If you are not a fan of the RTC, mail Ken Urquhart a love letter. Oldtimer Scientologists say that he not L. Ron Hubbard invented the RPF
Barbara loves Marty
production is the basis of moral and that law violators must be
corrected. But according to Ron, these people should be corrected and
rehabiliated in correctional booth camps run by the authorities using
Scientology rehab tech AND NOT ON CHURCH GROUNDS.
That means that L. Ron Hubbard researched provided the technology to
correct bad apples and Ken Urquhart didn't make the authorities to
apply it but introduced the correctional camps to orgs, which resulted
in bad PR for the orgs being "places of slavery".
So, what do I think of Ken Urquhart? Pretty much what I am thinking of
David Mayo. They served the impostor Jack Vistaril (who likely
impostored L. Ron Hubbard all his life and not just at the end) but
not the real L. Ron Hubbard.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara loves Marty
wrote:
They would live in a governmental run facility and go on work
assignments (yes, also in orgs and churches) but would not be
supervised by the government and then brought back into the
correctional camps.
The orgs are no places for people to live who need serious correction.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara loves Marty
Gregory Hall
news:fcb2b90d-db06-4475...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> L. Ron Hubbard (the real one not his impostor) indeed researched that
> production is the basis of moral and that law violators must be
> corrected. But according to Ron, these people should be corrected and
> rehabiliated in correctional booth camps run by the authorities using
> Scientology rehab tech AND NOT ON CHURCH GROUNDS.
>
> That means that L. Ron Hubbard researched provided the technology to
> correct bad apples and Ken Urquhart didn't make the authorities to
> apply it but introduced the correctional camps to orgs, which resulted
> in bad PR for the orgs being "places of slavery".
<snip>
Technology my hairy, pimply and wrinkled ass! L. Ron Hubbard made up a
bunch of crap and tried to make it sound legitimate by attaching the word
"tech" to it.
Tech is short for technology. The sad fact is there is no technology in
Study Tech, for example. It is just a re-state of accepted teaching
fundamentals lumped together under a convenient label called 'tech'. But LRH
was clever enough to understand that many ignorant people are fooled by key
words into thinking something that is just a rehash bordering on plagiarism
of accepted educational standards is something new.
And you fell for it. What does this say about your discernment, Barbara? You
seem to be quite intelligent but you are way too gullible and naive. You
need a man like me around to teach you about the real world and how it
works.
--
Gregory Hall
Roadrunner
> "Barbara loves Marty" <barbaralovesma...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fcb2b90d-db06-4475...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
The problem is that you wish to tell others what is true to them, so
unlike the subject of Scientology. Your research please about your
supposed claims about studytech, I haven't seen any of that, just your
opinion...
RR
Gregory Hall
news:6357ef41-d7e6-4096...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
RR
========================================
[REPLY]
C'mon RR, get a clue. "what is true to them?" And you bought into that crap?
There is only one truth. What is true to them might well be a pack of lies
so it is NOT truth but lies some ignorant person has been duped into
thinking is the truth.
As for research, there is no need to show you anything along those lines.
You would not believe it anyway because it would not be 'your truth.'
Arguing with folks who feel comfortable defining their own 'truth' when it
is nothing of the sort because they aren't rational enough to accept any
absolute truthful and logical evidence to is like pissing into the wind.
When Hubbard decided to morph the English language to suit his
indoctrination purposes he did it intentionally with the goal being a
confused, brainwashed and compliant following that lacked the necessary
language tools to think logically and rationally.
Until you and other Scientologists stop talking in the carefully constructed
'language of Scientology' you will continue to be willing dupes spouting the
party line propaganda. After all it is 'your truth.'
But, the big problem with "your truth" is that is is laughably false in many
if not most cases.
--
Gregory Hall
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This shows that you have not understood the workability of processing.
See, you can't handle matters that are not within the reality of the
person receiving processing. And this in turn tells us that you have
not a clue about the subject of Dianetics and Scientology. You just
thrown around some opinions, that's all.
>What is true to them might well be a pack of lies
> so it is NOT truth but lies some ignorant person has been duped into
> thinking is the truth.
Irrelevant, again you have not understood why a technology would work.
>
> As for research, there is no need to show you anything along those lines.
> You would not believe it anyway because it would not be 'your truth.'
> Arguing with folks who feel comfortable defining their own 'truth' when it
> is nothing of the sort because they aren't rational enough to accept any
> absolute truthful and logical evidence to is like pissing into the wind.
A marvelous explain-away that you totally shamelessly use as a
substitute to forward research findings.
>
> When Hubbard decided to morph the English language to suit his
> indoctrination purposes he did it intentionally with the goal being a
> confused, brainwashed and compliant following that lacked the necessary
> language tools to think logically and rationally.
You throw opinion, and nothing but opinion.
TAPE: 6 Aug 64 Gradients and Nomenclature
Can you please explain the readers why there is such a thing as
nomenclature, and why every single part of science has developed its
own nomenclature. Is every angle of science out after to indoctrinate?
My friend, are you actually quite sane in your head? Hmmm?
>
> Until you and other Scientologists stop talking in the carefully constructed
> 'language of Scientology' you will continue to be willing dupes spouting the
> party line propaganda. After all it is 'your truth.'
Now when have I used this "carefully constructed 'language of
Scientology' ", hmmm.... care to clarify this to the readers?
>
> But, the big problem with "your truth" is that is is laughably false in many
> if not most cases.
Which is YOUR truth... .+)
RR
>
> --
> Gregory Hall
Gregory Hall
Thank you for replying so as to make my point about the language of
Scientology. The "workability of processing" to you is truth because
Scientology has brainwashed you with it. But, to English speaking folks it
is an example of twisted Scientology language.
>
>
>>What is true to them might well be a pack of lies
>> so it is NOT truth but lies some ignorant person has been duped into
>> thinking is the truth.
>
> Irrelevant, again you have not understood why a technology would work.
And, you have utterly failed to realize, like I stated, that Scientology
Technology is not technology at all. Scientology has twisted the real
meaning of the word to suit its own purposes.
>
>>
>> As for research, there is no need to show you anything along those lines.
>> You would not believe it anyway because it would not be 'your truth.'
>> Arguing with folks who feel comfortable defining their own 'truth' when
>> it
>> is nothing of the sort because they aren't rational enough to accept any
>> absolute truthful and logical evidence to is like pissing into the wind.
>
> A marvelous explain-away that you totally shamelessly use as a
> substitute to forward research findings.
>
Thanks again, "forward research findings" is more Scientology Speak. It is
evident that Hubbard read George Orwell and adapted NewSpeak to his own ends
by morphing it into Scientology-Speak. Orwell knew and Hubbard learned from
him that he who controls language controls thought. You are controlled, RR!
Hubbards little lap dog.
>>
>> When Hubbard decided to morph the English language to suit his
>> indoctrination purposes he did it intentionally with the goal being a
>> confused, brainwashed and compliant following that lacked the necessary
>> language tools to think logically and rationally.
>
> You throw opinion, and nothing but opinion.
Fact, my boy, fact as evidenced by your use above of Scientology-Speak.
>
> TAPE: 6 Aug 64 Gradients and Nomenclature
>
> Can you please explain the readers why there is such a thing as
> nomenclature, and why every single part of science has developed its
> own nomenclature. Is every angle of science out after to indoctrinate?
> My friend, are you actually quite sane in your head? Hmmm?
Nomenclature in the scientific community rests upon a firm foundation of
consensus. Scientists all agree on an accepted definition of a word or
phrase. Much of it has mathematics in the background defining it even more
precisely. This is the opposite of Scientology-Speak where only
Scientologists agree on the definition of their nomenclature which, as it
turns out is mostly at odds with consensus definition. Get a clue. It's not
easy for a brainwashed person to understand his brainwashing. . .
>
>>
>> Until you and other Scientologists stop talking in the carefully
>> constructed
>> 'language of Scientology' you will continue to be willing dupes spouting
>> the
>> party line propaganda. After all it is 'your truth.'
>
> Now when have I used this "carefully constructed 'language of
> Scientology' ", hmmm.... care to clarify this to the readers?
Ha ha, when have you used it? You used it several times above as I have
happily pointed out probably to your chagrin.
>
>>
>> But, the big problem with "your truth" is that is is laughably false in
>> many
>> if not most cases.
>
> Which is YOUR truth... .+)
FAIL! I have proved my truth with the facts. Have you?
--
Gregory Hall
Barbara loves Marty
He has no truth. He says he is a Christian and violates the
Commandment that he shall not lie constantly. He is a bad joke and
anything but an example to anybody.
He looks like an idiot in a debate with a Scientologist.
Barbara Schwarz
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Gregory Hall- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barbara loves Marty
> "Barbara loves Marty" <barbaralovesma...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fcb2b90d-db06-4475...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > L. Ron Hubbard (the real one not his impostor) indeed researched that
> > production is the basis of moral and that law violators must be
> > corrected. But according to Ron, these people should be corrected and
> > rehabiliated in correctional booth camps run by the authorities using
> > Scientology rehab tech AND NOT ON CHURCH GROUNDS.
>
> > That means that L. Ron Hubbard researched provided the technology to
> > correct bad apples and Ken Urquhart didn't make the authorities to
> > apply it but introduced the correctional camps to orgs, which resulted
> > in bad PR for the orgs being "places of slavery".
>
> <snip>
>
> Technology my hairy, pimply and wrinkled ass! L. Ron Hubbard made up a
> bunch of crap and tried to make it sound legitimate by attaching the word
> "tech" to it.
>
> Tech
You post like a drunk, and whenever you post in future lies about my
dad, I will post the truth about yours: he was a loser as otherwise
his son would have a bit a class and manners and would not try to
defame the religions of so many people.
I pity you and your father, Neal.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara loves Marty
That is correct, RR. Neal thinks he knows it all without having to
study a thing. His education is arrogance.
>
>
>
> > As for research, there is no need to show you anything along those lines.
> > You would not believe it anyway because it would not be 'your truth.'
> > Arguing with folks who feel comfortable defining their own 'truth' when it
> > is nothing of the sort because they aren't rational enough to accept any
> > absolute truthful and logical evidence to is like pissing into the wind.
>
> A marvelous explain-away that you totally shamelessly use as a
> substitute to forward research findings.
He is jealous of L. Ron Hubbard's success. He accomplished nothing. He
lives alone on a little boat in Florida and despite all the
controversy,
hundreds of thousand people still consider him their hero and best
friend, which he truly was.
There are so many people who have problems with the current
Scientology management but they agree that Scientology is a study that
goes very deep and very far and there is nothing like it.
L. Ron Hubbard was a genius and Neal is anything but.
Neal wants to be compared to L. Ron Hubbard or even wants to be
smarter and better but if Scientologists read what he writes, they
crack up and laugh real hard as they know how ridiculous he is.
>
>
>
> > When Hubbard decided to morph the English language to suit his
> > indoctrination purposes he did it intentionally with the goal being a
> > confused, brainwashed and compliant following that lacked the necessary
> > language tools to think logically and rationally.
>
> You throw opinion, and nothing but opinion.
>
> TAPE: 6 Aug 64 Gradients and Nomenclature
>
> Can you please explain the readers why there is such a thing as
> nomenclature, and why every single part of science has developed its
> own nomenclature. Is every angle of science out after to indoctrinate?
> My friend, are you actually quite sane in your head? Hmmm?
He is not sane in his head, RR. Either he drinks salt water or he
takes psych drugs but he makes no sense at all.
>
>
>
> > Until you and other Scientologists stop talking in the carefully constructed
> > 'language of Scientology' you will continue to be willing dupes spouting the
> > party line propaganda. After all it is 'your truth.'
>
> Now when have I used this "carefully constructed 'language of
> Scientology' ", hmmm.... care to clarify this to the readers?
>
>
>
> > But, the big problem with "your truth" is that is is laughably false in many
> > if not most cases.
>
> Which is YOUR truth... .+)
>
> RR
The interesting thing is that Neal says he believes in the bible and
that God has written it. He doesn't live by it. He says basically, do
as I say but not as I do. He violates the commandment constantly.
He believes that God himself wrote the bible and after allegedly 2000
years, nobody would have altered the bible.
He likes the bible because he read somewhere in there that women
should serve a man. That might be the only reason why he is
"religious".
Can you imagine, trusting a book word by word (or just the words from
it that he prefers) despite it is known that people constantly re-
wrote the bible?
He says that the bible is scientific proven.
What a joke. He is a true believer not like Scientologists who really
want proof.
I assume he soon will run from the debate, RR.
He is like many people who posted here. Once defeated, he runs to
another thread.
Nothing about Neal is original. Nothing.
Barbara loves Marty
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
Neal, do not change my subject line. You sink deeper in my opinion
each day.
Barbara Schwarz
Roadrunner
? Nutty...
>The "workability of processing" to you is truth because
> Scientology has brainwashed you with it.
Opinion...
>But, to English speaking folks it
> is an example of twisted Scientology language.
Generalization...
...and failing to address my forwardings.
> >>What is true to them might well be a pack of lies
> >> so it is NOT truth but lies some ignorant person has been duped into
> >> thinking is the truth.
>
> > Irrelevant, again you have not understood why a technology would work.
>
> And, you have utterly failed to realize, like I stated, that Scientology
> Technology is not technology at all. Scientology has twisted the real
> meaning of the word to suit its own purposes.
Opinion, with no support nor explanation proving your claim.
> >> As for research, there is no need to show you anything along those lines.
> >> You would not believe it anyway because it would not be 'your truth.'
> >> Arguing with folks who feel comfortable defining their own 'truth' when
> >> it
> >> is nothing of the sort because they aren't rational enough to accept any
> >> absolute truthful and logical evidence to is like pissing into the wind.
>
> > A marvelous explain-away that you totally shamelessly use as a
> > substitute to forward research findings.
>
> Thanks again, "forward research findings" is more Scientology Speak.
Nutty, that is no Scientology terminology at all... that's science
speak.
>It is
> evident that Hubbard read George Orwell and adapted NewSpeak to his own ends
> by morphing it into Scientology-Speak. Orwell knew and Hubbard learned from
> him that he who controls language controls thought.
Opinion, no explanation.
>You are controlled, RR!
> Hubbards little lap dog.
Person attack, invalidation.
> >> When Hubbard decided to morph the English language to suit his
> >> indoctrination purposes he did it intentionally with the goal being a
> >> confused, brainwashed and compliant following that lacked the necessary
> >> language tools to think logically and rationally.
>
> > You throw opinion, and nothing but opinion.
>
> Fact, my boy, fact as evidenced by your use above of Scientology-Speak.
Nutty, I did no such thing, no explanation.
> > TAPE: 6 Aug 64 Gradients and Nomenclature
>
> > Can you please explain the readers why there is such a thing as
> > nomenclature, and why every single part of science has developed its
> > own nomenclature. Is every angle of science out after to indoctrinate?
> > My friend, are you actually quite sane in your head? Hmmm?
>
> Nomenclature in the scientific community rests upon a firm foundation of
> consensus.
Nonono, that is not actually true as usually the consensus is
established only till later. Hihihi, you really have not a clue, you
just assume.
>Scientists all agree on an accepted definition of a word or
> phrase. Much of it has mathematics in the background defining it even more
> precisely. This is the opposite of Scientology-Speak where only
> Scientologists agree on the definition of their nomenclature which, as it
> turns out is mostly at odds with consensus definition. Get a clue. It's not
> easy for a brainwashed person to understand his brainwashing. . .
What you tell here is not true at all. The nomenclature as found in
the subject of Dianetics and Scientology developed in the same way as
in any other science.
> >> Until you and other Scientologists stop talking in the carefully
> >> constructed
> >> 'language of Scientology' you will continue to be willing dupes spouting
> >> the
> >> party line propaganda. After all it is 'your truth.'
>
> > Now when have I used this "carefully constructed 'language of
> > Scientology' ", hmmm.... care to clarify this to the readers?
>
> Ha ha, when have you used it? You used it several times above as I have
> happily pointed out probably to your chagrin.
Yeah, like "forward research findings", you are nutty...
> >> But, the big problem with "your truth" is that is is laughably false in
> >> many
> >> if not most cases.
>
> > Which is YOUR truth... .+)
>
> FAIL! I have proved my truth with the facts. Have you?
You are not very intelligent, now are you... no one listens to you,
and likely no one wants to talk with you either, at least not about
these matters... over and out...
RR
>
> --
> Gregory Hall
Roadrunner
wrote:
Yesyesyes, he is quite nutty... you can't reason with this person.
He is worse than Peter the self-acclaimed guru.
RR
Barbara Schwarz
He claims to be a Christian, RR. And since he and his defaming ex
girlfriend posts here (she posts bible citations and is pretty much
the only person supportive of Neal's postings but constantly changes
her posting name to confuse readers)my respect for Christians sunk
even.
Neal does horrible things. What good Christian would spy with
binaculars on another woman (in a relationship) when she takes a bath?
It is the good Christian thing to do in his eyes, despite the Bible
says he should not be after the woman of somebody else.
They have no ethics not moral but defame us, the Scientologists who
take ethics and moral much more seriously.
There are no worse liars than these people. They think saying that
they are Christian is enough and they will be forgiven whatever
horrible things they do to good people.
They have the guts to attack us and our religion as bad, when their
own actions show how little value Christianity has, generating
Christians as they are.
They have small and close minds. They are nothing but evil people,
nobodies who want to be somebody by defaming the somebodies. You are
right, there is no way to discuss anything them.
Barbara Schwarz