to even speculate.
>
> Would you like to share with the rest of the class exactly why you
> believe that Warrior has his head up his ass?
I already have. On a number of occasions prior to this article.
And what I wrote above, my dear, states that Warrior has his haed up his
"bot" on this subject, not up his butt, or as you've written here, his
ass.
By "bot" I mean the abbreviation for ~robot~. I chose the phrase as yet
another way to describe the fact that Warrior is evidently incapable of
understanding or interpreting Scn doctrine in other than a robotic
manner.
> Warning: I believe everything that Warrior has told us about his
> personal experiences, especially his experience of the Three Stooges
> Tech of financial accountability in the Church of Scientology.
Perhaps Warrior will be comforted to read of your belief in him.
> Would you like to address any of Warrior's posts on that subject?
Not here. Not now. Perhaps not ever. I've little interest in what
Warrior posts except as concerns his robotic interpretation of the Scn
doctrine he cites -- and to the exclusion of the other Scn doctrine I've
mentioned, much of which could not but be quite familiar to him.
His propaganda on this subject is not only of the more common a.r.s.
fare: distorting one thing or another in Scn to make it lesser than it
is; making something good look bad; making something bad look worse, or
far worse, than it actually is.
It also seems designed to intimidate Sci'ts who, like myself, might not
only wish to, but who would also go to the bother of, participating
here.
Even then I might not have bothered to write on this issue, except that
I began to find his propaganda increasingly violent and repugnant --
again we're back to July 1998, when I first took him up on this subject
-- during his attacks on Claire Swazey. And increasingly hypocritical
as well, as he was at the same time pretending to invite and welcome
Sci'ts to participate.
wy...@arscc-atl.com
wrote:
>I've not denied, but have confirmed, that there is a body of Scn policy
>which would preclude Sci'ts other than those whose organisational task
>it might be, to read and/or participate in a.r.s. discussion. In other
>words, I've confirmed what has already been written here about this.
>
>I've gone on to state that there are many, many other references in Scn
>doctrine, quite apart from this body of policy, equally applicable and
>even more valid, which may be cited and which make reading and/or
>participating in a.r.s. discussion by *any* Sci't perfectly acceptable.
Enzo, how do you resolve the obvious contradiction you describe? How
do you decide which rules you will obey? Do you go by your feelings,
or do you actually think about it, weighing the substantive
oppositions against each other?
'til next;
wynot
The Few, The Proud, The Banned;
2x on the Scieno-nanny.
Scientology: now it is different. Now your abuses will be told and
memorialized forever on the Internet. We have each other and we
will see your criminal element eliminated before we are done.
Grady Ward
wy...@arscc-atl.com
of the cult rank on the new SP Level scale?
'til next time;
wynot
"A is A"; Aristotle
On 19 Mar 1999 01:43:16 -0800, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
>In article <36F0DF...@hermes.it>, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>
>>Pod, would you mind directing me to wherever on the web are listed the
>>SP levels and the requirements for qualifying for them? It's been a
>>year since I saw them and when I went looking for them again the other
>>day, I wasn't able to locate them. This is, of course, if know yourself
>>where they are.
>>
>>Or anyone else, please.
>>
>>As as the spam seems to have returned in a big way, a c.c. by mail would
>>also be appreciated.
>
>Sure:
>
>From cultxpt
>Subject: SP levels
>Date: 9 Jul 1995 05:33:28 GMT
>
>SP = Suppressive Person. These are the SP levels;
>
>SP1 you become a public church critic (posting, picketing, whatever)
>
>SP2 the church reacts to your actions in some way
>
Enzo Piccone
Nothing new. Just a repeat of his old, tired allegations.
You're welcome to come back to this subject when your head's no longer
fixed firmly up your bot, Gerry.
Then, perhaps, you'll have something intelligent to add to this
discussion.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
"As you too may have heard him say, philosophy is not a tool which can
be passed about like a mason's rule; it is a fire struck from the glow
of minds in search of truth. Without that fire, it is nothing." From
the novel, ~The Mask of Apollo~, by Mary Renault.
Enzo Piccone
Nothing new. Just a repeat of his old, tired allegations.
You're welcome to come back to this subject when your head's no longer
fixed firmly up your bot, Gerry.
Then, perhaps, you'll have something intelligent to add to this
discussion.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
"As you too may have heard him say, philosophy is not a tool which can
Enzo Piccone
> But then, you must have missed entirely all the correspondence that
> those "hatted" to "handle" the net sent to all scientologists, i.e.,
> ordering them to NOT communicate on a.r.s. in any way; ordering them t o
> leave all communication with the critics to, well, to whatever HAT was
> designated to "handle" critics. Why do you seem incapable of reading
> and remembering that post from Chester that has neen posted and posted
> and posted again?
Chester is a non-staff Sci't who was/is a director of TNX, a privately
administered mailing list for Sci'ts who wish to subscribe to it.
In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
numbered in the hundreds.
He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
do so.
And that is all.
> Why do you think that denying there is a policy in place in the Church
> of Scientology to prevent members of the Church of Scientology from reading
> and posting to a.r.s. will persuade any of us who have read Ron Chester's
> instructions to the members of your organization that it Never Happened?
I've not denied, but have confirmed, that there is a body of Scn policy
which would preclude Sci'ts other than those whose organisational task
it might be, to read and/or participate in a.r.s. discussion. In other
words, I've confirmed what has already been written here about this.
I've gone on to state that there are many, many other references in Scn
doctrine, quite apart from this body of policy, equally applicable and
even more valid, which may be cited and which make reading and/or
participating in a.r.s. discussion by *any* Sci't perfectly acceptable.
In a disrelated thread, and on another subject, a critic mentioned one
E
Dave Bird
>Ceon Ramon wrote:
>>
>> But then, you must have missed entirely all the correspondence that
>> those "hatted" to "handle" the net sent to all scientologists, i.e.,
>> ordering them to NOT communicate on a.r.s. in any way; ordering them t o
>> leave all communication with the critics to, well, to whatever HAT was
>> designated to "handle" critics. Why do you seem incapable of reading
>> and remembering that post from Chester that has neen posted and posted
>> and posted again?
>
>Chester is a non-staff Sci't who was/is a director of TNX, a privately
>administered mailing list for Sci'ts who wish to subscribe to it.
>
>In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
>with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
>number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
>numbered in the hundreds.
>
>He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
>subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
>subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
>expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
>do so.
>
>And that is all.
Well, that is the first time I have heard *a* coherent explanation
of that document, though I am not sure I believe you: the document
certainly *reads* as if OSA are telling Chester (in particular)
what the general policy is (for all Scientologists).
BTW, is it true that Ron Chester is -- or occasionally uses --
the account "Rod Fletcher"?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP5
Dave Bird
<wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>> krista responds:
>> thanks for the welcome :-)
>>it's nice to see some fun be made of my newbieness.....
>>oh and by the way..i like to think i was born a SP...horns and all.
>>krista
>
> Oh, no, now you have done it! Horns! Now everybody will be wearing
>horns at the next pickets.
Surely YM "tin-foil hats".
Steve A
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> Yeah, we're running a special on chaos this week, Enzo. Are you stocking up?
>
> Make no mistake about it: the ARSCC is not here to _create_ disorder, it's not here
> to _preserve_ disorder.
Uh, actually, the ARSCC is not here. Period. That's what the (wdne)
means.
--
Address-harvester Elephant Trap: nu...@castlsys.demon.co.uk
Do NOT send email to this address
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1, non-Mintonista.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Steve A
wrote:
> Chris Leithiser wrote:
>
> >
> > What lie, Enzo?
>
> This lie, Chris: "get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough
> about what you wrote, and claim SP2."
>
> I'm neither an official nor a semi-official nor any other kind of
> subscriber than who I've stated I am on a number of occasions since I
> began writing articles to a.r.s..
>
> If your description of SP2 is correct, you, along with some others,
> would also appear to have a rather accommodating concept of the state of
> being "upset," wouldn't you think?
I'm with Enzo on this one. I think that getting an SP upgrade on the
basis of a good-humoured "hi" from anyone, even a Scieno, is hardly in
the spirit of the award.
Steve A
> <snip - mildly amusing low-level sadism with gerry and keith poking the enzo>
>
> >
> >Lighten up, Gerry. For any number of reasons. One of which is that you
> >don't pull it off when you try to come off as any more intelligent or
> >insightful than you appear to be. (Just some friendly advice.)
> >
> >E
>
>
> I think Hubbard said it best Enzo:
>
> 'The overt screams loudly'
But of course Shakespeare beat him to it, somewhat more poetically,
with "Methinks the lady doth protest too much.".
Martin Hunt
>Martin, where would formally speaking to public groups on the crimes
>of the cult rank on the new SP Level scale?
NSP-5, I think: "critic publicly criticizes scientology". Groups
in the plural? Yes, SP5 it should be.
Keith Henson
: On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:43:23 -0800, Chris Leithiser
: <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
: > Yeah, we're running a special on chaos this week, Enzo. Are you stocking up?
: >
: > Make no mistake about it: the ARSCC is not here to _create_ disorder, it's not here
: > to _preserve_ disorder.
: Uh, actually, the ARSCC is not here. Period. That's what the (wdne)
: means.
It is more complicated than that. Even though the ARSCC does not exist,
due to the organizational uncertainty principle, there is a certain
probability that it does exist. A cup of really hot tea might help you
understand this. Keith Henson
Warrior
I hold many certificates issued by $cientology, including certs
for having studied and being able to demonstrate that I can apply
the materials of various courses such as the "PTS/SP Course". I
hold a certificate proclaiming me to be a "Fully Qualified and
Trained Staff Member" ("FQTSM"). I am certified as a $cientology
"minister". I also hold no less than 57 "Upstat" certificates which
were awarded to me for my consistent "upstats" (high production)
during my time in the Sea Org.
So it is completely laughable that Enzo calls me a "bot". It is
a lie that I am unable to understand $cientology policy. I did
not forget everything I studied during my years of experience
in the Sea Org. I understand Hubbard's policies _all too well_.
The certificates given to me by $cientology are a validation
and recognition that I understood, and demonstrated that I could
apply the policies I studied. The "upstat" certificated prove
that I *did* do what was demanded of me, in a manner consistent
with $cientology's policies and expectations.
Enzo has, with his continual attacks on me (mostly in the form of
name-calling) quite consistently avoided making any statements
regarding the evidence I have posted. Specifically, he has very
notably failed to comment upon the many Hubbard policies as well
as other $cientology policies I have cited. These are, once again,
posted below.
I ask you, Enzo, to consider Stu Sjowerman's words quoted here:
"It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
prompted by OSA Int."
Note that a $cientologist (Stu) stated that it is "AGAINST policy"
to be in contact with a.r.s. and that the "Flag Ethics office, prompted
by OSA Int" gave him a "short hat" on this subject. For those of
you who don't know, "KR" means "knowledge report". It is a type of
report required of staff members who, "noting some investigation is
in progress and having data on it of value to ethics" are obliged
to write "KRs". A "knowledge report" is but one type of report described
in HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports".
So I ask you, Enzo:
Is Stu Sjowerman ~lying~? Does he "robotically" interpret $cieno
policy?
Do the policies below (referenced by Ron Chester) ~not~ apply?
Does $cientology Policy Directive 28 ~not~ apply?
And what of Heidrun Beer's statement about her experience with
$cientology's Office of Special Affairs, specifically the DSA
of her org? Did Heidrun lie as well?
>Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
>> But then, you must have missed entirely all the correspondence that
>> those "hatted" to "handle" the net sent to all scientologists, i.e.,
>> ordering them to NOT communicate on a.r.s. in any way; ordering them t o
>> leave all communication with the critics to, well, to whatever HAT was
>> designated to "handle" critics. Why do you seem incapable of reading
>> and remembering that post from Chester that has neen posted and posted
>> and posted again?
In article <36F512...@hermes.it>, Enzo says...
>
>Chester is a non-staff Sci't who was/is a director of TNX, a privately
>administered mailing list for Sci'ts who wish to subscribe to it.
I don't think Enzo missed all the correspondence you refer to, Ceon.
I have posted it often enough. Enzo very consistently has avoided
answering my questions. Many of us know that $cienos are less than
forthright with us "SPs". Fair game makes it OK to lie to us. And
another Hubbard policy makes it a crime to "interpret" policy. (I
am sure Dennis is very familiar with the references, having been
required to study them when he was Chief Cramming Officer Flag.)
Still another policy of $cientology requires "issue authority" to
post excerpts from $cieno policy.
>In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
>with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
>number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
>numbered in the hundreds.
These policy references which Ron Chester cited, are posted below,
once again.
>He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
>subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
>subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
>expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
>do so.
Ron Chester even cited HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters", which
is the same reference Stu Sjowerman (another $cientologist) was given
by the Flag Ethics Office.
So what about it, Enzo? Is Stu a liar?
"It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
(legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
and should ignore a.r.s." --Stu Sjowerman
And what about this, Enzo?
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
===
Call me a "bot" if you wish. I'll let the $cientology references I've
posted speak for themselves.
>And that is all.
>
>> Why do you think that denying there is a policy in place in the Church
>> of Scientology to prevent members of the Church of Scientology from reading
>> and posting to a.r.s. will persuade any of us who have read Ron Chester's
>> instructions to the members of your organization that it Never Happened?
>
>I've not denied, but have confirmed, that there is a body of Scn policy
>which would preclude Sci'ts other than those whose organisational task
>it might be, to read and/or participate in a.r.s. discussion. In other
>words, I've confirmed what has already been written here about this.
Read what Enzo wrote here, folks! He wrote, "I've not denied ...that
there is a body of Scn policy which would preclude Sci'ts other than those
whose organisational task it might be, to read and/or participate in a.r.s.
discussion."
>I've gone on to state that there are many, many other references in Scn
>doctrine, quite apart from this body of policy, equally applicable and
>even more valid, which may be cited and which make reading and/or
>participating in a.r.s. discussion by *any* Sci't perfectly acceptable.
Post specific POLICIES including dates and titles, Enzo! I want to see
these "many, many other references in Scn doctrine...even more valid"
(your words!). Post them, Enzo! Post them!
>In a disrelated thread, and on another subject, a critic mentioned one
>of these: the Creed of the Church. I added another just in passing
>myself, as it's one of my own favourites: LRH's last definition of
>~responsibility~.
You are disingenuous, Enzo. The policies I referenced (which have also
been cited by *$cientologists*) are ~specific~ to the case of a.r.s.
The Hubbard definition of "responsibility", posted by you, is just that --
a definition!
I am asking for you to post ~specific~ policy letters by title and date.
>As I've written, there are many such references, and they are by no
Let's see them, then, Enzo! Post "many such references"!
>means esoteric, let alone unknown to Sci'ts. Much of this material is
>fundamental Scn doctrine, and Sci'ts become familiar with it in their
>earliest courses.
>
>> >The only persons who have communicated to me anything contrary to what
>> >I've described in the penultimate paragraph are some ex-Sci'ts and some
>> >non-Sci'ts here.
>> >
>> >The most notable is Warrior. But then Warrior has his head so firmly up
>> >his bot on this subject, that he seem incapable of getting it out long
>> >enough to understand anything I communicate to him. If he ever manages
I understand you VERY well, Enzo. I used to be a $cieno!!!
>> >a more enduring feat of head-extrication -- but that doesn't currently
>> >seem likely, so why bother at this point to even speculate.
Yet you do continue to speculate!
>> Would you like to share with the rest of the class exactly why you
>> believe that Warrior has his head up his ass?
>
>I already have. On a number of occasions prior to this article.
Lie. There are many, many questions I've asked which you have knowingly
and intentionally failed to answer.
>And what I wrote above, my dear, states that Warrior has his haed up his
>"bot" on this subject, not up his butt, or as you've written here, his
>ass.
>
>By "bot" I mean the abbreviation for ~robot~. I chose the phrase as yet
>another way to describe the fact that Warrior is evidently incapable of
>understanding or interpreting Scn doctrine in other than a robotic
>manner.
Another lie. I understand $cientology "doctrine" VERY well. As I pointed
out, I hold many, many certs from $cientology. These same certs are
evidence from $cientology *itself* that I understand $cientology.
Heck, I even *challenged* the exam for the "Treasury Secretary Full Hat"
and made a grade of 100% on the exam the ~first time~ I took the test!
>> Warning: I believe everything that Warrior has told us about his
>> personal experiences, especially his experience of the Three Stooges
>> Tech of financial accountability in the Church of Scientology.
>
>Perhaps Warrior will be comforted to read of your belief in him.
>
>> Would you like to address any of Warrior's posts on that subject?
>
>Not here. Not now. Perhaps not ever. I've little interest in what
>Warrior posts
Lie (the part about you having "little interest" in what I post!).
But Enzo certainly has demonstrated that he is unwilling to address
many of my very direct questions, especially the ones where I have
asked him for ~specific~ policy references.
>except as concerns his robotic interpretation of the Scn
>doctrine he cites
Lie. Spin. Avoidance. Black PR.
>-- and to the exclusion of the other Scn doctrine I've
>mentioned, much of which could not but be quite familiar to him.
Ah! So you apparently *do* believe that I am familiar with other
$cientology doctrine...
>His propaganda on this subject is not only of the more common a.r.s.
>fare: distorting one thing or another in Scn to make it lesser than it
>is; making something good look bad; making something bad look worse, or
>far worse, than it actually is.
The beauty of writing about $cientology is that I don't have to distort
anything. Posting a few applicable "Source" references usually illustrates
my claim quite effectively!
>It also seems designed to intimidate Sci'ts who, like myself, might not
>only wish to, but who would also go to the bother of, participating
>here.
Lie. This is your spin, Enzo. I only show readers the absurdity of
$cientology. I point out how $cientologists distort reality and lie.
I point out the double-think rampant in Hubbard's writings and
lectures.
>Even then I might not have bothered to write on this issue, except that
>I began to find his propaganda increasingly violent and repugnant --
"Propaganda" can be violent?!? That's a good one, Enzo!
>again we're back to July 1998, when I first took him up on this subject
>-- during his attacks on Claire Swazey. And increasingly hypocritical
>as well, as he was at the same time pretending to invite and welcome
>Sci'ts to participate.
I've addressed this many times, Enzo. I never pretended to invite
$cienos to participate in a.r.s. In fact, I did point out just the
opposite to your claim when I said "Scienos: please post to ARS --
it is your right!"
>
>E
>--
>Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
Here are some things I base my position on:
"It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
(legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
and should ignore a.r.s." --Stu Sjowerman
===============
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the
Suppressive Person,to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
================
Subject: "OSA does not want public posting to ars"
--------
This message from the Administrator of TNX - a private mailing list for
Scientologists - is evidence that alt.religion.scientology is off-limits
to "public" (i.e., non-staff) Scientologists.
Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
From: Ron Chester <r...@Theta.com>
Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
To: x...@yyy.com
Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
[personal detail & greeting deleted]
Here's the story. As TNX Administrator, it is sometimes necessary for
me to look around ars a bit, usually in response to applications for TNX
that have been submitted. I have also become our liaison with the
person handling the Internet at OSA Int, and we have developed a good
working relationship. As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA ,
I learned that the Church does not want any Church public posting to
this entheta forum. We have never made a point of this publicly on TNX,
because we found that, in the past, TNX posts that discussed how to
handle ars somehow ended up reposted to ars.
As an alternative, I worked up a write-up that addresses the most
commonly asked questions about ars. I send this to people when needed
on a case by case basis, rather than posting it to all of TNX.
Now a while back I was looking around ars, because of an application to
TNX that we had received. In the course of doing that, I discovered
that you had posted quite a few messages to ars. So before saying
anything to you about it, I called OSA to see if they had changed their
view of this at all. Once again, I found that they consider that it is
their hat to handle ars, and they do not want any public posting to ars
for any reason. They asked me to refer you to the relevant policies, and
to ask you to stop.
So here goes. I will separately email you (from my other address) our
write-up of TNX rules about handling entheta on the net. I want to
emphasize an LRH quote that we use at the beginning of that writeup:
"The man who has no impulse to set things right is insane."
-- LRH, "Operation Manual for the Mind" lecture
So we acknowledge your efforts as stemming from a sane impulse to clean
up this entheta site! And there is even a possibility that you did it
in coordination with your local DSA. (If so, please let me know.) I have
found that sometimes there is a lack of coordination between OSA Int and
the local level. In any case, here are some policies that would be good
to look at. Please take the time to look them over in their original
form, not just the parts I have quoted here. And recognize that my
intention is not to make you wrong in any way, or to indicate anything
about your case or any ethics situation. But this tech needs to be
aligned, as it applies to ars (which LRH never wrote about
specifically).
1. Data Series 43RA: Evaluation and Programs (OEC Mgmt Series, Vol 1,
p. 172)
This just establishes that OSA has the hat of "handling the public
and acceptance of Scientology..."
2. HCOPL 16 Aug 66 Iss II Clearing Course Security (OEC Vol 1, p. 627)
"Any sort of squirrel activity, contact with declared SPs or
suppressive groups... would be grounds for suspicion." It also states
that there would be no grounds for suspicion, if unsolicited mailings
received from suppressive groups are turned in unread to the Ethics
Officer.
3. HCOPL 7 Jun 65 Iss II Entheta Letters (OEC Vol 2, p. 661-9)
This is the basic hat write-up on how to handle entheta comm, which
is the dead file system.
"Therefore it is illegal as can be to handle entheta letters or
ethics reports in any other way than to and by Ethics." --p. 663
"Dead file does *not* cover business firms demanding bills,
government squawks or dangerous suits or situations. [OSA now handles
the latter- RC] It covers only entheta public letters received on any
line including SO #1." --p. 664
"Ethics seeing somebody answer an entheta letter ... should order a
hearing on the person." --p. 666
"It is the *full* intention that:
4. That the line be cut completely." --p. 667
4. Admin Know-How Series 16: Suppressives and the Administrator
(OEC Vol 1, p. 1028-30)
"An SP (suppressive person) is unable to change because he cannot,
himself, confront. He is badly "out of valence". --p. 1028
"Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to
betray 90 percent of the population. So we set them aside for
another day. --p. 1029
5. HCOB 10 Sep 83 PTSness and Disconnection (OEC Vol 1, p. 1041-4)
"If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the
right to not receive communication from another." --p. 1041
"The term "disconnection" is defined as a self-detemined decision
made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to
another. It is a severing of a communication line." --p. 1042
"An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is
factually connected to a suppressive person, in present time. This
is a person whose normal operating basis is one of making others
smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get
better, at all." --p. 1043
"In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to
"handle" the person. The answer is to sever the connection.
"To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only
denies the PTS case gain, it is also *supportive* of the
suppressive-- in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labeled."
--p. 1044
6. PR Series 27: The Enemy Line (OEC Mgmt Series Vol 3, p. 102-3)
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that A MESSAGE MUST BE
REPEATED OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC.
An enemy group usually originates several carefully worked-out
entheta statements." --p. 102
"NEVER FORWARD AN ENEMY CAMPAIGN ON YOUR OWN OR OTHER LINES!
Don't deny rumors for that is what they want you to do." --p. 103
Whew, that's a lot! BTW the three most important are probably #3, 5, &
6, especially #6.
This is what I have observed on ars. Nearly everytime an on-lines
Scn'ist posts a message, regardless of its content, it brings on an
entheta response (and sometimes many) from the sps. So even though you
may not quote their entheta (and thus forward it along), your response
gives them a reason to state it again, and again and again...
I believe this may be the main reason OSA does not want public posting
to ars. I have seen threads started by Scn'ists that have been followed
by a dozen or more entheta replies. Or a Scn'ist will post a reply to a
thread, and this will spawn another batch of entheta responses. So if
we post anything, no matter how theta, to an entheta forum, it can cause
the volume of entheta to increase many times over. That's why the sps
love it when Scn'ists start posting to ars. It gives them another
chance to state their enemy lines over and over again.
I created TNX so there would be a theta forum for Scn'ists, so that they
could leave ars behind. Per #4 above, I think your time would be better
spent on TNX, rather than messing around with ars. Leave that task to
the staff at OSA.
Again, no make wrong intended. Let me know if you have any questions or
disagreements on any of this.
Thanks... Ron Chester
TNX Administrator
===
All the best,
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Warrior
>from a TNX post leaked to ARS:
>>
>> Subject: "OSA does not want public posting to ars"
>> --------
>> This message from the Administrator of TNX - a private mailing list for
>> Scientologists - is evidence that alt.religion.scientology is off-limits
>> to "public" (i.e., non-staff) Scientologists.
>>
>> Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
>> From: Ron Chester <r...@Theta.com>
>> Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
>> To: x...@yyy.com
>> Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
>>
>> [personal detail & greeting deleted]
In article <901c91e6...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>, Sister says...
>
>Why do you always cut out the date on the above?
I didn't cut out the date. I don't "always cut out the date". I have
never deleted the date. I only quoted from a document leaked to
ARS by someone else. Your assumption that I cut out the date is an
incorrect assumption. The TNX post by Ron Chester was originally posted
to ARS by someone other than me. I quoted it exactly as found by me
in Deja News' archives.
(Note for Ron Newman: This should answer you question too.)
>Just how old is it really?
Really, I don't know. I have an idea, but I won't speculate. The
original post is very easily locatable by using Deja News' search
tool.
>> I created TNX so there would be a theta forum for Scn'ists, so that they
>> could leave ars behind. Per #4 above, I think your time would be better
>> spent on TNX, rather than messing around with ars. Leave that task to
>> the staff at OSA.
>>
>> Again, no make wrong intended. Let me know if you have any questions or
>> disagreements on any of this.
>>
>> Thanks... Ron Chester
>> TNX Administrator
>
>I read the above as advisory rather than directive. Is there any evidence it
>is otherwise?
Nope. You are quite correct, Sister Clara. Ron Chester's post to TNX
is not policy. But the policy references contained in Ron Chester's post
to TNX *are* policy.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
wy...@arscc-atl.com
wrote:
>In article <36f4ffaf....@news.mindspring.com>, wy...@arscc-atl.com wrote:
>>Martin, where would formally speaking to public groups on the crimes
>>of the cult rank on the new SP Level scale?
>
>NSP-5, I think: "critic publicly criticizes scientology". Groups
>in the plural? Yes, SP5 it should be.
Well, perhaps only NSP4; formally to only one organized group,
informally to several.
'Til next time;
wynot
The Few, The Proud, The Banned;
2x on the Scieno-nanny.
_________________________________
Pickets are the one thing that Scientology hates the most because
they can't lie to their members about it, at least to the ones who
see it.. They can't demonstrate their OT abilities and 'postulate'
people away using Tone 40, which invalidates them. This is a direct
confront to their great powers and is what they hate the most and
all the lies they tell their members is only a picket away from
revealing itself.
LRonsScam, in a post to a.r.s.
Steve A
wrote:
> Steve A <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Noooooo! Not....ENTROPY???
Steve A
wrote:
> I'd like to correct my article (below) which was in response to Rhonda's
> and Keith Henson's.
>
> The "SP Levels" are described in the following file:
> http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/fun.html
I think it's worth pointing out that these are *my* interpretations of
the original SP levels. Although I posted them to a.r.s. for
discussion by the ARSCC(wdne) Awards Subcommittee, I do not believe
that they should be used for a quasi-legalistic analysis of the status
of the SP levels.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I do feel that the award of an SP
rating in response to a pleasant greeting from a Scientologist is not
in the spirit of the awards. I think that the "problem" has probably
arisen due to the dearth of Scientologists on this group who have been
prepared to make such a greeting.
> My mistaken impression regarding SP2 was similar to Chris Leithiser's:
> "get some official/semiofficial Co$ poster upset enough about what you
> wrote, and claim SP2."
Well, that's an overly negative interpretation. Understandable,
though, because the trend on a.r.s. has been for pro-Scn posters to
get upset about just about *anything* that was posted. You, Enzo,
appear to be bucking this trend, at least some of the time, and have
therefore caused the ARSCC(wsdne) untold difficulties, by messing up
the overgeneralised stereotype of pro-Scn posters. Shame on you! :-)
> My apologies for this error.
You wouldn't be being...sarcastic, would you, Enzo?
Mike O'Connor
[...]
> Ron Chester even cited HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters", which
> is the same reference Stu Sjowerman (another $cientologist) was given
> by the Flag Ethics Office.
>
> So what about it, Enzo? Is Stu a liar?
>
> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
> prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
> Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
> (legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
> fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
> and should ignore a.r.s." --Stu Sjowerman
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DEAD FILE,
1. dead file does not mean they stopped communicating with us. It means we
stopped communicating with them. (HCOPL 7.6.65 Entheta Letters and the
Dead File, Handling of - Definitions)
2. dead file does not cover business firms demanding bills, government
squawks or dangerous suits or situations. It covers only entheta public
letters received on any line including SO 1. (HCOPL 7.6.65 Entheta Letters
and the Dead File, Handling of - Definitions)
3. Ethics files includes all persons who write nasty of choppy letters to
an org or to its personnel. Rather than go thru the trouble of issuing a
suppressive person order or even investigating, we assign writers of
choppy letters the dead file. When their area is enturbulated and we want
to locate a suppressive, we can always consult our dead file for possible
candidates and then investigate and issue an order. The dead file is by
sections of the area or the world, and alphabetical in those sections.
(HCOPL 7.6.65 Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of -
Definitions)
-- Probably from the Admin Dictionary
My source: <32df5edc...@berlin.snafu.de>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
Mike O'Connor - lep...@panix.com
<http://www.panix.com/~lepton/>
gerry armstrong
<cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <7d415d$n...@drn.newsguy.com>
> Warrior <war...@entheta.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Subject: "OSA does not want public posting to ars"
>> --------
>> This message from the Administrator of TNX - a private mailing list for
>> Scientologists - is evidence that alt.religion.scientology is off-limits
>> to "public" (i.e., non-staff) Scientologists.
>>
>> Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
>> From: Ron Chester <r...@Theta.com>
>> Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
>> To: x...@yyy.com
>> Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
>>
>> [personal detail & greeting deleted]
>>
>
>Why do you always cut out the date on the above?
>
>Just how old is it really?
>
>> I created TNX so there would be a theta forum for Scn'ists, so that they
>> could leave ars behind. Per #4 above, I think your time would be better
>> spent on TNX, rather than messing around with ars. Leave that task to
>> the staff at OSA.
>>
>> Again, no make wrong intended. Let me know if you have any questions or
>> disagreements on any of this.
>>
>> Thanks... Ron Chester
>> TNX Administrator
>
>I read the above as advisory rather than directive. Is there any evidence it
>is otherwise?
Just standard op. Actionable orders are structured to appear to be
advice. Hubbard's orders, in fact, came to be known as "advices." The
purpose, of course, is to cloud legal liability for the effects of the
orders.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>--
>Sister Clara
>SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject - IRC bitch
>Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
>http://www.magpie.co.uk/
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>Nothing new. Just a repeat of his old, tired allegations.
>
>You're welcome to come back to this subject when your head's no longer
>fixed firmly up your bot, Gerry.
>
>Then, perhaps, you'll have something intelligent to add to this
>discussion.
Thank you. I'll submit your parting shot to the judges panel.
In the discussion about whether $cientology is an utter failure at
increasing rationality your failure to defend your cult's claims or be
an example of superior rationality are closely observed.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>E
And here's the post from which Enzo rabbitted.
From: arms...@dowco.com (gerry armstrong)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: newbie on newsgroup
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 01:15:04 GMT
Message-ID: <36f44745...@news.dowco.com>
References: <36EF6AD...@home.com> <36EE74...@hermes.it>
<36EE79EB...@whoever.com> <hkhensonF...@netcom.com>
<36EEE8...@hermes.it> <36EEF3E8...@bc.cc.ca.us>
<36EF15...@hermes.it>
<podkayne1-170...@200-231-175.ipt.aol.com>
<36F101...@hermes.it> <36f1bafd....@news.dowco.com>
<36F25F...@hermes.it> <36f2cf6d....@news.dowco.com>
<36F3D1...@hermes.it>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-061.as1.chw.dowco.com
X-Trace: 20 Mar 1999 16:22:44 -0800, dial-061.as1.chw.dowco.com
Lines: 171
Path: news.vphos.net!dial-061.as1.chw.dowco.com
Xref: ares.vphos.net alt.religion.scientology:850498
gerry armstrong
>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 01:36:40 +0100, Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
>wrote:
>>I've not denied, but have confirmed, that there is a body of Scn policy
>>which would preclude Sci'ts other than those whose organisational task
>>it might be, to read and/or participate in a.r.s. discussion. In other
>>words, I've confirmed what has already been written here about this.
>>
>>I've gone on to state that there are many, many other references in Scn
>>doctrine, quite apart from this body of policy, equally applicable and
>>even more valid, which may be cited and which make reading and/or
>>participating in a.r.s. discussion by *any* Sci't perfectly acceptable.
>
>Enzo, how do you resolve the obvious contradiction you describe? How
>do you decide which rules you will obey? Do you go by your feelings,
>or do you actually think about it, weighing the substantive
>oppositions against each other?
No, Enzo uses $cientology rabbit tech.
Here's an expected, standard response from him to your legitimate
queries:
Enzo wrirting:
"Nothing new. Just a repeat of his old, tired allegations.
You're welcome to come back to this subject when your head's no longer
fixed firmly up your bot.
Then, perhaps, you'll have something intelligent to add to this
discussion. "
That's the product of $cientology. An utter failure to confront.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>'til next;
>wynot
>The Few, The Proud, The Banned;
>2x on the Scieno-nanny.
>
Beverly Rice
<SNIP of "It was a dark and stormy night" (writers joke)>
Enzo, I don't mind your posting at all, but could you please
learn to capsulize* what you have to say?
I know what you have to say is probably important, but you take
so long to get to a point, it causes a loss of interest.
*Word for the day - succinct
Beverly
Warrior
>
>> Dear readers,
>>
>> I hold many certificates issued by $cientology, including certs
>> for having studied and being able to demonstrate that I can apply
>> the materials of various courses such as the "PTS/SP Course". I
>> hold a certificate proclaiming me to be a "Fully Qualified and
>> Trained Staff Member" ("FQTSM"). I am certified as a $cientology
>> "minister". I also hold no less than 57 "Upstat" certificates which
>> were awarded to me for my consistent "upstats" (high production)
>> during my time in the Sea Org.
>>
>> So it is completely laughable that Enzo calls me a "bot". It is
>> a lie that I am unable to understand $cientology policy. I did
>> not forget everything I studied during my years of experience
>> in the Sea Org. I understand Hubbard's policies _all too well_.
>> The certificates given to me by $cientology are a validation
>> and recognition that I understood, and demonstrated that I could
>> that I *did* do what was demanded of me, in a manner consistent
>> with $cientology's policies and expectations.
>>
>> Enzo has, with his continual attacks on me (mostly in the form of
>> name-calling)
In article <36F6D7...@hermes.it>, Enzo wrote, in an article
he titled "WARRIOR does NOT want Scn public posting to ARS":
>
>I've skipped commenting at all in the matter of your claimed
>understanding of Scn doctrine, as I'm satisfied to leave readers to
>evaluate this on their own.
Good! I'll re-state some of my evidence which I base my understanding
on -- specifically, Scientology policies which I have repeatedly
quoted from.
Enzo has, with his continual attacks on me (mostly in the form of
name-calling) quite consistently avoided making any statements
regarding the evidence I have posted. Specifically, he has very
notably failed to comment upon the many Hubbard policies as well
as other $cientology policies I have cited. These are, once again,
posted below.
I ask you, Enzo, to consider Stu Sjowerman's words quoted here:
"It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
prompted by OSA Int."
Note that a $cientologist (Stu) stated that it is "AGAINST policy"
to be in contact with a.r.s. and that the "Flag Ethics office, prompted
by OSA Int" gave him a "short hat" on this subject. For those of
you who don't know, "KR" means "knowledge report". It is a type of
report required of staff members who, "noting some investigation is
in progress and having data on it of value to ethics" are obliged
to write "KRs". A "knowledge report" is but one type of report described
in HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports".
>Here I merely wish to point out that the last section quoted above is a
>lie. Both of us have been engaged in debating each other on this issue
>for months. It hasn't merely been me "attacking" you. You, too, have
>"attacked" me.
Apparently you have redefined "attacking" to mean that I have been
repeating my questions in an attempt to get them answered. Recall
that it is you who has called me a "bot", a "robot", a "whining
wimp", a "failure", etc. I could dig up more examples of your name-
calling. I mentioned the name-calling you have engaged in since it
is consistent with Hubbard/Scientology black PR tech. It is consistent
with Hubbard's policy to always "attack, never defend".
At this point I believe that anyone who has been following this
thread has noticed your failure to answer my questions.
Apparently you don't like me to quote some words from a Scientologist.
I am referring to Ron Chester's words:
"As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned that
the Church [sic] does not want any Church [sic] public posting to
this entheta forum [ARS]".
At the same time, you attacked me again by changing the title to
"WARRIOR does NOT want Scn public posting to ARS".
I say that this statement is a bald-faced LIE. I have NEVER wanted
nor wished for Scientologists to not post to ARS. In fact, I have
openly and specifically posted requests for Scientologists to post
here. I have even asked for an official Scientology representative
to come to ARS and answer questions.
Here's an example, easily verified through Deja News:
=====
Title: Still waiting
Author: Warrior
Date: 3 Apr 1998
Will an official of Scientology come on this newsgroup and address
the questions directly asked of current management?
Will an official Scientology spokesperson not only come on this newsgroup,
but take the unprecedented move of giving a verifiable name and "post" title?
====
>And as I've written on several occasions, the only reason I began this
>discussion was because I was finally repulsed by your continued attack
>on another as to consider myself obliged to do so.
Oh cranberries.... Repulsed, repulsed, repulsed.... nyit nyit nyit...
Go ahead and be repulsed. Maybe eventually you'll get flat on it!
You're an "OT", right, Enzo? Apply Hubbard's advice and "Be willing to
experience anything". Learn to communicate with me. Apply Hubbard's
"superior communication tech". If you answered more of my questions,
I wouldn't have to keep repeating them.
>Similarly, the observations I've made have not been "mostly in the form
>of name-calling." And then there's the fact that you have engaged in
>name-calling, too.
I called Claire a "slimy, Q&A artist" because she consistently avoided
answering my questions. You demonstrate the same inability and unwilling-
ness to answer questions.
>So, and as I've already had occasion to remark during this discussion,
>you are a liar and a hypocrite, Warrior. Stop lying, stop being a
>hypocrite, and you'll no longer oblige me to make these remarks to
>defend myself against your attacks.
I am not lying. And I am not a hypocrite.
>>quite consistently avoided making any statements
>>regarding the evidence I have posted.
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>This is another lie.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy."
>> Specifically, he has very
>> notably failed to comment upon the many Hubbard policies as well
>> as other $cientology policies I have cited. These are, once again,
>> posted below.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>And this is merely the same lie repeated.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy."
>> I ask you, Enzo, to consider Stu Sjowerman's words quoted here:
>>
>> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
>> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
>> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
>> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
>> prompted by OSA Int."
>>
>> Note that a $cientologist (Stu) stated that it is "AGAINST policy"
>> to be in contact with a.r.s. and that the "Flag Ethics office, prompted
>> by OSA Int" gave him a "short hat" on this subject. For those of
>> you who don't know, "KR" means "knowledge report". It is a type of
>> report required of staff members who, "noting some investigation is
>> in progress and having data on it of value to ethics" are obliged
>> to write "KRs". A "knowledge report" is but one type of report described
>> in HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports".
>>
>> So I ask you, Enzo:
>>
>> Is Stu Sjowerman ~lying~? Does he "robotically" interpret $cieno
>> policy?
>I can't comment on the veracity of alleged communications between Stu
>and others, as I've no knowledge of them.
You are aware of HCO PL 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports", are you not?
>His statement, that it is "actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
>them," is just that: his statement.
Slippery, Enzo. Do you understand the word "unequivocal"?
>Apparently he is communicating his understanding of whatever policy to
>which he may have been referring, and with the obvious intent to
>discourage others from having any further contact with a.r.s..
He referred to the HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters". Are you aware
of that polict, Enzo? Have you ever read the policy?
>As I've stated on numerous occasions by now, there is Scn policy which
>may be interepreted in exactly the same manner in which it appears to
>have been interpreted here by Stu.
Perhaps you mean this one:
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>As I've also continued to observe, however, this policy is not the only
>Scn doctrine to which a Sci't may wish to make reference.
Tell me some of the other Scientology policies which apply! Post the
dates and titles!
>On the contrary, there is a great deal of other Scn doctrine to which
>he may refer.
I ask you *again*: post ~some~ of "a great deal of other Scn doctrine".
>And this doctrine, which is at least as valid as Scn policy -- but
>usually more so, as it is fundamental Scn philosophy, from which policy
>is meant to be derived -- makes it perfectly legitimate for any Sci't to
>participate here.
Post it. Cite it. Post excerpts. Give the date. Or title. Something.
>In the first article I addressed to you, nearly eight months ago, I
>asked you if you were familiar with any references of this kind. And I
>did so knowing very well that you are quite familiar with at least some
>of these references, as they are part of the most basic of Scn
>materials.
>
>You later claimed, insistently, that you'd answered that question. You
>had not. I pointed this out to you yet again just a few days ago, and
>to my knowledge you failed to respond to that article at all.
"[T]o [your] knowledge [I] failed to respond"?
Your knowledge is perhaps limited to what you are willing to know
or be aware of, I'd suggest. Check Deja News to increase your
knowledge.
>> Do the policies below (referenced by Ron Chester) ~not~ apply?
>>
>> Does $cientology Policy Directive 28 ~not~ apply?
>As above -- and I'll repeat once more that I've made this statement
>perhaps a dozen times already during this discussion -- this is not the
>only Scn doctrine which is applicable and to which a Sci't may refer.
Post other "Scn doctrine which is applicable and to which a Sci't may refer".
>I will also repeat another observation I've made at least a dozen times,
>and it is that your insistence on the importance of these policies and
>other, similar policies __to the exclusion of all other and pertinent
>material in Scn__ is A ROBOTIC INTERPRETATION OF SCN DOCTRINE.
Could you have overlooked this one?
"The above [SPD 28, of 13 August 1982] is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>I don't make a practice of shouting to make myself heard, but perhaps
>you've merely great difficulties of hearing.
Not usually, Enzo. The caps are as they appeared in the Scientology
Policy Directive. (I can show who documents from Scientology in CAPS!)
(They must ~really~ like to "yell" in Scienoland!) (In fact, I know
many Scieno execs who do yell a lot.)
>Warrior asked:
>>
>> And what of Heidrun Beer's statement about her experience with
>> $cientology's Office of Special Affairs, specifically the DSA
>> of her org? Did Heidrun lie as well?
>I've very little familiarity with Heidrun's experience, as it occurred,
>I believe, before I began reading a.r.s. just over a year ago. If not,
>then I just missed it. In any event, it has been my impression that
>Heidrun's conflict with OSA did not consist merely in the matter of
>whether she was or was not free, as a Sci't, to participate here.
I'll dig up the applicable portions of her posts, if you'd like!
>Be that as it may, whatever the scene with Heidrun and OSA, or with any
>Sci't and anyone else in the C of S, nothing negates what I have stated
>as fact, and which I will repeat yet again. Any Sci't is free to
>participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wishes to do, if
>that's what he can be bothered doing, and if that's what he wishes to
>take the responsibility to do. And he may do this in exactly the same
>way as I continue to do it myself: entirely independent of anyone else.
>> >Ceon Ramon wrote:
>> >
>> >> But then, you must have missed entirely all the correspondence that
>> >> those "hatted" to "handle" the net sent to all scientologists, i.e.,
>> >> ordering them to NOT communicate on a.r.s. in any way; ordering them to
>> >> leave all communication with the critics to, well, to whatever HAT was
>> >> designated to "handle" critics. Why do you seem incapable of reading
>> >> and remembering that post from Chester that has neen posted and posted
>> >> and posted again?
>> In article <36F512...@hermes.it>, Enzo says...
>> >
>> >Chester is a non-staff Sci't who was/is a director of TNX, a privately
>> >administered mailing list for Sci'ts who wish to subscribe to it.
>> I don't think Enzo missed all the correspondence you refer to, Ceon.
>> I have posted it often enough. Enzo very consistently has avoided
>> answering my questions. Many of us know that $cienos are less than
>> forthright with us "SPs". Fair game makes it OK to lie to us. And
>> another Hubbard policy makes it a crime to "interpret" policy. (I
>> am sure Dennis is very familiar with the references, having been
>> required to study them when he was Chief Cramming Officer Flag.)
>> Still another policy of $cientology requires "issue authority" to
>> post excerpts from $cieno policy.
>This is but an amass of generic and base allegations thrown in my
>direction,
Ceon's question was quite appropriately already in this thread when
I responded to it.
>evidently with no other intent than to raise doubts about my
>own, quite specific, statements of fact.
Wrong. Think again, Enzo.
>And this from the person who
>has continued thoughout this discussion to whine about how I have been
>attacking him -- read, ~hypocrite~.
Spin, spin, spin with your use of the word "whine". I don't whine,
Enzo. But I will continue to repeat my questions. And as long as
you continue to fail to give direct answers, I will continue to
repeat my questions. After all, "TR-3" can be fun when used as I
was taught (by Scientology, no less)!
>You raise only one point which might be considered by some to be
>relevant, but which is not.
I firmly believe that many other readers may find my point relevant.
>It is in the matter of "interpreting"
>policy. But you are robotic in your understanding of this policy, too.
Do you mean this one? (It seems pretty clear to me!)
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
===
>And in any event, the "interpretation" of policy has nothing whatsoever
>to do with anything I've written, and which has concerned the evaluation
>of relative importances between what may be viewed as conflicting
>references.
Especially if Scientology is being run by a bunch of people who are
letting Hubbard "doctrine" be ~squirrelled~ , right?
Reminds me of Hubbard's statement in a finance policy letter where
he stated that accounting rules were like chess rules and then went
on to say "the one with the most imagination wins"... and that the
"trick" was "to assign significance to the figures before the tax
cruds do".
Ever read that one, Enzo?
>Do you remember the evaluation of relative importances, Warrior?
Yes, of course I do.
>It's
>one of the things you were meant to learn something about on the Student
>Hat Course. It's what a Sci't is meant to do in his study of Scn or in
>his study of anything else. Of course it's what anyone needs to do in
>his study of anything.
Do your duty as a member of your "church" and tell this to the liars
in charge.
>That noted, understanding the importance of such evaluation is one
>thing; correctly evaluating importances is another. And people differ,
>obviously, in their ability to make such evaluations.
Some Sea Org members are even labelled "Television zombies" by Hubbard.
Hubbard, like you, was an expert on putting a spin on things in order
to keep people from making correct evaluations. By lying, and by
calling things something than what they are, it was/is easy for your
cult to keep people introverted. By degrading people, they are easily
controlled.
>>Enzo wrote:
>> >
>> >In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
>> >with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
>> >number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
>> >numbered in the hundreds.
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> These policy references which Ron Chester cited, are posted below,
>> once again.
>> >He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
>> >subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
>> >subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
>> >expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
>> >do so.
>> Ron Chester even cited HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters", which
>> is the same reference Stu Sjowerman (another $cientologist) was given
>> by the Flag Ethics Office.
>>
>> So what about it, Enzo? Is Stu a liar?
Note that Enzo calls me a "bot" for my interpreting the policies
the way I do... yet, at the same time, he very predictably avoids
answering a very direct question which required a simple "yes" or "no".
Is Stu a liar, Enzo?
>I'll tell you what about it, Warrior. What you've quoted of me above --
>and what you snipped, which was my closing statement, "And that is all."
>-- made quite clear to the person to whom it was addressed, Ceon Ramon,
>that Chester's communication was his communication, that of a public
>Sci't, to several hundred other public Sci'ts. And that is all it was.
Yet, Ron Chester cited SIX more policies in his communication. You
quite predictably snipped *all* of them, and once agin you failed
to answer my questions about *those* other policies. So here they are
again. (Also note, dear readers, the part where Ron Chester wrote,
"And there is even a possibility that you did it in coordination with
your local DSA. (If so, please let me know.) I have found that sometimes
there is a lack of coordination between OSA Int and the local level."
Cool, eh!!!
===begin quote of communication by Ron Chester to TNX list===
===end quote===
>> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
>> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
>> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
>> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
>> prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
>> Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
>> (legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
>> fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
>> and should ignore a.r.s." --Stu Sjowerman
>>
>> And what about this, Enzo?
>And what about it, Warrior? You already quoted most of it above. And
>if anything, the rest merely confirms what I've been saying. These
>people, too, were apparently participating in a.r.s. discussion despite
>the policy you continue to cite.
The policies I think make it quite clear that it is against policy for
public Scientologists to "handle" or post to ARS.
>What happened to them, Warrior?
Who is "them", Enzo? What a weird question!!!
>Were they strung up by their fingers to
>make them too sore to write further articles? Or were they simply asked
>to leave a.r.s. to OSA? And quoted, perhaps, some of the policy under
>discussion to support this request.
Stu was told: "It is also a waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in
contact with them [ARS]", by the FLAG Ethics Office! How much more official
does it get, in Scienoland, Enzo?
>As far as I can tell -- and as far as you can tell, too -- these people
>simply decided to desist. That's if, of course, all of them did desist,
>as we don't know that either, do we?
Tell us what "we" know, Enzo!
Do you suppose that some Scienos decided to desist with a little bit
of "warning" or "R-factor" or "severe reality adjustment" from the
"ethics officer"?
>In any event, whatever Stu or anyone else involved did decide to do, it
>was their decision to do it. And if one or more of them had cared to
>continue, had considered it worth the bother, and had been willing to
>take responsibility for doing so, then that's what he would have been
>perfectly at his liberty to do.
Under certain unequivocal restrictions, of course! To wit:
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with the
Suppressive Person,to deal with one constitutes no less than a Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
===
Of course, if a Scientologist "[i]n any event, whatever Stu or anyone
else involved did decide to do, it was their decision to do it. And if
one or more of them had cared to continue, had considered it worth the
bother, and had been willing to take responsibility for doing so, then
that's what he would have been perfectly at his liberty to do."
Under certain conditions, of course!
>Just because you can't get beyond your own robotism doesn't mean
>everyone else is a robot, too.
Evaluation, invalidation.
>And now I'm snipping the rest. Not so much because there's so much more
>of it, but because it adds nothing new to this discussion.
You snipped some of my questions too, so I'll just put them right back so
the reader can see (at the end of this post) what you, once again, avoided
answering, while choosing to lie when you stated that it " adds nothing
new to this discussion".
>I think it was in my very first article to this discussion back in July
>that I wrote that you could quote any number of policies in the
>direction of Sci'ts not participating on a.r.s., but that these wouldn't
>make an iota of difference to the fact that there are other references
>with which to "legitimise" such participation.
Sorry, Enzo. I don't know how I could post policies I am not aware of.
That's why I have ~repeatedly~ asked you to cite them.
Will you please post "other references"? Quit playing games.
Where is the mysterious HIDDEN DATA LINE to which you allude?
>What on Earth do you think I'm doing here? I've told you umpteen times
>that I wasn't "hatted," that no one has authorised me to be here, etc.,
>etc., ad absurdum.
Last year you stated your reasons for posting to ARS. Do you remember
what you wrote?
>The fact is that you don't know what I'm doing here because it's beyond
>you to even conceive that I could be here on exactly the terms I've
>stated I am here.
Invalidation, Evaluation. Make wrong.
>And this is why you end up doing no better, when it comes to the crunch,
>than your friend Gerry Armstrong does with even greater ease: allege,
>and then just continue to allege, that I'm lying.
>
>Bots. The both of you.
>
>E
Hey, thanks for your insult. It means a lot to me!
God bless you Enzo! Take care.
Now here is some of what you snipped:
===
Even the title of my post is a verbatim quote of something from a member
of Scientology! To wit:
"As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned that the
Church [sic] does not want any Church [sic] public posting to this entheta
forum. We have never made a point of this publicly on TNX, because we
found that, in the past, TNX posts that discussed how to handle ars somehow
ended up reposted to ars." -- Ron Chester, TNX Administrator
===
Do you have a problem seeing the words of a Scientologist in the title
of my post, Enzo?
Perhaps your upset is with seeing the words of a Scientologist posted to ARS.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Enzo Piccone
> Dear readers,
>
> I hold many certificates issued by $cientology, including certs
> for having studied and being able to demonstrate that I can apply
> the materials of various courses such as the "PTS/SP Course". I
> hold a certificate proclaiming me to be a "Fully Qualified and
> Trained Staff Member" ("FQTSM"). I am certified as a $cientology
> "minister". I also hold no less than 57 "Upstat" certificates which
> were awarded to me for my consistent "upstats" (high production)
> during my time in the Sea Org.
>
> So it is completely laughable that Enzo calls me a "bot". It is
> a lie that I am unable to understand $cientology policy. I did
> not forget everything I studied during my years of experience
> in the Sea Org. I understand Hubbard's policies _all too well_.
> The certificates given to me by $cientology are a validation
> and recognition that I understood, and demonstrated that I could
> apply the policies I studied. The "upstat" certificated prove
> that I *did* do what was demanded of me, in a manner consistent
> with $cientology's policies and expectations.
>
> Enzo has, with his continual attacks on me (mostly in the form of
> name-calling)
I've skipped commenting at all in the matter of your claimed
understanding of Scn doctrine, as I'm satisfied to leave readers to
evaluate this on their own.
Here I merely wish to point out that the last section quoted above is a
lie. Both of us have been engaged in debating each other on this issue
for months. It hasn't merely been me "attacking" you. You, too, have
"attacked" me.
And as I've written on several occasions, the only reason I began this
discussion was because I was finally repulsed by your continued attack
on another as to consider myself obliged to do so.
Similarly, the observations I've made have not been "mostly in the form
of name-calling." And then there's the fact that you have engaged in
name-calling, too.
So, and as I've already had occasion to remark during this discussion,
you are a liar and a hypocrite, Warrior. Stop lying, stop being a
hypocrite, and you'll no longer oblige me to make these remarks to
defend myself against your attacks.
quite consistently avoided making any statements
> regarding the evidence I have posted.
This is another lie.
Specifically, he has very
> notably failed to comment upon the many Hubbard policies as well
> as other $cientology policies I have cited. These are, once again,
> posted below.
And this is merely the same lie repeated.
> I ask you, Enzo, to consider Stu Sjowerman's words quoted here:
>
> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
> prompted by OSA Int."
>
> Note that a $cientologist (Stu) stated that it is "AGAINST policy"
> to be in contact with a.r.s. and that the "Flag Ethics office, prompted
> by OSA Int" gave him a "short hat" on this subject. For those of
> you who don't know, "KR" means "knowledge report". It is a type of
> report required of staff members who, "noting some investigation is
> in progress and having data on it of value to ethics" are obliged
> to write "KRs". A "knowledge report" is but one type of report described
> in HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports".
>
> So I ask you, Enzo:
>
> Is Stu Sjowerman ~lying~? Does he "robotically" interpret $cieno
> policy?
I can't comment on the veracity of alleged communications between Stu
and others, as I've no knowledge of them.
His statement, that it is "actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them," is just that: his statement.
Apparently he is communicating his understanding of whatever policy to
which he may have been referring, and with the obvious intent to
discourage others from having any further contact with a.r.s..
As I've stated on numerous occasions by now, there is Scn policy which
may be interepreted in exactly the same manner in which it appears to
have been interpreted here by Stu.
As I've also continued to observe, however, this policy is not the only
Scn doctrine to which a Sci't may wish to make reference. On the
contrary, there is a great deal of other Scn doctrine to which he may
refer.
And this doctrine, which is at least as valid as Scn policy -- but
usually more so, as it is fundamental Scn philosophy, from which policy
is meant to be derived -- makes it perfectly legitimate for any Sci't to
participate here.
In the first article I addressed to you, nearly eight months ago, I
asked you if you were familiar with any references of this kind. And I
did so knowing very well that you are quite familiar with at least some
of these references, as they are part of the most basic of Scn
materials.
You later claimed, insistently, that you'd answered that question. You
had not. I pointed this out to you yet again just a few days ago, and
to my knowledge you failed to respond to that article at all.
> Do the policies below (referenced by Ron Chester) ~not~ apply?
>
> Does $cientology Policy Directive 28 ~not~ apply?
As above -- and I'll repeat once more that I've made this statement
perhaps a dozen times already during this discussion -- this is not the
only Scn doctrine which is applicable and to which a Sci't may refer.
I will also repeat another observation I've made at least a dozen times,
and it is that your insistence on the importance of these policies and
other, similar policies __to the exclusion of all other and pertinent
material in Scn__ is A ROBOTIC INTERPRETATION OF SCN DOCTRINE.
I don't make a practice of shouting to make myself heard, but perhaps
you've merely great difficulties of hearing.
> And what of Heidrun Beer's statement about her experience with
> $cientology's Office of Special Affairs, specifically the DSA
> of her org? Did Heidrun lie as well?
I've very little familiarity with Heidrun's experience, as it occurred,
I believe, before I began reading a.r.s. just over a year ago. If not,
then I just missed it. In any event, it has been my impression that
Heidrun's conflict with OSA did not consist merely in the matter of
whether she was or was not free, as a Sci't, to participate here.
Be that as it may, whatever the scene with Heidrun and OSA, or with any
Sci't and anyone else in the C of S, nothing negates what I have stated
as fact, and which I will repeat yet again. Any Sci't is free to
participate in a.r.s. discussion if that's what he wishes to do, if
that's what he can be bothered doing, and if that's what he wishes to
take the responsibility to do. And he may do this in exactly the same
way as I continue to do it myself: entirely independent of anyone else.
> >Ceon Ramon wrote:
> >
> >> But then, you must have missed entirely all the correspondence that
> >> those "hatted" to "handle" the net sent to all scientologists, i.e.,
> >> ordering them to NOT communicate on a.r.s. in any way; ordering them t o
> >> leave all communication with the critics to, well, to whatever HAT was
> >> designated to "handle" critics. Why do you seem incapable of reading
> >> and remembering that post from Chester that has neen posted and posted
> >> and posted again?
>
> In article <36F512...@hermes.it>, Enzo says...
> >
> >Chester is a non-staff Sci't who was/is a director of TNX, a privately
> >administered mailing list for Sci'ts who wish to subscribe to it.
>
> I don't think Enzo missed all the correspondence you refer to, Ceon.
> I have posted it often enough. Enzo very consistently has avoided
> answering my questions. Many of us know that $cienos are less than
> forthright with us "SPs". Fair game makes it OK to lie to us. And
> another Hubbard policy makes it a crime to "interpret" policy. (I
> am sure Dennis is very familiar with the references, having been
> required to study them when he was Chief Cramming Officer Flag.)
> Still another policy of $cientology requires "issue authority" to
> post excerpts from $cieno policy.
This is but an amass of generic and base allegations thrown in my
direction, evidently with no other intent than to raise doubts about my
own, quite specific, statements of fact. And this from the person who
has continued thoughout this discussion to whine about how I have been
attacking him -- read, ~hypocrite~.
You raise only one point which might be considered by some to be
relevant, but which is not. It is in the matter of "interpreting"
policy. But you are robotic in your understanding of this policy, too.
And in any event, the "interpretation" of policy has nothing whatsoever
to do with anything I've written, and which has concerned the evaluation
of relative importances between what may be viewed as conflicting
references.
Do you remember the evaluation of relative importances, Warrior? It's
one of the things you were meant to learn something about on the Student
Hat Course. It's what a Sci't is meant to do in his study of Scn or in
his study of anything else. Of course it's what anyone needs to do in
his study of anything.
That noted, understanding the importance of such evaluation is one
thing; correctly evaluating importances is another. And people differ,
obviously, in their ability to make such evaluations.
> >In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
> >with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
> >number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
> >numbered in the hundreds.
>
> These policy references which Ron Chester cited, are posted below,
> once again.
>
> >He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
> >subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
> >subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
> >expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
> >do so.
>
> Ron Chester even cited HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters", which
> is the same reference Stu Sjowerman (another $cientologist) was given
> by the Flag Ethics Office.
>
> So what about it, Enzo? Is Stu a liar?
I'll tell you what about it, Warrior. What you've quoted of me above --
and what you snipped, which was my closing statement, "And that is all."
-- made quite clear to the person to whom it was addressed, Ceon Ramon,
that Chester's communication was his communication, that of a public
Sci't, to several hundred other public Sci'ts. And that is all it was.
> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
> prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
> Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
> (legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
> fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
> and should ignore a.r.s." --Stu Sjowerman
>
> And what about this, Enzo?
And what about it, Warrior? You already quoted most of it above. And
if anything, the rest merely confirms what I've been saying. These
people, too, were apparently participating in a.r.s. discussion despite
the policy you continue to cite.
What happened to them, Warrior? Were they strung up by their fingers to
make them too sore to write further articles? Or were they simply asked
to leave a.r.s. to OSA? And quoted, perhaps, some of the policy under
discussion to support this request.
As far as I can tell -- and as far as you can tell, too -- these people
simply decided to desist. That's if, of course, all of them did desist,
as we don't know that either, do we?
In any event, whatever Stu or anyone else involved did decide to do, it
was their decision to do it. And if one or more of them had cared to
continue, had considered it worth the bother, and had been willing to
take responsibility for doing so, then that's what he would have been
perfectly at his liberty to do.
Just because you can't get beyond your own robotism doesn't mean
everyone else is a robot, too.
And now I'm snipping the rest. Not so much because there's so much more
of it, but because it adds nothing new to this discussion.
I think it was in my very first article to this discussion back in July
that I wrote that you could quote any number of policies in the
direction of Sci'ts not participating on a.r.s., but that these wouldn't
make an iota of difference to the fact that there are other references
with which to "legitimise" such participation.
What on Earth do you think I'm doing here? I've told you umpteen times
that I wasn't "hatted," that no one has authorised me to be here, etc.,
etc., ad absurdum.
The fact is that you don't know what I'm doing here because it's beyond
you to even conceive that I could be here on exactly the terms I've
stated I am here.
And this is why you end up doing no better, when it comes to the crunch,
than your friend Gerry Armstrong does with even greater ease: allege,
and then just continue to allege, that I'm lying.
Bots. The both of you.
E
--
Note: correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
Enzo Piccone
Nothing new, nothing of merit.
I wish I could say that you continue to surprise me, but it wouldn't be
a factual statement.
Your determination to obfuscate the factors of what is a very simple
issue -- this determination remains, however, noteworthy.
Since I asked you one, simple question nearly eight months ago, you've
contributed nothing to its discussion beyond your robotic interpretation
of Scn doctrine.
Nothing, that is, unless we also include your base allegations
concerning my own credibility.
I truly hope you get over this some day.
Enzo Piccone
No offense, Beverly, but this, like the writer's joke above, should be
another joke.
Did you read Warrior's mega-article, to which mine, which I kept to half
its length, was in reply?
And have you since read his response to me, which is about twice as long
as what he wrote originally?
I suggest you address your suggestion to him.
And if you'd like to do him a further favour, I suggest you encourage
him to differentiate between what he has become increasingly desperate
to maintain and what are the simple and unalterable facts of this
discussion.
If he were to do this, he'd have nothing left to say except to apologise
for his determination, over a period of nearly eight months, to confuse
this issue for both Sci'ts and non-Sci'ts alike.
gerry armstrong
The final stake in the Enzo corral.
VWD Warrior. You have exhibited clear patience, balance and even great
compassion for your opponent.
I doubt that Enzo will rise above the $cientology "communication"
tactics, which you have patiently and utterly foiled (tin hat tech?)
in this marathon. But we always leave the door wide open on ars, and
improvement is here for the taking.
Congratulations.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
gerry armstrong
wrote:
>Beverly Rice wrote:
No, no, no. Enzo is not being truthful. Warrior is succinct, and
presents succinctly simple and unalterable facts. It is simply Enzo's
need to be spoon-fed these simple and unalterable facts which make for
the seemingly long posts.
Here, see for yourself.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
From: Warrior <war...@entheta.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: OSA does NOT want Scn public posting to ARS
Date: 22 Mar 1999 21:03:58 -0800
Organization: Sunshine disinfects
Lines: 927
Message-ID: <7d77bu$p...@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <36EF6AD...@home.com> <36EE74...@hermes.it>
<36EE79EB...@whoever.com> <hkhensonF...@netcom.com>
<36EEE8...@hermes.it> <36F171...@hermes.it>
<36F512...@hermes.it> <7d415d$n...@drn.newsguy.com>
<36F6D7...@hermes.it>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-991.newsdawg.com
Path:
news.vphos.net!news1.van.metronet.ca!news1.cal.metronet.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!128.32.206.55!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
Xref: ares.vphos.net alt.religion.scientology:852064
>Warrior wrote:
>
>> Dear readers,
>>
>> I hold many certificates issued by $cientology, including certs
>> for having studied and being able to demonstrate that I can apply
>> the materials of various courses such as the "PTS/SP Course". I
>> hold a certificate proclaiming me to be a "Fully Qualified and
>> Trained Staff Member" ("FQTSM"). I am certified as a $cientology
>> "minister". I also hold no less than 57 "Upstat" certificates which
>> were awarded to me for my consistent "upstats" (high production)
>> during my time in the Sea Org.
>>
>> So it is completely laughable that Enzo calls me a "bot". It is
>> a lie that I am unable to understand $cientology policy. I did
>> not forget everything I studied during my years of experience
>> in the Sea Org. I understand Hubbard's policies _all too well_.
>> The certificates given to me by $cientology are a validation
>> and recognition that I understood, and demonstrated that I could
>> apply the policies I studied. The "upstat" certificates prove
>> that I *did* do what was demanded of me, in a manner consistent
>> with $cientology's policies and expectations.
>>
>> Enzo has, with his continual attacks on me (mostly in the form of
>> name-calling)
In article <36F6D7...@hermes.it>, Enzo wrote, in an article
he titled "WARRIOR does NOT want Scn public posting to ARS":
>
>I've skipped commenting at all in the matter of your claimed
>understanding of Scn doctrine, as I'm satisfied to leave readers to
>evaluate this on their own.
Good! I'll re-state some of my evidence which I base my understanding
on -- specifically, Scientology policies which I have repeatedly
quoted from.
Enzo has, with his continual attacks on me (mostly in the form of
name-calling) quite consistently avoided making any statements
regarding the evidence I have posted. Specifically, he has very
notably failed to comment upon the many Hubbard policies as well
as other $cientology policies I have cited. These are, once again,
posted below.
I ask you, Enzo, to consider Stu Sjowerman's words quoted here:
"It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
prompted by OSA Int."
Note that a $cientologist (Stu) stated that it is "AGAINST policy"
to be in contact with a.r.s. and that the "Flag Ethics office,
prompted
by OSA Int" gave him a "short hat" on this subject. For those of
you who don't know, "KR" means "knowledge report". It is a type of
report required of staff members who, "noting some investigation is
in progress and having data on it of value to ethics" are obliged
to write "KRs". A "knowledge report" is but one type of report
described
in HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports".
>Here I merely wish to point out that the last section quoted above is a
>lie. Both of us have been engaged in debating each other on this issue
>for months. It hasn't merely been me "attacking" you. You, too, have
>"attacked" me.
Apparently you have redefined "attacking" to mean that I have been
repeating my questions in an attempt to get them answered. Recall
that it is you who has called me a "bot", a "robot", a "whining
wimp", a "failure", etc. I could dig up more examples of your name-
calling. I mentioned the name-calling you have engaged in since it
is consistent with Hubbard/Scientology black PR tech. It is consistent
with Hubbard's policy to always "attack, never defend".
At this point I believe that anyone who has been following this
thread has noticed your failure to answer my questions.
Apparently you don't like me to quote some words from a Scientologist.
I am referring to Ron Chester's words:
"As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned that
the Church [sic] does not want any Church [sic] public posting to
this entheta forum [ARS]".
At the same time, you attacked me again by changing the title to
"WARRIOR does NOT want Scn public posting to ARS".
I say that this statement is a bald-faced LIE. I have NEVER wanted
nor wished for Scientologists to not post to ARS. In fact, I have
openly and specifically posted requests for Scientologists to post
here. I have even asked for an official Scientology representative
to come to ARS and answer questions.
Here's an example, easily verified through Deja News:
=====
Title: Still waiting
Author: Warrior
Date: 3 Apr 1998
Will an official of Scientology come on this newsgroup and address
the questions directly asked of current management?
Will an official Scientology spokesperson not only come on this
newsgroup,
but take the unprecedented move of giving a verifiable name and "post"
title?
====
>And as I've written on several occasions, the only reason I began this
>discussion was because I was finally repulsed by your continued attack
>on another as to consider myself obliged to do so.
Oh cranberries.... Repulsed, repulsed, repulsed.... nyit nyit nyit...
Go ahead and be repulsed. Maybe eventually you'll get flat on it!
You're an "OT", right, Enzo? Apply Hubbard's advice and "Be willing to
experience anything". Learn to communicate with me. Apply Hubbard's
"superior communication tech". If you answered more of my questions,
I wouldn't have to keep repeating them.
>Similarly, the observations I've made have not been "mostly in the form
>of name-calling." And then there's the fact that you have engaged in
>name-calling, too.
I called Claire a "slimy, Q&A artist" because she consistently avoided
answering my questions. You demonstrate the same inability and
unwilling-
ness to answer questions.
>So, and as I've already had occasion to remark during this discussion,
>you are a liar and a hypocrite, Warrior. Stop lying, stop being a
>hypocrite, and you'll no longer oblige me to make these remarks to
>defend myself against your attacks.
I am not lying. And I am not a hypocrite.
>>quite consistently avoided making any statements
>>regarding the evidence I have posted.
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with
the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a
Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>This is another lie.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy."
>> Specifically, he has very
>> notably failed to comment upon the many Hubbard policies as well
>> as other $cientology policies I have cited. These are, once again,
>> posted below.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>And this is merely the same lie repeated.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy."
>> I ask you, Enzo, to consider Stu Sjowerman's words quoted here:
>>
>> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
>> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
>> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
>> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
>> prompted by OSA Int."
>>
>> Note that a $cientologist (Stu) stated that it is "AGAINST policy"
>> to be in contact with a.r.s. and that the "Flag Ethics office, prompted
>> by OSA Int" gave him a "short hat" on this subject. For those of
>> you who don't know, "KR" means "knowledge report". It is a type of
>> report required of staff members who, "noting some investigation is
>> in progress and having data on it of value to ethics" are obliged
>> to write "KRs". A "knowledge report" is but one type of report described
>> in HCO Policy Letter of 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports".
>>
>> So I ask you, Enzo:
>>
>> Is Stu Sjowerman ~lying~? Does he "robotically" interpret $cieno
>> policy?
>I can't comment on the veracity of alleged communications between Stu
>and others, as I've no knowledge of them.
You are aware of HCO PL 1 May 1965 "Staff Member Reports", are you
not?
>His statement, that it is "actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
>them," is just that: his statement.
Slippery, Enzo. Do you understand the word "unequivocal"?
>Apparently he is communicating his understanding of whatever policy to
>which he may have been referring, and with the obvious intent to
>discourage others from having any further contact with a.r.s..
He referred to the HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters". Are you
aware
of that polict, Enzo? Have you ever read the policy?
>As I've stated on numerous occasions by now, there is Scn policy which
>may be interepreted in exactly the same manner in which it appears to
>have been interpreted here by Stu.
Perhaps you mean this one:
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with
the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a
Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>As I've also continued to observe, however, this policy is not the only
>Scn doctrine to which a Sci't may wish to make reference.
Tell me some of the other Scientology policies which apply! Post the
dates and titles!
>On the contrary, there is a great deal of other Scn doctrine to which
>he may refer.
I ask you *again*: post ~some~ of "a great deal of other Scn
doctrine".
>And this doctrine, which is at least as valid as Scn policy -- but
>usually more so, as it is fundamental Scn philosophy, from which policy
>is meant to be derived -- makes it perfectly legitimate for any Sci't to
>participate here.
Post it. Cite it. Post excerpts. Give the date. Or title. Something.
>In the first article I addressed to you, nearly eight months ago, I
>asked you if you were familiar with any references of this kind. And I
>did so knowing very well that you are quite familiar with at least some
>of these references, as they are part of the most basic of Scn
>materials.
>
>You later claimed, insistently, that you'd answered that question. You
>had not. I pointed this out to you yet again just a few days ago, and
>to my knowledge you failed to respond to that article at all.
"[T]o [your] knowledge [I] failed to respond"?
Your knowledge is perhaps limited to what you are willing to know
or be aware of, I'd suggest. Check Deja News to increase your
knowledge.
>> Do the policies below (referenced by Ron Chester) ~not~ apply?
>>
>> Does $cientology Policy Directive 28 ~not~ apply?
>As above -- and I'll repeat once more that I've made this statement
>perhaps a dozen times already during this discussion -- this is not the
>only Scn doctrine which is applicable and to which a Sci't may refer.
Post other "Scn doctrine which is applicable and to which a Sci't may
refer".
>I will also repeat another observation I've made at least a dozen times,
>and it is that your insistence on the importance of these policies and
>other, similar policies __to the exclusion of all other and pertinent
>material in Scn__ is A ROBOTIC INTERPRETATION OF SCN DOCTRINE.
Could you have overlooked this one?
"The above [SPD 28, of 13 August 1982] is unequivocal Church [sic]
policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
>I don't make a practice of shouting to make myself heard, but perhaps
>you've merely great difficulties of hearing.
Not usually, Enzo. The caps are as they appeared in the Scientology
Policy Directive. (I can show who documents from Scientology in CAPS!)
(They must ~really~ like to "yell" in Scienoland!) (In fact, I know
many Scieno execs who do yell a lot.)
>Warrior asked:
>>
>> And what of Heidrun Beer's statement about her experience with
>> $cientology's Office of Special Affairs, specifically the DSA
>> of her org? Did Heidrun lie as well?
>I've very little familiarity with Heidrun's experience, as it occurred,
>I believe, before I began reading a.r.s. just over a year ago. If not,
>then I just missed it. In any event, it has been my impression that
>Heidrun's conflict with OSA did not consist merely in the matter of
>whether she was or was not free, as a Sci't, to participate here.
I'll dig up the applicable portions of her posts, if you'd like!
>Be that as it may, whatever the scene with Heidrun and OSA, or with any
Ceon's question was quite appropriately already in this thread when
I responded to it.
>evidently with no other intent than to raise doubts about my
>own, quite specific, statements of fact.
Wrong. Think again, Enzo.
>And this from the person who
>has continued thoughout this discussion to whine about how I have been
>attacking him -- read, ~hypocrite~.
Spin, spin, spin with your use of the word "whine". I don't whine,
Enzo. But I will continue to repeat my questions. And as long as
you continue to fail to give direct answers, I will continue to
repeat my questions. After all, "TR-3" can be fun when used as I
was taught (by Scientology, no less)!
>You raise only one point which might be considered by some to be
>relevant, but which is not.
I firmly believe that many other readers may find my point relevant.
>It is in the matter of "interpreting"
>policy. But you are robotic in your understanding of this policy, too.
Do you mean this one? (It seems pretty clear to me!)
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with
the
Suppressive Person, to deal with one constitutes no less than a
Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
===
>And in any event, the "interpretation" of policy has nothing whatsoever
>to do with anything I've written, and which has concerned the evaluation
>of relative importances between what may be viewed as conflicting
>references.
Especially if Scientology is being run by a bunch of people who are
letting Hubbard "doctrine" be ~squirrelled~ , right?
Reminds me of Hubbard's statement in a finance policy letter where
he stated that accounting rules were like chess rules and then went
on to say "the one with the most imagination wins"... and that the
"trick" was "to assign significance to the figures before the tax
cruds do".
Ever read that one, Enzo?
>Do you remember the evaluation of relative importances, Warrior?
Yes, of course I do.
>It's
>one of the things you were meant to learn something about on the Student
>Hat Course. It's what a Sci't is meant to do in his study of Scn or in
>his study of anything else. Of course it's what anyone needs to do in
>his study of anything.
Do your duty as a member of your "church" and tell this to the liars
in charge.
>That noted, understanding the importance of such evaluation is one
>thing; correctly evaluating importances is another. And people differ,
>obviously, in their ability to make such evaluations.
Some Sea Org members are even labelled "Television zombies" by
Hubbard.
Hubbard, like you, was an expert on putting a spin on things in order
to keep people from making correct evaluations. By lying, and by
calling things something than what they are, it was/is easy for your
cult to keep people introverted. By degrading people, they are easily
controlled.
>>Enzo wrote:
>> >
>> >In a message sent to TNX subscribers, Chester claimed to be in liason
>> >with OSA -- a claim I've no reason to doubt -- and he went on to cite a
>> >number of Scn policy references to TNX members, who at that time
>> >numbered in the hundreds.
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> These policy references which Ron Chester cited, are posted below,
>> once again.
>> >He explained that he was taking this initiative to discourage TNX
>> >subscribers from participating in a.r.s.. Apparently some of these
>> >subscribers had already done so, and apparently someone in OSA had
>> >expressed to him the desire that neither they nor other TNX subscribers
>> >do so.
>> Ron Chester even cited HCO PL 7 Jun 65 Iss II "Entheta Letters", which
>> is the same reference Stu Sjowerman (another $cientologist) was given
>> by the Flag Ethics Office.
>>
>> So what about it, Enzo? Is Stu a liar?
Note that Enzo calls me a "bot" for my interpreting the policies
the way I do... yet, at the same time, he very predictably avoids
answering a very direct question which required a simple "yes" or
"no".
Is Stu a liar, Enzo?
>I'll tell you what about it, Warrior. What you've quoted of me above --
>and what you snipped, which was my closing statement, "And that is all."
>-- made quite clear to the person to whom it was addressed, Ceon Ramon,
>that Chester's communication was his communication, that of a public
>Sci't, to several hundred other public Sci'ts. And that is all it was.
Yet, Ron Chester cited SIX more policies in his communication. You
quite predictably snipped *all* of them, and once agin you failed
to answer my questions about *those* other policies. So here they are
again. (Also note, dear readers, the part where Ron Chester wrote,
"And there is even a possibility that you did it in coordination with
your local DSA. (If so, please let me know.) I have found that
sometimes
there is a lack of coordination between OSA Int and the local level."
Cool, eh!!!
===begin quote of communication by Ron Chester to TNX list===
Here's the story. As TNX Administrator, it is sometimes necessary for
===end quote===
>> "It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
>> enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
>> waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
>> them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
>> prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
>> Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
>> (legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
>> fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
>> and should ignore a.r.s." --Stu Sjowerman
>>
>> And what about this, Enzo?
>And what about it, Warrior? You already quoted most of it above. And
>if anything, the rest merely confirms what I've been saying. These
>people, too, were apparently participating in a.r.s. discussion despite
>the policy you continue to cite.
The policies I think make it quite clear that it is against policy for
public Scientologists to "handle" or post to ARS.
>What happened to them, Warrior?
Who is "them", Enzo? What a weird question!!!
>Were they strung up by their fingers to
>make them too sore to write further articles? Or were they simply asked
>to leave a.r.s. to OSA? And quoted, perhaps, some of the policy under
>discussion to support this request.
Stu was told: "It is also a waste of time and actually AGAINST policy
to be in
contact with them [ARS]", by the FLAG Ethics Office! How much more
official
does it get, in Scienoland, Enzo?
>As far as I can tell -- and as far as you can tell, too -- these people
>simply decided to desist. That's if, of course, all of them did desist,
>as we don't know that either, do we?
Tell us what "we" know, Enzo!
Do you suppose that some Scienos decided to desist with a little bit
of "warning" or "R-factor" or "severe reality adjustment" from the
"ethics officer"?
>In any event, whatever Stu or anyone else involved did decide to do, it
>was their decision to do it. And if one or more of them had cared to
>continue, had considered it worth the bother, and had been willing to
>take responsibility for doing so, then that's what he would have been
>perfectly at his liberty to do.
Under certain unequivocal restrictions, of course! To wit:
Scientology Policy Directive 28, of 13 August 1982 "SUPPRESSIVE ACT -
DEALING WITH A DECLARED SUPPRESSIVE PERSON" states:
"It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON
unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org
MAA). ...
"However, unless you are the named authorized terminal to deal with
the
Suppressive Person,to deal with one constitutes no less than a
Suppressive
Act. ...
"To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
"The above is unequivocal Church [sic] policy.
"WATCHDOG COMMITTEE for the CHURCH [sic] OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL"
===
Of course, if a Scientologist "[i]n any event, whatever Stu or anyone
else involved did decide to do, it was their decision to do it. And if
one or more of them had cared to continue, had considered it worth the
bother, and had been willing to take responsibility for doing so, then
that's what he would have been perfectly at his liberty to do."
Under certain conditions, of course!
>Just because you can't get beyond your own robotism doesn't mean
>everyone else is a robot, too.
Evaluation, invalidation.
>And now I'm snipping the rest. Not so much because there's so much more
>of it, but because it adds nothing new to this discussion.
You snipped some of my questions too, so I'll just put them right back
so
the reader can see (at the end of this post) what you, once again,
avoided
answering, while choosing to lie when you stated that it " adds
nothing
new to this discussion".
>I think it was in my very first article to this discussion back in July
>that I wrote that you could quote any number of policies in the
>direction of Sci'ts not participating on a.r.s., but that these wouldn't
>make an iota of difference to the fact that there are other references
>with which to "legitimise" such participation.
Sorry, Enzo. I don't know how I could post policies I am not aware of.
That's why I have ~repeatedly~ asked you to cite them.
Will you please post "other references"? Quit playing games.
Where is the mysterious HIDDEN DATA LINE to which you allude?
>What on Earth do you think I'm doing here? I've told you umpteen times
>that I wasn't "hatted," that no one has authorised me to be here, etc.,
>etc., ad absurdum.
Last year you stated your reasons for posting to ARS. Do you remember
what you wrote?
>The fact is that you don't know what I'm doing here because it's beyond
>you to even conceive that I could be here on exactly the terms I've
>stated I am here.
Invalidation, Evaluation. Make wrong.
>And this is why you end up doing no better, when it comes to the crunch,
>than your friend Gerry Armstrong does with even greater ease: allege,
>and then just continue to allege, that I'm lying.
>
>Bots. The both of you.
>
>E
Hey, thanks for your insult. It means a lot to me!
God bless you Enzo! Take care.
Now here is some of what you snipped:
===
Even the title of my post is a verbatim quote of something from a
member
of Scientology! To wit:
"As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned that the
Church [sic] does not want any Church [sic] public posting to this
entheta
forum. We have never made a point of this publicly on TNX, because we
found that, in the past, TNX posts that discussed how to handle ars
somehow
ended up reposted to ars." -- Ron Chester, TNX Administrator
===
Do you have a problem seeing the words of a Scientologist in the title
of my post, Enzo?
Perhaps your upset is with seeing the words of a Scientologist posted
to ARS.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
>--
Warrior
to ARS. These requests are very easily locatable in Deja News'
archive. Dates and titles of these posts are available upon
request. Just send email to Warrior <war...@entheta.net> .
I have *never once* stated that I do not want Scientologists to post to
ARS!
On the other hand, Scientology and Scientologists *have* stated that
"OSA does not want [Scientology] public posting to ARS".
Proof available upon request.
In article <36F79F...@hermes.it>, Enzo <en...@ermes.it> wrote,
regarding my last post to this thread, that I had written:
"Nothing new, nothing of merit."
Liar. Hurtful liar. Why will you not answer my questions, Enzo?
How can true understanding ever be achieved if you will not honestly
answer my questions? Specifically, why will you not give dates and
titles of Scientology doctrine as I have repeatedly requested?
>I wish I could say that you continue to surprise me, but it wouldn't be
>a factual statement.
Good. I don't want you to lie any more than you already have.
>Your determination to obfuscate the factors of what is a very simple
>issue -- this determination remains, however, noteworthy.
Many of my posts have been extremely long because I have honestly
endeavored to answer your questions, while at the same time defending
myself from your black PR attacks. As well, I have continued to
repeat many of my questions, not only in an attempt to get answers
from you, but also to show those following this discussion that you
consistently have avoided answering. So my posts have become rather
long, partially because I have found it necessary to re-post my
questions.
I ask again. Cite some policy references. Post dates and titles.
Please do this so readers may have more complete information.
Will you please do this?
>Since I asked you one, simple question nearly eight months ago, you've
>contributed nothing to its discussion beyond your robotic interpretation
>of Scn doctrine.
I answered your simple question months ago. This is not the first
time you have alleged that I failed to answer your "simple question
nearly eight months ago". I have repeatedly pointed out that I did
answer your question at the time it first appeared on ARS.
Many of my posts have quoted directly from the words written by
Scientologists. And I have frequently quoted applicable Scientology
policy to back up my claims.
Mainly, what you have done is:
1) continue to attack me, and
2) fail to answer my direct and very specific questions, and
3) fail to post the "other Scn doctrine" which you have nebulously
alluded to.
>Nothing, that is, unless we also include your base allegations
>concerning my own credibility.
Hey, don't blame me for your lies.
>I truly hope you get over this some day.
>E
I sincerely hope you can learn to answer simple, direct questions
some day.
God bless you,
Warrior (who feels like he is trying to get answers from a pull-string,
talking doll that repeats pre-recorded lines continually...)
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Warrior
"WARRIOR does NOT want Scn public posting to ARS"
In this same article, Ezno wrote:
>Your determination to obfuscate the factors of what is a very simple
>issue -- this determination remains, however, noteworthy.
>
>E
I ask the reader to decide for himself/herself, the truth of the matter.
Following are a couple of my public statements. There are many more.
===
Title: Scienos - Please post to ARS - it is your right
Author: Warrior <war...@entheta.net>
Date: 27 Oct 1998
Scienos: Please post to and read ARS.
When in doubt, communicate.
Warrior
Read my stories at http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
===
Title: Still waiting
Author: Warrior <war...@electrotex.com>
Date: 3 Apr 1998
Warrior contemplated...
Will an official of Scientology come on this newsgroup and address
the questions directly asked of current management?
Will an official Scientology spokesperson not only come on this newsgroup,
but take the unprecedented move of giving a verifiable name and "post" title?
Let this newsgroup be a public forum for honest dialog between critics,
reformers, curiosity seekers and Scientology management from various levels
and areas of...
<SLAP!>
**Warrior! Wake up!*
Warrior: Oh well; it was a nice dream anyway!
go to http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
===
Here are a couple of Scientologists' statements:
"It is no longer necessary to KR a.r.s. This group has been KR-ed
enough and is monitored by OSA INT on a daily basis. It is also a
waste of time and actually AGAINST policy to be in contact with
them. I was given a short hat on this at the Flag Ethics office,
prompted by OSA Int. The reference is DEAD FILE, Entheta
Letters.... As the proper terminals from the Church are now taking
(legal) action, our work and concern of the past has been very
fruitful and a.r.s has full attention of Int Management. We can
and should ignore a.r.s."
--Stu Sjowerman, Scientologist and Flag FSM
===
"As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned that
the Church [sic] does not want any Church [sic] public posting to
this entheta forum [ARS]."
-- Ron Chester, Scientologist, TNX Administrator and OSA Liaison
===
Who do you believe?
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Warrior
Thank you, Gerry. I am a very patient fellow. I owe it to my mother,
Rose, and my Christian upbringing, of which she was instrumental.
God bless her; may she rest in peace.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net
Best wishes, SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
Andreas Heldal-Lund, Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway
Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46 E-mail: hel...@online.no
home.sol.no/~spirous www.xenu.net www.hedning.no/hedning
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance of
irrational assumptions." - Will Durant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yokes
Not to mention, it is providing me with such incredible laughs. I
would say that I am shocked at the dodging responses from Enzo... but
I am not. Keep up the logic bombing please :-)
laytre
yokes
Reposter
>
>Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <7d415d$n...@drn.newsguy.com>
>> Warrior <war...@entheta.net> wrote:
>>> --------
>>> This message from the Administrator of TNX - a private mailing list for
>>> Scientologists - is evidence that alt.religion.scientology is off-limits
>>> to "public" (i.e., non-staff) Scientologists.
>>>
>>> Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
>>> From: Ron Chester <r...@Theta.com>
>>> Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
>>> To: x...@yyy.com
>>> Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
>
>
>> Why do you always cut out the date on the above?
>>
>> Just how old is it really?
>
>21 Sep 1996 08:56:01, Message-ID: <1996092115...@fat.doobie.com>.
>
>--Cornelius.
>
>--
>/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
>/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
>/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Re: Leaked from TNX: "OSA does not want public posting to ars"
Author: Karin Spaink <ksp...@xs4all.nl>
Date: 1996/09/30
Forum: alt.religion.scientology
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
> Karin Spaink (ksp...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
> > nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:
> > > This message from TNX, a private mailing list for Scientologists,
> > > is evidence that ARS is off-limits to "public" (i.e., non-staff Scns).
> > >
>> > ===========================================================================
> > >
> > > Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
> > > From: Ron Chester <r...@Theta.com>
> > > Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
> > > To: x...@yyy.com
> > > Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
> > I'd like a date to this one. Was this directive issued in 1994, 1995, 1996?
> > Before the spamming, or after?
> It's not in my TNX collection from Jan to Apr 95 which contains several
> postings about the suppressiveness of a.r.s.
I've received mail from a person in the know, who states that this
'escaped' message from the private CoS-mailinglist was sent out several
times (as needed), in 1995 and in 1996. As far as is know, the message was
never posted to TNX, but mailed privately to CoS-members who posted to
a.r.s.
That would certainly date the message _before_ the spam.
Our 'local' scieno, Karel Jeelof, questioned the veracity of the message by
stating that he's never received such a directive. But then again: he
doesn't post to a.r.s., only to nl.scientology.
groet,
Karin Spaink
- I write, therefore I am: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink
Cornelius Krasel
> In message <7d415d$n...@drn.newsguy.com>
> Warrior <war...@entheta.net> wrote:
>> --------
>> This message from the Administrator of TNX - a private mailing list for
>> Scientologists - is evidence that alt.religion.scientology is off-limits
>> to "public" (i.e., non-staff) Scientologists.
>>
>> Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
>> From: Ron Chester <r...@Theta.com>
>> Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
>> To: x...@yyy.com
>> Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
[snip]
Keith
lyreflower weepered Safi tradesperson escargatoire Hydrurus
anangular syncranterian diamondlike thriving
washer gallisin tsamba tribespeople Polynoidae
ametabolia unfrowardly satisdiction disparagingly rangy
macrophyllous untough palatomaxillary crambid riversider
pausal ware epiplasm turfed
Clemclemalats stenocephalia proverblike tariffication lobate encumbrancer
electralize ringwall protocolar cortisone weaponry preformationist
renunciation Venutian progne hepatical peppercorny hydrometeor conceitedly
cloriodid trafflike entotympanic tesseract platyglossia
obvolutive consuete antennular unimportunately harden legitimist slowish thermochrosy
Kitunahan chontawood auxograph
sleepward acquit cellulated rocketer
redeemably salicylidene isogeotherm misogamist splashproof
harzburgite classical recitable tanglement Cyclanthaceae elucidatory
nonvariant beevish plantationlike maltreatment rehaul parthenocarpically
unshape trapezist sanguinolent exsiccation shave circularize
cushioned homegoer Hydroparastatae mesoprescutum
chemicopharmaceutical intraligamentous quinquenary irreflective primine
vanillon citronin Fannia
bankweed placewoman semiannular confidently
algist scuddy captaculum symptomatological cataphoresis
kerygmatic pythonical accostable lithoscope rile
noncommunicable irrepressibleness
perfunctoriously queller molybdocardialgia anastalsis
Votish philematology honeyedly fastuousness privily unmanufacturable parenchym egoistically
fragrantly ectocondylar scrimshandy immane
unchristianlike foolery possessing tranka Agau Hondurian untrundled denumerant
Phantomist uniradical disobligingly aponeurology Eurypygae
ventriloquously Phanariote untaintable firmhearted Mezentian nunciate
sedative hydrophysometra tritactic fascial zendician overdescant unsparred
dar casefy ankylorrhinia abkari interrelation dactylitis
interbrain supermechanical Assyrian southwest victualing insinuative
Gnetales unkensome wrongish undissolute workpeople
corrective alderman Monoecia
Luffa rhomb suprapubian semiblunt Suidae
singlebar hew ohmic Cistaceae poetastress cultrated stepping
diploconical spiritistic theologize Ella uncasque antepalatal
ranchero hematology propupa
perisplanchnitis unweariably plumosely proliferous paronomasial somatological
villadom characterlessness crabbery neolith
crackdown