Methods To Waking Up
Magoo
years. By the nature of a group who runs with such rules as Scientology,
there are always things that are "odd" and don't feel quite right. However,
Hubbard was clever and early on gets people feeling they Must Keep
Scientology Working, and that in itself is quite a trap.
Here are a few things that helped me, over all.
1. I always kept reading what Scientology calls
"Other Practice" books. Mostly these were books about Self Improvement that
actually went along with Scientology pretty much, but just staying in touch
with others helped.
2. Refusing to totally buy ALL of the BS helped. If someone
said or did something that felt bad, I would either ask them, or if they
were quick to "show me the reference"...I'd note what Hubbard said, "If it
isn't true for you, it isn't true".
That statement actually helped me greatly as I kept true to what I believed,
even if L. Ron Hubbard had said so. (And again, that may seem like no big
deal to outsiders, but it was huge for me).
Scientologists always ~say~ they only do what THEY believe in, however if
that were true, they'd be able to come over and visit with me, wouldn't
they? Sure your "Creed" says "Man has the Inalienable right to free speech"
however IF that were true, you and your "church" wouldn't be trying to
cancel things off the Internet daily, would you all?
3. I've always been a people person so I enjoy talking to all kinds of
different types of people. I think this helped me stay connected. I've
talked with people in the Entertainment Industry to gang members to business
people to bums to housewives to children of all ages. I love hearing their
stories and this alone really helped me, I'm sure.
4. I was a ~very~true believer ....so besides those things, I was almost
100% "on board" ..until I got onto OT 7 and it didn't work. That began my
real waking up process. Here I continued to tell them, "This doesn't work
for me". Over and over and over. I stayed on it for 7 years...because I
honestly believed it ~must~work, and it must just be ME. Finally, I began
realizing I wasn't the only one in this boat. In fact, many people I knew
were not doing well on OT 7.
5. As the C of S got weirder with DM taking over, and the new regime taking
over, I took note. As the "Golden Age of Tech" came in, I really noticed how
robotic people seemed. I remember thinking,"Don't ~ever~ do these courses as
they turn people into robots. Now this was when I was still way in..
6. Having worked at 4 different WISE companies, and each one screwed me, I
had noted THEY were criminals...period.
7. Having worked in OSA>>>>well, you all know ~that~story.
If you're new here, go see http://www.torymagoo.org
and read up. Alot of it's there.
8. About one year before I left, I had really looked at how Scientology
treats their people. Over and over I'd see them spit people out if they were
ill, or ran out of money. I had even told my husband at the time, "We ~have~
to stop worrying about getting back onto OT 7" (as Flag was calling us every
single week). I reminded him that we had N O T H I N G
and when we ran out of money, were they going to be there to help US? Hell
no~! He knew I was right, so we had begun our own program to get financially
viable. DUH!
This of course to the average person seems so obvious. However I know there
will be people reading this who will go
"Honey.....read this!!! This is exactly how ~we~are". It's amazing how when
you're "in the Scio/Truman show"...you are so caught up in the "church"
activities that obvious things people spend their lives doing ---we didn't.
Again, when I was "in" I would read that last line and laugh and say to
myself, "Well sure..who needs to do "normal' stuff. We're saving the
planet."
9. Listening to Talk Radio and hearing other people's views on things helped
me greatly.
10. Listening to music was a huge help for me. Music is amazing as it isn't
threatening at all, yet someone can sing to you things you need to hear but
can't hear any other way. For me, a group called The Counting Crows were
amazingly helpful.
His songs felt like they'd not only been written for me, but they'd been
written that week that I began to wake up!
11. Of course family are great. Mine were quite a bit on hold,
as they'd been 'antagonistic' since the beginning. However, I never forgot
some of the questions they'd asked me. The biggest help for me was my
brother as he never really put down Scientology, he just never supported it.
He'd also always talk to me of cool things he was doing.
The negative of this (and something that totally didn't work for me) was my
mother sending me articles against Scientology.
For me, I couldn't take that at all...so it was totally ineffective. I still
say a much better way is to ask people basic questions:
How ~do~ you feel about Free Speech? Do you believe in it:?:
Here's where the post on Contradictions is great, which is at the Tory/Magoo
web site.
Anyways, hope that helps. Please add any Wake up methods you may have
experienced or heard of that may help others.
The most important thing is don't feel hopeless or alone. There are TONS of
people here on the Internet who will talk with you, help you, and answer
questions. It may feel quite lonely as you wake up, but once you do....it's
like a spring day up in the Fresh Mountain Air :)
My best to all ~~
Tory/Magoo~dancing in the moonlight~
In for 30 years
Out for 2 years and 6 months
SP 6 ^ with Cumulative Cluster
Free at last!!
For more information, please see
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.altreligionscientology.org
:)
Roland
started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DW6%9.17384$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
ExScn
<rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Did you not think something was wrong when you got to the level where you
>started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
Well, since they all fucked off after she spoke sternly to them (after
the due process of running ARC-break assessments and pulling their MWs
and waving thetan hands and stuff like that) she had no reason to
think anything was wrong, did she ?
>> Tory/Magoo~dancing in the moonlight~
>> Free at last!!
You're years away from being free actually.
pts2
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:11:29 -0000, "Roland"
> <rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Did you not think something was wrong when you got to the level where you
> >started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
>
> Well, since they all fucked off after she spoke
Ah, another potty mouth for Claire and Star Shadow to hang out with.
sternly to them (after
> the due process of running ARC-break assessments and pulling their MWs
> and waving thetan hands and stuff like that) she had no reason to
> think anything was wrong, did she ?
>
> >> Tory/Magoo~dancing in the moonlight~
> >> Free at last!!
>
> You're years away from being free actually.
Are you free ExScn? How about your parents?
tp
Anonymous
>>> Tory/Magoo~dancing in the moonlight~
>>> Free at last!!
>
>You're years away from being free actually.
And you aren't? LOL!
The difference between you and Tory is that she knows it. You don't.
LaserClam
>From: "Magoo" mag...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 2/2/03 6:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <DW6%9.17384$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>11. Of course family are great. Mine were quite a bit on hold,
>as they'd been 'antagonistic' since the beginning. However, I never forgot
>some of the questions they'd asked me. The biggest help for me was my
>brother as he never really put down Scientology, he just never supported it.
>He'd also always talk to me of cool things he was doing.
>The negative of this (and something that totally didn't work for me) was my
>mother sending me articles against Scientology.
Trying to be like or admired by your family?
Magoo
"Roland" <rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b1j1rl$25t$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Did you not think something was wrong when you got to the level where you
> started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
Roland,
I've written much about OT 3. Please go to
http://www.torymagoo.org and read it there. It's too long to re-write again.
The short version is, basically ....it's a slow train. By the time you
finally are introduced to BT's and Clusters, you are well conditioned. My
theory is almsot everyone goes "What? Are you kidding me?" to yourself.
However, you cannot talk to anyone about it, so right there half the problem
is handled or more. Probably 80% is fixed with that.
Then Hubbard says, just go in session and do it.
Once in session, I found I was did what it said, and the meter ran like
Hell. What was it reading on? Probably my very own considerations!~ ":Ohhhh
that's what caused my lambosis!
Ok...let me find a BT....(Long Fall on the meter)...that must be it!"
Then it runs from there.....
Best
Tory
Best
Tory/Magoo!
Magoo
Come over and say that to my face....or STFU.
Tory/Magoo~
Free at last :)>
Magoo
"LaserClam" <lase...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030202140458...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Please read what the Office Of Special Affairs dupe (or is it doop?) has
written above.
Do you, LC, honestly think if I was "trying to be liked or admired by my
family" I would stay "In" Scientology for 30 years when they hated it, only
to finally leave for that? Dude....you are as obvious and old as a used
penny. Wake up, man!
And to anyone else reading this, lurkers that is....here's my suggestion: Do
what Ron used for his final PL:
The way out
IS
The NEAREST
Dooooooooooooooooooooor!!!!
Tory/Magoo!
>
>
>
>
Beverly Rice
> > Did you not think something was wrong when you got to the level where you
> > started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
> The short version is, basically ....it's a slow train. By the time you
> finally are introduced to BT's and Clusters, you are well conditioned. My
> theory is almsot everyone goes "What? Are you kidding me?" to yourself.
> However, you cannot talk to anyone about it, so right there half the problem
> is handled or more. Probably 80% is fixed with that.
This is the biggest trick to manking any scam or con "work" . . .
finding ways to cut off communication that would cause questioning,
which would in turn induce the need for critical thought.
It is a standard, shall we say, older than the hills . . .
but in the Co$ it has been quite refined as part of "policy" . . .
or "dogma".
The thing that I always found so "eerie", so to speak, when I
was around "upper level" Co$'ers, was that you could literally
~SEE~ that they had gotten to the point where they were conditioned
to "police" their own spontaneity in conversation . . .
like a little "buzzer" went off in their head when they knew
they were crossing the borders laid out by Co$ when discussions
about anything scientological were going on.
And their actions and/or facial expressions that accompanied that
"buzzer" when it went off were always rather peculiar, giving
even more of a sense of oddity to the entire situation.
But you make a point that I know many others have made, and
can't be made enough . . .
finding any way to cut a communication regarding any subject
that would require ultimatley a questioning of authority or
critical thought to suspend the datum being held forth to the
person is ~mandatory~ in control and/or continuing the con.
Thanks for sharing, and keep it up. :-)
ARC = As-Ising the Real CST,
Beverly
Phil Scott
My picket sign reads
"Scientology is TRUTH.... mixed with lies and
halucinations, thats fatal"
It takes a certain degree of intelligence to see past the bait, truths of the
ages Hubbard mostly plagarized, and to his credit some he elaborated on, to the
outright lies.....such as babies should not drink mothers milk, but barley water
instead.
did you swallow that one son?
Here is a clue...look deeper. You will find that Hubbard was presenting the age
old egocentric agenda...thats fatal. His mentors Crowley, Parsons and Col Snake
Thompson were left hand path satanists.
If I were you, Id take Torys advice... look around a little
Phil Scott
>
Warrior
<lase...@aol.com> asked:
>
>Trying to be like [sic] or admired by your family?
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
LaserWOG
You do not like family connections?
LaserWOG
roger gonnet
"LaserClam" <lase...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
20030202140458...@mb-ma.aol.com...
are you trying to establish that family is indeed nothing for a
scientologist, and that one of the worse fathers (apart those abusing
their children) was L. Ron Hubbard, who estranged two of his son, has a
third suicided, and was said sadistic and crazy by his two first wives??
r
roger
ExScn
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:24:13 GMT, ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:11:29 -0000, "Roland"
>><rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Did you not think something was wrong when you got to the level where you
>>>started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
>>
>>Well, since they all fucked off after she spoke sternly to them (after
>>the due process of running ARC-break assessments and pulling their MWs
>>and waving thetan hands and stuff like that) she had no reason to
>>think anything was wrong, did she ?
>>
>>>> Tory/Magoo~dancing in the moonlight~
>>>> Free at last!!
>>
>>You're years away from being free actually.
>
>
> My picket sign reads
>
>"Scientology is TRUTH.... mixed with lies and
> halucinations, thats fatal"
>
>It takes a certain degree of intelligence to see past the bait, truths of the
>ages Hubbard mostly plagarized, and to his credit some he elaborated on, to the
>outright lies.....such as babies should not drink mothers milk, but barley water
>instead.
>
>did you swallow that one son?
Man, can you gibber on or what ?
>If I were you, Id take Torys advice... look around a little
I'd rather take advice from neither of you, thanks all the same.
You're a total screw-ball whose posts have to be constantly monitored
and refuted by those doing *actual* research so that your ramblings
don't confuse those seeking real information.
And Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
on. Maybe there are a few Scns in doubt who might find the stories of
her experiences useful (if they were to read them) but there is little
in those that hasn't already been documented and webbed in detail long
since.
ExScn
>ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message news:<d8aq3vgqkj1vql39d...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:11:29 -0000, "Roland"
>> <rol...@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Did you not think something was wrong when you got to the level where you
>> >started speaking to your dead space-alien "body thetans"?
>>
>> Well, since they all fucked off after she spoke
>
>Ah, another potty mouth for Claire and Star Shadow to hang out with.
and Tory too :)
---------------------------------------------------------
Come over and say that to my face....or STFU.
Tory/Magoo~
---------------------------------------------------------
>Are you free ExScn?
Very much so, thanks for asking.
>How about your parents?
They believe they are, and since they aren't prevented from thinking
or doing anything they actually *want* to, I guess they're as 'free'
as they want to be.
Warrior
>
>And Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
>on. Maybe there are a few Scns in doubt who might find the stories of
>her experiences useful (if they were to read them) but there is little
>in those that hasn't already been documented and webbed in detail long
>since.
And what do you contribute in the form of web pages or discussion on ars?
Magoo
Well how interesting you say that "exscn". How many e-mails do YOU have from
people? Here is just a few from kind people
who have taken the time to share their feelings with me this month:
it is nice to see you again (on ARS). you are one of my favorite persons in
all of
the world.
Thank YOU, Tory. I love it when you describe your
experience(s) while you were in. All the details, your
analysis of that whole scene, and your dedication to
continue to work for the prevention of any more souls being
sucked into or stuck in the Church of Scientology.
Tory, when I watched you on XenuTV I was touched by your
bravery and sensitivity of spirit. You had lost all your
long-time friends, your husband and 30 years of your life
but you were and remain completely unembittered by it all. I
admit you move me to tears and inspire me to become a better
human being.
There are many more, but I'm sure you'll find a way to just make fun of
these. It takes a bit of grace to be able to be willing to have someone
unfold. Perhaps that isn't one of your qualities.
I thank those who have it, and especially those who have helped me by
communciating messagess such as the above.
You're quite correct in thinking *I* figured probably since the day I left,
"what do **I** have to say on ARS?"
However, many people daily let me know somehow it has helped them, and for
them I continue to post. It has also greatly helped me to heal, in that I
can look at things differently.
If you don't like what I write, why do you read it? I suggest you move onto
bigger things and please, share your great in sights with us.
My best :)
Tory/Magoo!
http://www.xenu.net (Great information)
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.xenutv.com (videos of X's)
>
Dave Bird
writes:
>In article <f67s3vg1rp90e1j5f...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>>
>>And Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
>>on. Maybe there are a few Scns in doubt who might find the stories of
>>her experiences useful (if they were to read them) but there is little
>>in those that hasn't already been documented and webbed in detail long
>>since.
>
>And what do you contribute in the form of web pages or discussion on ars?
Good question. Or lobbying, or picketing, or anything else useful...?
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
ExScn
>"ExScn" wrote
>>Phil Scott wrote:
>> >If I were you, Id take Torys advice
>>And Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
>> on.
Maybe I should have said, with reference to PS's original suggestion:
Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
*me* on.
>>Maybe there are a few Scns in doubt who might find the stories of
>> her experiences useful (if they were to read them) but there is little
>> in those that hasn't already been documented and webbed in detail long
>> since.
-- snipt some nice emails to Tory --
> However, many people daily let me know somehow it has helped them, and for
>them I continue to post. It has also greatly helped me to heal, in that I
>can look at things differently.
Well then, good for you and good for them. Carry on by all means.
>If you don't like what I write, why do you read it?
My original post was nothing more than a light-hearted response to
Roland's question, and had to do with the utter absurdity of the whole
BT exorcism nonsense rather than your post as such.
ExScn
>In article <f67s3vg1rp90e1j5f...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>>
>>And Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
>>on. Maybe there are a few Scns in doubt who might find the stories of
>>her experiences useful (if they were to read them) but there is little
>>in those that hasn't already been documented and webbed in detail long
>>since.
>
>And what do you contribute in the form of web pages or discussion on ars?
Quite frankly I don't feel strongly enough about the supposed dangers
of the CoS to create critical web pages when I know the only sure
thing to come out of them would be further alienation from members of
my family.
As an issue of public concern, Scientology simply doesn't rate in my
area of the world. People are just not interested, there is only a
trickle of new recruits and I think there will always be that trickle
no matter how much web or media exposure there was.
My interest is finding resources that will assist me in persuading
younger members of my extended family that Scientology is not a very
healthy organisation to be a part of.
A great deal of the overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
former members that appear on ars are counter productive in my
opinion, and I express that opinion from time to time.
Zinj
says...
Let's see. You are declaring that you *would* be publicly opposed to
Scientology, if you could have a guarantee that you would not suffer
because of it, and you are unwilling to publicly excoriate the 'Church of
Scientology' because it might harm you or yours....
Yet, you feel it incumbent upon you to publicly criticize anyone who
*does* criticize the 'Church', because they are very likely not following
your oh so cogent lead....
Did I get that right *so* far?
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
ExScn
>> Quite frankly I don't feel strongly enough about the supposed dangers
>> of the CoS to create critical web pages when I know the only sure
>> thing to come out of them would be further alienation from members of
>> my family.
>>
>> As an issue of public concern, Scientology simply doesn't rate in my
>> area of the world. People are just not interested, there is only a
>> trickle of new recruits and I think there will always be that trickle
>> no matter how much web or media exposure there was.
>>
>> My interest is finding resources that will assist me in persuading
>> younger members of my extended family that Scientology is not a very
>> healthy organisation to be a part of.
>>
>> A great deal of the overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
>> former members that appear on ars are counter productive in my
>> opinion, and I express that opinion from time to time.
As usual you twist and distort others' words to fit your own warped
view point :
>Let's see. You are declaring that you *would* be publicly opposed to
>Scientology, if you could have a guarantee that you would not suffer
>because of it,
My 'suffering' doesn't enter into it, and nor does this hypothetical
'guarantee' you have conjured up out of thin air.
>and you are unwilling to publicly excoriate the 'Church of
>Scientology' because it might harm you or yours....
It has previously harmed not me, but yes 'mine'
>Yet, you feel it incumbent upon you to publicly criticize anyone who
>*does* criticize the 'Church'
>Did I get that right *so* far?
You very rarely get anything right, and this isn't one of those rare
times.
I doubt that you ever even try to 'get anything right' when it's far
easier for you to do your standard slimy interpretation.
Zinj
says...
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:10:24 -0800, Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Quite frankly I don't feel strongly enough about the supposed dangers
> >> of the CoS to create critical web pages when I know the only sure
> >> thing to come out of them would be further alienation from members of
> >> my family.
> >>
> >> As an issue of public concern, Scientology simply doesn't rate in my
> >> area of the world. People are just not interested, there is only a
> >> trickle of new recruits and I think there will always be that trickle
> >> no matter how much web or media exposure there was.
> >>
> >> My interest is finding resources that will assist me in persuading
> >> younger members of my extended family that Scientology is not a very
> >> healthy organisation to be a part of.
> >>
> >> A great deal of the overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
> >> former members that appear on ars are counter productive in my
> >> opinion, and I express that opinion from time to time.
>
> As usual you twist and distort others' words to fit your own warped
> view point :
What the *fuck* are you talking about? These are *your* words!
>
> >Let's see. You are declaring that you *would* be publicly opposed to
> >Scientology, if you could have a guarantee that you would not suffer
> >because of it,
>
> My 'suffering' doesn't enter into it, and nor does this hypothetical
> 'guarantee' you have conjured up out of thin air.
>
> >and you are unwilling to publicly excoriate the 'Church of
> >Scientology' because it might harm you or yours....
>
> It has previously harmed not me, but yes 'mine'
>
> >Yet, you feel it incumbent upon you to publicly criticize anyone who
> >*does* criticize the 'Church'
>
> >Did I get that right *so* far?
>
> You very rarely get anything right, and this isn't one of those rare
> times.
>
> I doubt that you ever even try to 'get anything right' when it's far
> easier for you to do your standard slimy interpretation.
So far, the only cogent objection I've seen from you was to your *own*
words.
Now *that's* weird
Warrior
>
>So far, the only cogent objection I've seen from you was to your *own*
>words.
>
>Now *that's* weird
>
>Zinj
That's for sure! He ("ExScn") has struck me as weird ever since he began
using his new nick.
Magoo
> On 3 Feb 2003 00:08:51 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote
<snip the endless criticisms, get down to your interests, or so you say>>>>
>
> My interest is finding resources that will assist me in persuading
> younger members of my extended family that Scientology is not a very
> healthy organisation to be a part of.
T)
Ok...let's leave out any and all criticisms of others, and just take up
*this* issue. What exactly are you planning on using
(Not what you aren't going to use...as we've all heard that)....but what 10
things would you say to these younger members of your extended family to
expose :
"that Scientology is not a very
> healthy organisation to be a part of"
Specifics, please, and URL's ....if you have any you would use.
Tory/Magoo!.
pts2
>
> >In article <f67s3vg1rp90e1j5f...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
> >>
> >>And Tory just doesn't seem to know anything much which she can advise
> >>on. Maybe there are a few Scns in doubt who might find the stories of
> >>her experiences useful (if they were to read them) but there is little
> >>in those that hasn't already been documented and webbed in detail long
> >>since.
> >
> >And what do you contribute in the form of web pages or discussion on ars?
>
> Quite frankly I don't feel strongly enough about the supposed dangers
> of the CoS to create critical web pages when I know the only sure
> thing to come out of them would be further alienation from members of
> my family.
>
> As an issue of public concern, Scientology simply doesn't rate in my
> area of the world. People are just not interested, there is only a
> trickle of new recruits and I think there will always be that trickle
> no matter how much web or media exposure there was.
>
> My interest is finding resources that will assist me in persuading
> younger members of my extended family that Scientology is not a very
> healthy organisation to be a part of.
That's good to know that you know that $cn is unhealthy ExScn. Let's
say for a momment you had children. What lengths would you go to make
sure they were not exposed to this unhealthiness?
>
> A great deal of the overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
> former members that appear on ars are counter productive in my
> opinion, and I express that opinion from time to time.
tp
ExScn
wrote:
>
>"ExScn" <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message
>news:g9ru3voqgud41jei3...@4ax.com...
>> On 3 Feb 2003 00:08:51 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote
>
><snip the endless criticisms, get down to your interests, or so you say>>>>
>>
>> My interest is finding resources that will assist me in persuading
>> younger members of my extended family that Scientology is not a very
>> healthy organisation to be a part of.
>
>T)
>Ok...let's leave out any and all criticisms of others, and just take up
>*this* issue. What exactly are you planning on using
>(Not what you aren't going to use...as we've all heard that)....but what 10
>things would you say to these younger members of your extended family to
>expose :
>"that Scientology is not a very
>> healthy organisation to be a part of"
>
>Specifics, please, and URL's ....if you have any you would use.
Well, since you ask so nicely :)
I don't use a specific set-piece battle plan, armed with documents or
URLs, rather it is more a matter of looking for an opening when we get
to talking about things Scientological.
Generally the younger ones are quite awestruck when it comes to LRon -
how he discovered 'everything', knows 'everything' and selflessly
sacrificed so much so that others can be free - you know the spiel I'm
sure.
So I point out things such as LRon's theft of dianetics from (the
abandoned) abreactive therapy, that any demonstration of the existence
of engrams has failed, the multitude of lies that LRon told about his
background etc etc etc - generally I guess it's sowing seeds of doubt.
As far as URLs go - Chris Owen's, Andreas's, Jeff Jacobsen, indeed I
use many of the critics' websites for material, as well as some posts
from ars I have kept over the years.
This is an ongoing, fairly low-key, non-confrontational 'battle' which
actually is mostly good fun and done in good spirit. I'd like to
point out that these kids (and *all* of my Scn family members) are
quite happy, quite normally functioning decent members of society,
none are drunks, none have drug problems, all are gainfully employed
or doing well at school.
In fact, in terms of having healthy lifestyles and fulfilling lives
they are way out in front of so many of the sad cases among the critic
group who are so quick to ridicule and pour scorn on the silly
'clams'.
This of course doesn't make Scientology 'right' or 'good' but if the
critic group wasn't so inbred it might be able to appreciate these
points of view and maybe rethink some of its tactics.
>> A great deal of the overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
>> former members that appear on ars are counter productive in my
>> opinion, and I express that opinion from time to time.
I'm glad you left that bit in :)
Magoo
Well, it's not 10...but definitely a good start. Thanks.
And who do you tell this to? Schools or individuals?
I cannot say enough about how important I think it is for kids to get
educated on both the good and the bad, and that the key thing is to learn
BOTH sides for themselves, and then they ~can~make up their own minds. It's
also important to give them different URL's to read, and why.
I understand what you're saying about the critics, and since I've left I
have told anyone I could that what helped me was Andreas' honest and caring
HELP. It wasn't anyone puting down what I thought was MY religion or me, and
had he not helped me, I very well may never have had the chance to fully
wake up.
However, I think you are over critical of the critics, too. Have you met
any of them? Many of the ones I've met have very good lives also.
You say people have posted "overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
former members".
Can you give some specifics? The ones I've read are very real, true they are
horror stories, but the ones I've read are not "overblown rhetoric". The
facts are amazing in themselves, and often horrific.
Best ...
Tory/Magoo!
Warrior
of "ExScn":
>
>Yet, you feel it incumbent upon you to publicly criticize anyone who
>your oh so cogent lead....
>
>
Did you catch his post where he said, "I must admit however that while
at the time of Bernie's postings to ars I didn't fully understand what
he was on about, I have recently found a new respect for his point of
view."
While in another post he said to Ed, "...your opinion doesn't mean much."
He also wrote, "Unsurprisingly, all the resident career hard-done-by
loonies immediately identify with him [Gerry] and sign up to further
their shared lunatic cause. The usual ones are there - the still-in-denial
Minton crew - tragic Tilman (the first to support anything anti-Scarff),
sad little Arnie, crazy Joe, barely intelligible Roger, totally unintelligible
Zorro, meandering Magoo and quite surprisingly the previously respected
Warrior."
ExScn
>"ExScn" wrote
>> >"ExScn" wrote
>And who do you tell this to? Schools or individuals?
Just my relatives, they are the only Scientologists I am in contact
with on any sort of regular basis.
>I understand what you're saying about the critics, and since I've left I
>have told anyone I could that what helped me was Andreas' honest and caring
>HELP. It wasn't anyone puting down what I thought was MY religion or me, and
>had he not helped me, I very well may never have had the chance to fully
>wake up.
I have pointed this out previously to those critics crowing over this
claimed 'ars success'. Patient one-on-one is the key and I applaud
Andreas for *all* of his efforts not just those with respect to you.
>However, I think you are over critical of the critics, too. Have you met
>any of them? Many of the ones I've met have very good lives also.
I am critical of *some* critics, in particular the obsessive, the
kooks, the conspiracy theorists, those who continuously cry 'OSA !!'
as a means of stifling discussion, the 'professional victims' and
probably most particularly those whose lives appear to be either a
total mess or at least devoid of any meaning outside of this
newsgroup, somehow seeing themselves as superior.
>You say people have posted "overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
>former members".
>
>Can you give some specifics? The ones I've read are very real, true they are
>horror stories, but the ones I've read are not "overblown rhetoric". The
>facts are amazing in themselves, and often horrific.
Examples of overblown rhetoric are commonplace on this ng, but since
it's you I'm responding to, how about 'Tory/Magoo - Nailed to the
Cross - Spiritual Rape !' :) ?
As to recent beat-up horror stories, how about Tom Padgett's totally
unsubstantiated story of being 'fair gamed', and being personally
targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew ?
pts2
I would echo Tory's suggestion for you ExScn here. Meeting people in
person has enormous value.... it quickly dispells the myth that one
can actually know a person from cyberspace. They also add the "wake
up" process.
>
> I am critical of *some* critics, in particular the obsessive, the
> kooks, the conspiracy theorists, those who continuously cry 'OSA !!'
> as a means of stifling discussion, the 'professional victims' and
> probably most particularly those whose lives appear to be either a
> total mess or at least devoid of any meaning outside of this
> newsgroup, somehow seeing themselves as superior.
>
> >You say people have posted "overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
> >former members".
> >
> >Can you give some specifics? The ones I've read are very real, true they are
> >horror stories, but the ones I've read are not "overblown rhetoric". The
> >facts are amazing in themselves, and often horrific.
>
> Examples of overblown rhetoric are commonplace on this ng, but since
> it's you I'm responding to, how about 'Tory/Magoo - Nailed to the
> Cross - Spiritual Rape !' :) ?
>
> As to recent beat-up horror stories, how about Tom Padgett's totally
> unsubstantiated story of being 'fair gamed', and being personally
> targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew ?
ExScn:
I think you have some HUGE M/Us on the concept of "substantiation."
First let's focus on your own issues to help clarify. OK?
1) Can you substantiate your claim right here that "I" have ever
uttered that Adm. Davie M. is personally involved with my cult
ordeals? Use Google if you have to.
2) Also, Diane Richardson claims that YOU are not Keith Spurgon. Can
you substantiate her claim swearing under oath on this NG "I AM NOT
KEITH S.?" Can you scan and post evidence to support Diane's
assertions?
3) You imply you are a "former $cn cult member." Is that correct? Can
you post any evidence to substantiate this? Or do you want people
here to just believe what you say from your keyboard as the gospel
truth?
When we get passed those, which Btw would be more germain to this
thread topic of "Methods of waking up," then we can move on to your
considerations of (un)substatiation of who, what, where, and how Fair
Game works..... in the real world. That would of course include
"straw men" citings and sightings.
Thanks,
Tom
----------------
www.FairGamed.org
ExScn
>ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message news:<4c644vgdmdplsj7hb...@4ax.com>...
>> "Magoo" wrote:
>> >"ExScn" wrote
>> >> >"ExScn" wrote
>> As to recent beat-up horror stories, how about Tom Padgett's totally
>> unsubstantiated story of being 'fair gamed', and being personally
>> targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew ?
>
>ExScn:
>I think you have some HUGE M/Us
LOL ! And I'm supposed to be the 'Scio cultie'.
>1) Can you substantiate your claim right here that "I" have ever
>uttered that Adm. Davie M. is personally involved with my cult
>ordeals? Use Google if you have to.
Well, not being patient enough to search through all of your crap, try
this as a start from your own web page propaganda:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/padgett/update44.html
Padgett's only comment to these new charges was;
"It's very scary to be the target of the cult's hit list. The higher
ups in the Church of the Holy Law Suit otherwise known as Dianetics /
Scientology, must really hate me to continue such harsh efforts to
silence and punish me the way they have done.
------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe my comments -
>and being personally targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew
refer to a different group of higher-ups than you had in mind when
gibbering the above ?
>2) Also, Diane Richardson claims that YOU are not Keith Spurgon. Can
>you substantiate her claim swearing under oath on this NG "I AM NOT
>KEITH S.?" Can you scan and post evidence to support Diane's
>assertions?
You really are quite mad ! I'm simply stunned by this (repeated)
absurd claim and demand. It sure gives more insight into the nature
of your court appearances and tactics that have earned you so many
charges of contempt and eventual 'Let's just chuck the idiot in the
slammer and have done with him' sentencing and 'Drop him off in the
bush somewhere' releasing.
Your last cretinous foray into this Keith Spurgeon red-herring was
answered by several long term posters. Do you persist with pointless
and failed endeavours because that's all you know how to do ?
>3) You imply you are a "former $cn cult member." Is that correct? Can
>you post any evidence to substantiate this? Or do you want people
>here to just believe what you say from your keyboard as the gospel
>truth?
It's irrelevant to me. I sure as hell am not the least bit interested
in searching for any silly Scio certs I may have in the attic or
garage, scanning them and creating a web page of them a la Warrior.
>When we get passed those
God, but you're a funny little thing :) Setting up a check-list of
tasks for me to do before you move onto whatever bit of irrelevancy
you next decide to expound on. You're a joke, Tommy. Do try to get a
grasp on that, it'll help you no end.
>which Btw would be more germain to this
>thread topic of "Methods of waking up," then we can move on to your
>considerations of (un)substatiation of who, what, where, and how Fair
>Game works..... in the real world. That would of course include
>"straw men" citings and sightings.
Yep, just more nonsense. Thought it might be.
Warrior
>>you post any evidence to substantiate this? Or do you want people
>>here to just believe what you say from your keyboard as the gospel
>>truth?
In article <de754vcu2jvv0ccan...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>
>It's irrelevant to me.
Yes, but it's a fair question. Are you an ex-Scientologist, as your
nickname implies?
>I sure as hell am not the least bit interested in searching for any
>silly Scio certs I may have in the attic or garage, scanning them and
>creating a web page of them a la Warrior.
Okay, so you're not interested in searching for any "silly Scio certs"
you "may have", scanning said certs you "may have" and creating a web
page of certs you "may have".
Do you actually *have* any certs?
ExScn
>Yes, but it's a fair question. Are you an ex-Scientologist, as your
>nickname implies?
Yes,yes,yes. Grrr ! I have answered this several times Warrior.
In summary, I was recruited young (by my parents), did some stuff,
left while still young and so then became the 'black sheep' of the
family.
>Okay, so you're not interested in searching for any "silly Scio certs"
>you "may have", scanning said certs you "may have" and creating a web
>page of certs you "may have".
>
>Do you actually *have* any certs?
I've done ship-loads of training - lots of courses with all those
terrific check-sheets, TRs, E-Meter drills, clay-demos,
tape-listenings, red-on-white M4s & star-ratings, etc, etc ad nauseum
but because of the chronic staff (and official certificate) shortage I
actually received very little in the way of fancy bits of paper.
In terms of 'technical' training, as dated as it is, I guess I'd be in
the top few percent on this ng. But exactly what relevance does this
have ? It means nothing to me any more, what's it to you ?
pts2
> On 6 Feb 2003 08:27:50 -0800, pt...@webtv.net (pts2) wrote:
>
> >ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message news:<4c644vgdmdplsj7hb...@4ax.com>...
> >> "Magoo" wrote:
> >> >"ExScn" wrote
> >> >> >"ExScn" wrote
>
> >> As to recent beat-up horror stories, how about Tom Padgett's totally
> >> unsubstantiated story of being 'fair gamed', and being personally
> >> targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew ?
> >
> >ExScn:
> >I think you have some HUGE M/Us
>
> LOL ! And I'm supposed to be the 'Scio cultie'.
>
> >1) Can you substantiate your claim right here that "I" have ever
> >uttered that Adm. Davie M. is personally involved with my cult
> >ordeals? Use Google if you have to.
>
> Well, not being patient enough to search through all of your crap, try
> this as a start from your own web page propaganda:
>
> http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/padgett/update44.html
>
> Padgett's only comment to these new charges was;
> "It's very scary to be the target of the cult's hit list. The higher
> ups in the Church of the Holy Law Suit otherwise known as Dianetics /
> Scientology, must really hate me to continue such harsh efforts to
> silence and punish me the way they have done.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >and being personally targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew
>
> refer to a different group of higher-ups than you had in mind when
> gibbering the above ?
No Substantiation of mention of Davie M.
>
> >2) Also, Diane Richardson claims that YOU are not Keith Spurgon. Can
> >you substantiate her claim swearing under oath on this NG "I AM NOT
> >KEITH S.?" Can you scan and post evidence to support Diane's
> >assertions?
>
> You really are quite mad ! I'm simply stunned by this (repeated)
> absurd claim and demand. It sure gives more insight into the nature
> of your court appearances and tactics that have earned you so many
> charges of contempt and eventual 'Let's just chuck the idiot in the
> slammer and have done with him' sentencing and 'Drop him off in the
> bush somewhere' releasing.
>
> Your last cretinous foray into this Keith Spurgeon red-herring was
> answered by several long term posters. Do you persist with pointless
> and failed endeavours because that's all you know how to do ?
No substantiation of whether or not you are Keith S or not. Hearsay
from other so-called "long term posters"
is a typical Ultra-Mike strawman argument.
>
> >3) You imply you are a "former $cn cult member." Is that correct? Can
> >you post any evidence to substantiate this? Or do you want people
> >here to just believe what you say from your keyboard as the gospel
> >truth?
>
> It's irrelevant to me. I sure as hell am not the least bit interested
> in searching for any silly Scio certs I may have in the attic or
> garage, scanning them and creating a web page of them a la Warrior.
No substantiation of you actually being an ex-scieno.
>
> >When we get passed those
>
> God, but you're a funny little thing :) Setting up a check-list of
> tasks for me to do before you move onto whatever bit of irrelevancy
> you next decide to expound on. You're a joke, Tommy. Do try to get a
> grasp on that, it'll help you no end.
>
> >which Btw would be more germain to this
> >thread topic of "Methods of waking up," then we can move on to your
> >considerations of (un)substatiation of who, what, where, and how Fair
> >Game works..... in the real world. That would of course include
> >"straw men" citings and sightings.
>
> Yep, just more nonsense. Thought it might be.
Like I said, you have HUGE M/Us on the concept of substantiation. You
still do.
Now back to the thread topic of "waking up." Are you interested in
that ExScn?
tp
ExScn
like a totally failed lawyer playing at being court savvy:
>> >1) Can you substantiate your claim right here that "I" have ever
>> >uttered that Adm. Davie M. is personally involved with my cult
>> >ordeals? Use Google if you have to.
>>
>> Well, not being patient enough to search through all of your crap, try
>> this as a start from your own web page propaganda:
>>
>> http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/padgett/update44.html
>>
>> Padgett's only comment to these new charges was;
>> "It's very scary to be the target of the cult's hit list. The higher
>> ups in the Church of the Holy Law Suit otherwise known as Dianetics /
>> Scientology, must really hate me to continue such harsh efforts to
>> silence and punish me the way they have done.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> >and being personally targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew
>>
>> refer to a different group of higher-ups than you had in mind when
>> gibbering the above ?
>
>No Substantiation of mention of Davie M.
Duhhh
>> >2) Also, Diane Richardson claims that YOU are not Keith Spurgon. Can
>> >you substantiate her claim swearing under oath on this NG "I AM NOT
>> >KEITH S.?" Can you scan and post evidence to support Diane's
>> >assertions?
>>
>> You really are quite mad ! I'm simply stunned by this (repeated)
>> absurd claim and demand. It sure gives more insight into the nature
>> of your court appearances and tactics that have earned you so many
>> charges of contempt and eventual 'Let's just chuck the idiot in the
>> slammer and have done with him' sentencing and 'Drop him off in the
>> bush somewhere' releasing.
>>
>> Your last cretinous foray into this Keith Spurgeon red-herring was
>> answered by several long term posters. Do you persist with pointless
>> and failed endeavours because that's all you know how to do ?
>
>No substantiation of whether or not you are Keith S or not. Hearsay
>from other so-called "long term posters"
>is a typical Ultra-Mike strawman argument.
ExS: Objection your honor ! Tommy is yet again posing as someone who
threatens to find a clue as to what a strawman actually is !
The Court: Objection sustained, lock the looney up for persistently
refusing to be educable.
(Aside: Haven't we already done this ?
Clerk: He escaped on a technicality, your honor.
The Court: Fuckin' Hell !)
> >3) You imply you are a "former $cn cult member." Is that correct? Can
>> >you post any evidence to substantiate this? Or do you want people
>> >here to just believe what you say from your keyboard as the gospel
>> >truth?
>>
>> It's irrelevant to me. I sure as hell am not the least bit interested
>> in searching for any silly Scio certs I may have in the attic or
>> garage, scanning them and creating a web page of them a la Warrior.
>
>No substantiation of you actually being an ex-scieno.
ExS: Objection your honor ! Relevance ?
The Court:None that I can see
(Aside: How many times we gotta lock this loser up ?
(Clerk: Couple more times probably. You know we're overcrowded)
>> >When we get passed those
>>
>> God, but you're a funny little thing :) Setting up a check-list of
>> tasks for me to do before you move onto whatever bit of irrelevancy
>> you next decide to expound on. You're a joke, Tommy. Do try to get a
>> grasp on that, it'll help you no end.
>>
>> >which Btw would be more germain to this
>> >thread topic of "Methods of waking up," then we can move on to your
>> >considerations of (un)substatiation of who, what, where, and how Fair
>> >Game works..... in the real world. That would of course include
>> >"straw men" citings and sightings.
>>
>> Yep, just more nonsense. Thought it might be.
>
>Like I said, you have HUGE M/Us on the concept of substantiation. You
>still do.
>
>Now back to the thread topic of "waking up." Are you interested in
>that ExScn?
I'm more than wake-up to you Tommy :)
So are the courts.
So are most of the ng readers.
So eventually will the few hard-liners who still give credence to your
steaming pile of BS.
Just reflect for a moment on your wasted years, Tommy. If you hadn't
chosen to be a self-aggrandising liar you could have shared your
children's growing years. Those are years *lost*. Scientology didn't
do that to you, as bad as Scientology may be. You did it to yourself.
But you seem determined to remain a fool. You really should do
something about that.
Warrior
>
>>Yes, but it's a fair question. Are you an ex-Scientologist, as your
>>nickname implies?
In article <q4f54v4ma5au55vl3...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>
>Yes,yes,yes. Grrr ! I have answered this several times Warrior.
I guess I missed the posts where you answered several times. I haven't
seen you say that you are an ex-Scientologist.
>In summary, I was recruited young (by my parents), did some stuff,
>left while still young and so then became the 'black sheep' of the
>family.
Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
>>Okay, so you're not interested in searching for any "silly Scio certs"
>>you "may have", scanning said certs you "may have" and creating a web
>>page of certs you "may have".
>>
>>Do you actually *have* any certs?
>I've done ship-loads of training - lots of courses with all those
>terrific check-sheets, TRs, E-Meter drills, clay-demos,
>tape-listenings, red-on-white M4s & star-ratings, etc, etc ad nauseum
>but because of the chronic staff (and official certificate) shortage I
>actually received very little in the way of fancy bits of paper.
Okay, you received "very little in the way of fancy bits of paper", but
do you actually have any certs?
>In terms of 'technical' training, as dated as it is, I guess I'd be in
>the top few percent on this ng.
Do you mean that you have more "tech training" than most ars posters?
>But exactly what relevance does this have ? It means nothing to me any
>more, what's it to you ?
Do you feel like you gained nothing worthwhile from your "tech training"?
Is this why you said it means nothing to you?
ExScn
>Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
>or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
<sigh>
Yes, again I've said that a couple of times before. Hence my choice
to be 'pseudo- anonymous'.
I've really lost interest in your repetitive questioning about freakin
'certs'. Who gives a toss ? It's like those pathetic questions about
'case-level' that pop up from time to time here - it's just bullshit,
Warrior !
Haven't you realised that yet ?
Are you still attaching some phoney significance to this meaningless
junk ? Is that why you stuck your own silly little sailor-boy certs
and 'Well Done Mark !' bits of paper up on a special web-page ? For
credibility ? LOL !
Maybe you're just an ex-management flunky who rues his lost chance to
be one of the true Hubbardian 'heroes' - a tech-trained 'sec-checker'
and is trying to be one here ? A hell of a lot of your posts sure
seem to reflect that possibility.
Maybe Diane R was right in that you're still essentially an
indoctrinated Scio who continues to 'think' in Hubbardian terms and
needs to know all the who what where time form place and how's your
father crap before he's even allowed to scratch his nose ?
Go back to doing your TRs on Claire, she might play with you - I think
she's way more tolerant of your waxing & waning Scio personaility than
I ever could be.
Jommy Cross
<q4f54v4ma5au55vl3...@4ax.com>:
<snip>
>I've done ship-loads of training - lots of courses with all those
>terrific check-sheets, TRs, E-Meter drills, clay-demos,
>tape-listenings, red-on-white M4s & star-ratings, etc, etc ad nauseum
Hmmm... ad nauseam sounds bad. Was *any* of it worth turning up for?
What do you think keeps $cienos going?
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
grouchomatic
ExScn wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2003 17:40:11 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
>>or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
>
>
> <sigh>
>
> Yes, again I've said that a couple of times before. Hence my choice
> to be 'pseudo- anonymous'.
>
> I've really lost interest in your repetitive questioning about freakin
> 'certs'. Who gives a toss ? It's like those pathetic questions about
> 'case-level' that pop up from time to time here - it's just bullshit,
> Warrior !
>
> Haven't you realised that yet ?
>
> Are you still attaching some phoney significance to this meaningless
> junk ? Is that why you stuck your own silly little sailor-boy certs
> and 'Well Done Mark !' bits of paper up on a special web-page ? For
> credibility ? LOL !
>
> Maybe you're just an ex-management flunky who rues his lost chance to
> be one of the true Hubbardian 'heroes' - a tech-trained 'sec-checker'
> and is trying to be one here ? A hell of a lot of your posts sure
> seem to reflect that possibility.
>
> Maybe
The smell of troll fur hangs heavy in the air!!
ExScn
>On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:39:23 GMT, ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote in msg
><q4f54v4ma5au55vl3...@4ax.com>:
><snip>
>>I've done ship-loads of training - lots of courses with all those
>>terrific check-sheets, TRs, E-Meter drills, clay-demos,
>>tape-listenings, red-on-white M4s & star-ratings, etc, etc ad nauseum
><snip>
>
>Hmmm... ad nauseam sounds bad. Was *any* of it worth turning up for?
Listening to the tapes wasn't bad. LRH just bull-shitted on about
anything and everything, making it all up as he went along. Total
crap, virtually zero 'technical' content but quite entertaining.
Some of the TRs you could make into fun - specially screaming at
ashtrays and disrupting the entire org and getting away with it, even
if they stuck you in the basement. My plan was to get the sucker up
through sound-waves alone. Nearly did it too !
>What do you think keeps $cienos going?
Can't answer from experience since I didn't keep going :)
If it was cheap (most training is - or was) and I could get a bit of a
laugh I could do it, but if it was going to cost anything or if it got
to taking any of it seriously I baled.
Perpetually building sand-castles at the foot of the Bridge was I :)
Magoo
If you were...of course you'd be against what I say. I doubt you were, but
it's just a point.
If you weren't....you have no idea how it felt. But to call it Spiritual
Rape is straight across the boards what it was.
Sorry it "pushes your buttons" (to use scientologiese)...but that's what
went down, plain and simple.
Tory/Magoo!
Magoo
><snip>
> In terms of 'technical' training, as dated as it is, I guess I'd be in
> the top few percent on this ng.
What level might that be? Please tell us.
Tory/Magoo!
Magoo
It's a Newsgroup, and Warrior has every right to ask you a question without
a barrage of *crap* pitched back on why it's useless.
If it's sooo useless, what do you care?
What levels DID you get to? I'm interested.
Tory/Magoo!
"ExScn" <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message
news:0i664v071hd58n7ts...@4ax.com...
Magoo
T
"grouchomatic" <grouch...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E432DF7...@cox.net...
ExScn
wrote:
>Ok..cut the BS "ExScn"....
>It's a Newsgroup, and Warrior has every right to ask you a question without
>a barrage of *crap* pitched back on why it's useless.
>If it's sooo useless, what do you care?
Okay, just for you I'll give an answer of sorts, then I must quit
since I've been on an ars binge for a frightening number of hours and
I'm in trouble domestically :(
Warrior *doesn't* have any right to ask a question and not get a
barrage of anything back. No-one has any such rights, especially on a
newsgroup.
When I quit Scn many years ago, I did what many do and that is, 'hung
onto' certain things. That didn't work to my satisfaction so I opted
for the 'cold-turkey' approach, namely 'bin the lot'.
The idea of 'case-level' or 'position on the bridge' I viewed as
having no meaning and gave no answers to any questions along that
line. Likewise, the 'other bridge' or whatever it's called -
training - I decided to treat exactly the same way. Out went the lot
- no thinking in terms of problems/solutions/confusions, ser-facs and
O/Ws and and and all that junk. I have no case-level and no
training-level, both I have long since declared meaningless Hubbardian
constructs with no relevance to the real world.
I know that some people do away with the case-level concept, seeing it
as worthless, but hang on to the training-level one, which just seems
totally contradictory to me.
This approach to 'de-Scientologising' myself I took decades ago,
deliberately and determinedly and it was actually quite difficult and
quite a slog.
I choose not to return to giving any credence to Scientology
classifications or certifications in any form, as in I'm a 'Class
I.....XII', OTX.
Just what is the point to Warrior's repetitive questioning about my
'freakin certs' ? I can see no good reason at all why he would want
such information.
Anyway, stay-tuned for a nick-change. It's probably a better choice
anyway :)
>What levels DID you get to? I'm interested.
There's no such thing Tory :)
ExScn
wrote:
Just thought I'd run it up the flag-pole and see if you saluted :)
NotAScn
wrote:
>ROTFLOL!!
>"grouchomatic" <grouch...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:3E432DF7...@cox.net...
>> The smell of troll fur hangs heavy in the air!!
And I quite liked Groucho's posts too :(
pts2
> On 6 Feb 2003 16:16:46 -0800, pt...@webtv.net (pts2) wrote
>
> like a totally failed lawyer playing at being court savvy:
>
> >> >1) Can you substantiate your claim right here that "I" have ever
> >> >uttered that Adm. Davie M. is personally involved with my cult
> >> >ordeals? Use Google if you have to.
> >>
> >> Well, not being patient enough to search through all of your crap, try
> >> this as a start from your own web page propaganda:
> >>
> >> http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/padgett/update44.html
> >>
> >> Padgett's only comment to these new charges was;
> >> "It's very scary to be the target of the cult's hit list. The higher
> >> ups in the Church of the Holy Law Suit otherwise known as Dianetics /
> >> Scientology, must really hate me to continue such harsh efforts to
> >> silence and punish me the way they have done.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>
> >> >and being personally targetted by no less than the top echelon of DM & crew
> >>
> >> refer to a different group of higher-ups than you had in mind when
> >> gibbering the above ?
> >
> >No Substantiation of mention of Davie M.
>
> Duhhh
Still no substantiation. Just a troll duhhh noise.
>
> >> >2) Also, Diane Richardson claims that YOU are not Keith Spurgon. Can
> >> >you substantiate her claim swearing under oath on this NG "I AM NOT
> >> >KEITH S.?" Can you scan and post evidence to support Diane's
> >> >assertions?
> >>
> >> You really are quite mad ! I'm simply stunned by this (repeated)
> >> absurd claim and demand. It sure gives more insight into the nature
> >> of your court appearances and tactics that have earned you so many
> >> charges of contempt and eventual 'Let's just chuck the idiot in the
> >> slammer and have done with him' sentencing and 'Drop him off in the
> >> bush somewhere' releasing.
> >>
> >> Your last cretinous foray into this Keith Spurgeon red-herring was
> >> answered by several long term posters. Do you persist with pointless
> >> and failed endeavours because that's all you know how to do ?
> >
> >No substantiation of whether or not you are Keith S or not. Hearsay
> >from other so-called "long term posters"
> >is a typical Ultra-Mike strawman argument.
>
> ExS: Objection your honor ! Tommy is yet again posing as someone who
> threatens to find a clue as to what a strawman actually is !
>
> The Court: Objection sustained, lock the looney up for persistently
> refusing to be educable.
>
> (Aside: Haven't we already done this ?
> Clerk: He escaped on a technicality, your honor.
> The Court: Fuckin' Hell !)
Still no substantiation. You can't say "NO DIANE IS CORRECT, I AM NOT
KEITH SPURGEON" can you? :)
Can you substantiate that?
>
> So are the courts.
Which "courts?" Can you name them?
>
> So are most of the ng readers.
You sound like U-Mike, the Bernie's Page advocate.
>
> So eventually will the few hard-liners who still give credence to your
> steaming pile of BS.
So you believe $cientology is healthy and benign after all.
>
> Just reflect for a moment on your wasted years, Tommy. If you hadn't
> chosen to be a self-aggrandising liar you could have shared your
> children's growing years. Those are years *lost*. Scientology <snip>
DID IT!
Wake up ExScn. "Scientology breaks families apart"
http://www.xentv.com Changing your nic from ExScn to
NotAScn doesn't change that.
tp
Lulu Belle
> >However, I think you are over critical of the critics, too. Have you met
> >any of them? Many of the ones I've met have very good lives also.
>
> I am critical of *some* critics, in particular the obsessive, the
> kooks, the conspiracy theorists, those who continuously cry 'OSA !!'
> as a means of stifling discussion, the 'professional victims' and
> probably most particularly those whose lives appear to be either a
> total mess or at least devoid of any meaning outside of this
> newsgroup, somehow seeing themselves as superior.
>
Amen to that.
Tanya Durni
ExScn wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2003 17:40:11 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
>>or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
>
>
> <sigh>
>
> Yes, again I've said that a couple of times before. Hence my choice
> to be 'pseudo- anonymous'.
I think if you were indeed after trying to help your family, you would
find Warrior's post very informative and helpful. The fact that you
don't and that you constantly try to discredit him and others without
merit, only exposes your motives or lack there of, further.
Any OSA agent is trying to gather information and discredit critics,
that is what the scientology "tech" trains them to do. Fair gaming is
something OSA agents are also trained to do, by Hubbard's "tech".
I am not saying that your OSA. I don't really care one way or the
other, as I know for fact that OSA follows critics posts and responds to
them with disconnection threats and information gathering. They have
proved this to my family, themselves.
To me your responses appear to have the purpose of discrediting valid,
informative posts about the tactics and abuses of the cult of
scientology. It is you that sounds arrogant and know it all, not Warrior.
NotAScn
<tdu...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>ExScn wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2003 17:40:11 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
>>>or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
>>
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Yes, again I've said that a couple of times before. Hence my choice
>> to be 'pseudo- anonymous'.
Well, having showered, slept, had a swim in the pool, and dined and
feeling much more mellow, I'll respond as courteously as I can :)
>I think if you were indeed after trying to help your family, you would
>find Warrior's post very informative and helpful.
For the life of me, I can't see *anything* informative or helpful in
Warrior's post - see excerpts below.
-------------------------------------------
* Do you actually *have* any certs?
* Okay, you received "very little in the way of fancy bits of paper",
* but do you actually have any certs?
* Do you mean that you have more "tech training" than most ars
* posters?
* Do you feel like you gained nothing worthwhile from your "tech
* training"?
* Is this why you said it means nothing to you?
-------------------------------------------------------
Now, if you have ever been a Scn, does the above remind you of any
Scientological 'procedures' by any chance ?
It sure as hell did for me :) *shivers and shudders*
>The fact that you
>don't and that you constantly try to discredit him
>and others without merit, only exposes your motives or lack there of, further.
Sticking with Warrior for the moment: Not as a general rule - if you
care to look back you'll find several posts where I have supported
him. In other areas, such as this, I am at odds with him.
>Any OSA agent is trying to gather information
Bit like Warrior above, perhaps ?
As an aside to that I'd like to point out that I have *never* engaged
in that sort of activity on this ng, whereas Warrior does it
*constantly*. Just an observation.
>that is what the scientology "tech" trains them to do. Fair gaming is
>something OSA agents are also trained to do, by Hubbard's "tech".
I'm thoroughly familiar with what OSA is and does, as well as what it
isn't and doesn't do contrary to the many ars 'urban myths' on the
subject.
>I am not saying that your OSA.
Nor did I suggest that Warrior was, despite his dubious style of
'helping and informing'. I did wonder whether there was some residual
'hub-tech' lurking there in denial. Whatever, I certainly question
the motives, as I did with him vs Claire prior to this.
>I don't really care one way or the
>other, as I know for fact that OSA follows critics posts
Indeed they do, and they don't even have to ask any questions if
others do it for them.
> and responds to
>them with disconnection threats and information gathering. They have
>proved this to my family, themselves.
Likewise.
>To me your responses appear to have the purpose of discrediting valid,
>informative posts about the tactics and abuses of the cult of
>scientology.
Well, you can see that if you like of course.
>It is you that sounds arrogant and know it all, not Warrior.
and that too :)
HTH
pts2
> ExScn wrote:
> > On 6 Feb 2003 17:40:11 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
> >>or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
> >
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Yes, again I've said that a couple of times before. Hence my choice
> > to be 'pseudo- anonymous'.
>
> I think if you were indeed after trying to help your family, you would
> find Warrior's post very informative and helpful. The fact that you
> don't and that you constantly try to discredit him and others without
> merit, only exposes your motives or lack there of, further.
I agree strongly.
>
> Any OSA agent is trying to gather information and discredit critics,
> that is what the scientology "tech" trains them to do. Fair gaming is
> something OSA agents are also trained to do, by Hubbard's "tech".
>
> I am not saying that your OSA. I don't really care one way or the
> other, as I know for fact that OSA follows critics posts and responds to
> them with disconnection threats and information gathering. They have
> proved this to my family, themselves.
They have proved far beyond reasonable doubt with my
children's paternal family -- close and extended.
>
> To me your responses appear to have the purpose of discrediting valid,
> informative posts about the tactics and abuses of the cult of
> scientology. It is you that sounds arrogant and know it all, not Warrior.
Clearly obvious. I agree.
>
>
> >
> > I've really lost interest in your repetitive questioning about freakin
> > 'certs'. Who gives a toss ? It's like those pathetic questions about
> > 'case-level' that pop up from time to time here - it's just bullshit,
> > Warrior !
> >
> > Haven't you realised that yet ?
> >
> > Are you still attaching some phoney significance to this meaningless
> > junk ? Is that why you stuck your own silly little sailor-boy certs
> > and 'Well Done Mark !' bits of paper up on a special web-page ? For
> > credibility ?
No documentation that farce existed and the cult is still sending out
massive 4 color mailings to recruit
more into the faux-navy scam.
> >
> > Maybe you're just an ex-management flunky who rues his lost chance to
> > be one of the true Hubbardian 'heroes' - a tech-trained 'sec-checker'
> > and is trying to be one here ? A hell of a lot of your posts sure
> > seem to reflect that possibility.
> >
> > Maybe Diane R was right in that you're still essentially an
> > indoctrinated Scio who continues to 'think' in Hubbardian terms and
> > needs to know all the who what where time form place and how's your
> > father crap before he's even allowed to scratch his nose ?
> >
> > Go back to doing your TRs on Claire, she might play with you - I think
> > she's way more tolerant of
her own
waxing & waning Scio personaility than
> > I ever could be.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Tom
----------------
www.FairGamed.org
pts2
YES, RAPE IS WHAT IT IS. Certainly spiritual! A good book is
"Captured Hearts Captured Minds."
$cn also engages in psychological rape. Rape of the family unit i.e.
disconnecion. Financial rape.
Some caught up in "death by litigation" assaults and tactics are often
judicially raped when magistrates get
compromised or caught up in the "religion" spin.
> Sorry it "pushes your buttons" (to use scientologiese)...but that's what
> went down, plain and simple.
>
> Tory/Magoo!
Tom
------------
www.xenu.net
Cerridwen
"Lulu Belle" <exes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7db3d0ad.03020...@posting.google.com...
Agreed. I was thinking how just recently there seems to be a new
breed of Ex-Scn critics. I could be wrong about this as I have only
been reading the newsgroup for 3 years and this may not be anything new
at all.
Whether I am right or wrong, I tend to make groups or cliques while
playing this game called ars.
My groups consist of the Never Beens, the Ex Scns that don't like
criticism toward any other Ex Scns, and this new group of Ex-Scns that
think that criticism of critics is just fine. This new group of Ex-Scn
critics can't figure out why the Other Ex -Scn (I call them the Victim
Ex-Scns) are upset about criticism of other critics.
Not liking criticism and trying to stifle criticism is a trait of the
C of S and one of the worst of all their crap. One of the very first
things that tweaked my viewpoint and helped me to realize the truth,
happened when I first started reading ars as a fully indoc'd one.
I saw critics calling other critics on the carpet and demanding that
they prove or back up what they had to say. Opinions were obviously
allowed and other people could make comment about someone's point of
view, but when anyone would start stating facts, there were always
critics that would demand proof.
This was an entirely new concept for me. I know that is hard to
believe, but I had 30 years of thinking that all criticism was bad, not
just criticism of LRH and Scn, which of course was supposed to be the
worst kind of criticism, but that All criticism, except for the psychs,
was bad.
So I arrive at ars and I see people being critical of LRH and Scn and
then all of a sudden someone would say something really stupid and then
would be hit with, "oh ya, prove it." Or maybe they would just post
something really nutty and it would be pointed out to them that they
were being really nutty.
I remember, thinking, geez, there are some really sane people
criticizing Scn and that of course gave me the tweak I needed to
say, "Damn, How could that be? I thought all critic were crazy SP's."
I hope you are digging the mind set here. I, as a fully indoc'd Scn,
was very impressed that there were critics criticizing other critics
and caused a huge crack in the indoc.
At that time, I really hadn't sorted out who was who on ars, but funny
enough, I could figure out which ones were OSA because of the level of
viciousness in those posts. I do know how indoc'd Scns think about
critics of Scn and I can usually tell the difference between a critic
being critical of another critic and an OSA creep being critical of a
critic. There is just this very distinct quality to OSA that is not
like anything else and it has to do with the indoc. I think maybe only
an Ex Scn could ever really appreciate what that quality
is. But maybe not.
Anyway, to get back on track to my point, I appreciate the Ex Scns that
are critical of or are willing to criticize other Ex Scns. I think
it's important. I don't think the Ex Scn Victims should be spared
if they say, do, or post something that is either untrue, looney, or
straight-out bullshit. I think one should be able to disagree with
them and be critical of them without being accused of aiding and
abetting OSA.
The Ex-Scns that don't want criticism of other critics need to have,
imo, ome sort of awakening that ALL CRITICISM IS GOOD, EVEN IF YOU
DISAGREE WITH IT.
It's good because we are free to do it, and people should always be
free to criticize. There should never be a man or woman above
criticism. Not LRH, not Gerry Armstrong, not anyone.
I may not agree with their criticism but I will defend their right to
criticize even if I disagree with the content.
Here on ars there is always this push to get others to not be critical
of the Ex's or of other critics and this to me is the very worst of the
Scn Indoc.
I may not agree with some critics criticism of ptsc, but I would never
think of telling them that they really shouldn't criticize a critic.
Not in a "Billion Years".
The viewpoint of "Critics criticizing other critics helps OSA" is
something an indoc'd Scientologist would think, the rest of the world
thinks criticism is a good thing.
I avidly read your posts Lulu as well as Deo and Ex Scn (now Not A
Scn) and not just for the newsy notes you add to my posts, but for
your very sane criticism of both Scn and the critics of Scn.
It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat anonymously and
I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and claim
that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
Cerri
"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
disagree with you." --Prignillius
To lurking Scientologists-- Please read the following links:
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats.htm
http://holycows.org/articles/26unisksw.htm
NotAScn
(Cerridwen) wrote:
>"Lulu Belle" <exes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7db3d0ad.03020...@posting.google.com...
>
>> ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message
>news:<4c644vgdmdplsj7hb...@4ax.com>...
>> > I am critical of *some* critics, in particular the obsessive, the
>> > kooks, the conspiracy theorists, those who continuously cry 'OSA !!'
>> > as a means of stifling discussion, the 'professional victims' and
>> > probably most particularly those whose lives appear to be either a
>> > total mess or at least devoid of any meaning outside of this
>> > newsgroup, somehow seeing themselves as superior.
>> >
>>
>> Amen to that.
>
>
>Agreed. I was thinking how just recently there seems to be a new
>breed of Ex-Scn critics. I could be wrong about this as I have only
>been reading the newsgroup for 3 years and this may not be anything new
>at all.
>
>Whether I am right or wrong, I tend to make groups or cliques while
>playing this game called ars.
>
>My groups consist of the Never Beens, the Ex Scns that don't like
>criticism toward any other Ex Scns, and this new group of Ex-Scns that
>think that criticism of critics is just fine. This new group of Ex-Scn
>critics can't figure out why the Other Ex -Scn (I call them the Victim
>Ex-Scns) are upset about criticism of other critics.
Phew ! Seems like I changed my nick just in time !
>Not liking criticism and trying to stifle criticism is a trait of the
>C of S and one of the worst of all their crap. One of the very first
>things that tweaked my viewpoint and helped me to realize the truth,
>happened when I first started reading ars as a fully indoc'd one.
>
>I saw critics calling other critics on the carpet and demanding that
>they prove or back up what they had to say. Opinions were obviously
>allowed and other people could make comment about someone's point of
>view, but when anyone would start stating facts, there were always
>critics that would demand proof.
>
>This was an entirely new concept for me. I know that is hard to
>believe, but I had 30 years of thinking that all criticism was bad, not
>just criticism of LRH and Scn, which of course was supposed to be the
>worst kind of criticism, but that All criticism, except for the psychs,
>was bad.
>
>So I arrive at ars and I see people being critical of LRH and Scn and
>then all of a sudden someone would say something really stupid and then
>would be hit with, "oh ya, prove it." Or maybe they would just post
>something really nutty and it would be pointed out to them that they
>were being really nutty.
A few years of writing and reading others' success stories sorta puts
the dampers on calling fellow Scios nutty, eh ?
>I remember, thinking, geez, there are some really sane people
>criticizing Scn and that of course gave me the tweak I needed to
>say, "Damn, How could that be? I thought all critic were crazy SP's."
>
>I hope you are digging the mind set here. I, as a fully indoc'd Scn,
>was very impressed that there were critics criticizing other critics
>and caused a huge crack in the indoc.
>
>At that time, I really hadn't sorted out who was who on ars, but funny
>enough, I could figure out which ones were OSA because of the level of
>viciousness in those posts. I do know how indoc'd Scns think about
>critics of Scn and I can usually tell the difference between a critic
>being critical of another critic and an OSA creep being critical of a
>critic. There is just this very distinct quality to OSA that is not
>like anything else and it has to do with the indoc.
Yes, very true. And a still indoc'd 'ex' critic also has a distinct
quality, and it's not just simply the use of Hub speak.
Yeah, and not only that but I've been de-certified as well :(
>"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
>disagree with you." --Prignillius
>
>To lurking Scientologists-- Please read the following links:
>http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats.htm
>http://holycows.org/articles/26unisksw.htm
>
Nice read again Cerri :)
Is the dinner offer still open ? <chchchchchch>
Warrior
This is important enough to get it right.
_Captive Hearts, Captive Minds: Freedom and Recovery from Cults
and Abusive Relationships_, by Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja
Lalich (Alameda, CA: Hunter House, 1994)
Cerridwen
"NotAScn" <w...@Ex.Scn> wrote in message
news:d9684v42cq646vqf6...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Feb 2003 20:29:47 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
> (Cerridwen) wrote:
> >My groups consist of the Never Beens, the Ex Scns that don't like
> >criticism toward any other Ex Scns, and this new group of Ex-Scns
that
> >think that criticism of critics is just fine. This new group of Ex-
Scn
> >critics can't figure out why the Other Ex -Scn (I call them the
Victim
> >Ex-Scns) are upset about criticism of other critics.
>
> Phew ! Seems like I changed my nick just in time !
LOL!
You certainly did. It looks like I need better names for my little
groups.
> >
> >So I arrive at ars and I see people being critical of LRH and Scn
and
> >then all of a sudden someone would say something really stupid and
then
> >would be hit with, "oh ya, prove it." Or maybe they would just
post
> >something really nutty and it would be pointed out to them that they
> >were being really nutty.
>
> A few years of writing and reading others' success stories sorta puts
> the dampers on calling fellow Scios nutty, eh ?
Ya, that and listening to "wins" after course. That had to be the
worst. People would make stuff up to get the hell out of there.
And then once in a while you'd get some windbag with a 15
minute win that was absolutely insane. Of course you couldn't
leave as that would be rude and would invalidate that lunatic's
win. And of course that could get you a routing form to see
the Ethics Officer.
>
> > There is just this very distinct quality to OSA that is not
> >like anything else and it has to do with the indoc.
>
> Yes, very true. And a still indoc'd 'ex' critic also has a distinct
> quality, and it's not just simply the use of Hub speak.
Yes. The Scn indoc is a bitch to get rid of.
> >
> >It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat anonymously
and
> >I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and
claim
> >that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
>
> Yeah, and not only that but I've been de-certified as well :(
It could be worse, you could actually find some. ;-)
>
> Nice read again Cerri :)
Thanks NAS :-)
>
> Is the dinner offer still open ? <chchchchchch>
Oh ya, and I make a wicked lasagna. <blink,blink>
Too bad we are anon posters, I'd love to partake in backchannel
gossipmongering with ya!
--
Cerri
NotAScn
(Cerridwen) wrote:
>Too bad we are anon posters, I'd love to partake in backchannel
>gossipmongering with ya!
Yay, yay !! Yeah, but we gotta have a secret code for everybody first
but !!
How about, instead of all those Ex-Scn group names (which bring back
such bad memories for me anyway)
II - In and Indoctrinated - The eyes
OI - Out by still indoctrinated - the Oys
OU - Out but not indoctrinated - the Yous
UI - Unindoctrinated but in - the You-ees
Nah, nah...try this
IP or PI - In and still Programmmed - The Ips, the Pies ?
OP or PO - Out but still Programmed - the Ops, the Poes ?
ID or DI - In but detoxed - The Ids, the Dies
OD or DO - Out and Detoxed - the Odds [mmm :( dunno], The Does
NIK - Never In but Okay - the Niks
NIM - Never In but quite mad anyway - the Nims
NITHO - Never In Teutonic Humourless Obsessives - The Nithoes -
special group
So your SP case level is an ID and I'm an OD ?
I can live with that :)
Zinj
says...
How bout Pulled In; for those who were never Scn's, but assisted in more
active criticism by the Cult itself.
PI works for me :)
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
pts2
> >A good book is "Captured Hearts Captured Minds."
>
> This is important enough to get it right.
>
> _Captive Hearts, Captive Minds: Freedom and Recovery from Cults
> and Abusive Relationships_, by Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja
> Lalich (Alameda, CA: Hunter House, 1994)
Thanks Mark! :) Was in a hurry this AM. And yes this is important and
yes sunshine does curb infections.
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> http://warrior.xenu.ca
Tom
-----------------
www.madvillelaw.net
pts2
Hubbard used the word "sane" in much of his writings and taped
lectures. He used it in a context that he was, his mission was to
make his followers too, and implied critics of him and his founded
sect were "not" sane. LOL
of both Scn and the critics of Scn.
>
> It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat anonymously and
> I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and claim
> that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
>
> Cerri
>
> "Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
> disagree with you." --Prignillius
>
> To lurking Scientologists-- Please read the following links:
> http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats.htm
> http://holycows.org/articles/26unisksw.htm
tp
Warrior
>>
>>Have you had any trouble from family members who are Scientologists,
>>or from members of OSA, over your posting here?
In article <0i664v071hd58n7ts...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>
><sigh>
>
>Yes, again I've said that a couple of times before. Hence my choice
>to be 'pseudo- anonymous'.
Understood.
>I've really lost interest in your repetitive questioning about freakin
>'certs'.
This is a complete fabrication. I never engaged in repetitive questioning
about "certs".
>Who gives a toss ? It's like those pathetic questions about 'case-level'
>that pop up from time to time here - it's just bullshit, Warrior !
Could be, depending upon what the context is.
>Haven't you realised that yet ?
You engage in such hyperbole and generalized statements I am not able
to understand what you're asking. But you're not really interested
in dialog. You just want to be rude and to grossly mis-state things.
>Are you still attaching some phoney significance to this meaningless
>junk ?
Not at all.
>Is that why you stuck your own silly little sailor-boy certs and 'Well
>Done Mark !' bits of paper up on a special web-page ?
Nope.
Are you so ashamed of your past in Scientology?
You can't even talk about your past in Scientology, except in the most
general way. The fact that you can't give any specifics about yourself
tell me you are at the effect of Scientology. That's okay, though. I
understand. But why be so nasty towards me? Could your need to relieve
"orgone energy" explain your rudeness?
>For credibility ? LOL !
Read everything I wrote on this page - http://warrior.xenu.ca/certs.html -
and then come back and tell me what's so funny about wanting to have
credibility as a means of defending against_Scientology's_black_PR while
also being informative?
>Maybe you're just an ex-management flunky who rues his lost chance to
>be one of the true Hubbardian 'heroes' - a tech-trained 'sec-checker'
>and is trying to be one here ?
And maybe you are an idiot. And maybe you're a person who once wished
to have more intellect, compassion, intelligence and ability to perceive
reality.
>A hell of a lot of your posts sure seem to reflect that possibility.
Now I am sure you're an idiot. Carry on.
>Maybe Diane R was right in that you're still essentially an
>indoctrinated Scio who continues to 'think' in Hubbardian terms
LOL!!!! That's a real laugh coming from a person who defines his or
her posting identity in terms of *Scientology* -- "ExScn" and NotAScn".
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!
>and needs to know all the who what where time form place and how's your
>father crap before he's even allowed to scratch his nose ?
Surely you are delusional. I don't do this. But please, don't let
your delusions and anger stop you from posting more idiocy.
>Go back to doing your TRs on Claire, she might play with you - I think
And you criticize me for using Scieno lingo??? Ha ha ha ha... You're
a complete idiot. Do you even have a clue why I use Scieno terms in
quotes? Probably not. You're probably more interested in remaining
ignorant.
>she's way more tolerant of your waxing & waning Scio personaility than
>I ever could be.
Practically every line you write is complete crap. By all means, feel
free to continue.
As Dennis Erlich once said:
"Pile it up high."
Warrior
>wrote:
>
>>Ok..cut the BS "ExScn"....
>>It's a Newsgroup, and Warrior has every right to ask you a question
>>without a barrage of *crap* pitched back on why it's useless.
>>If it's sooo useless, what do you care?
In article <4sh64v81ss4s5tj2m...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>
>Okay, just for you I'll give an answer of sorts, then I must quit
>since I've been on an ars binge for a frightening number of hours
>and I'm in trouble domestically :(
And you called me "obsessive"? Ha ha ha!!!!!
>Warrior *doesn't* have any right to ask a question and not get a
>barrage of anything back.
Right. You are free to be as nasty as you like.
>No-one has any such rights, especially on a newsgroup.
Right. No one can force you to be civil or to act rationally.
>When I quit Scn many years ago, I did what many do and that is, 'hung
>onto' certain things. That didn't work to my satisfaction so I opted
>for the 'cold-turkey' approach, namely 'bin the lot'.
Maybe you had no things of value to anyone.
>The idea of 'case-level' or 'position on the bridge' I viewed as
>having no meaning and gave no answers to any questions along that
>line. Likewise, the 'other bridge' or whatever it's called -
>training - I decided to treat exactly the same way. Out went the lot
>- no thinking in terms of problems/solutions/confusions, ser-facs and
>O/Ws and and and all that junk. I have no case-level and no
>training-level, both I have long since declared meaningless Hubbardian
>constructs with no relevance to the real world.
You seem to be very bitter about it all and unable to deal with any
reminders of your time in Scientology. You might wish to get therapy
or counseling over your Scientology experience.
In the meantime, you'll have to practice the Scientology concept of
"fair roads, fair weather" if you wish to get along with your family,
and denial to yourself and others.
>I know that some people do away with the case-level concept, seeing it
>as worthless, but hang on to the training-level one, which just seems
>totally contradictory to me.
>
>This approach to 'de-Scientologising' myself I took decades ago,
>deliberately and determinedly and it was actually quite difficult and
>quite a slog.
I understand that.
>I choose not to return to giving any credence to Scientology
>classifications or certifications in any form, as in I'm a 'Class
>I.....XII', OTX.
Well, from what little you've written, it's impossible to determine
if you did much in Scientology, so naturally it makes sense you would
say this.
>Just what is the point to Warrior's repetitive questioning about my
>'freakin certs' ?
You're certainly delusional. There was no "repetitive questioning
about" your "certs". That's at least three times I've seen you repeat
your same lie. One might suspect you wish to portray me as having
said things I have not.
That's dishonest of you, but already know that you exaggerate and
mis-state reality.
>I can see no good reason at all why he would want such information.
Right. So rather than ask, you carried on like a rabid dog on LSD.
>Anyway, stay-tuned for a nick-change. It's probably a better choice
>anyway :)
Yeah, you changed it to "NotAScn", so I see you still define your ars
identity in terms of Scientology.
>Tory asked:
>>
>>What levels DID you get to? I'm interested.
>There's no such thing Tory :)
On top of being delusional, you surely must be in denial, since you
surely are ashamed, embarrassed or afraid of something.
Magoo
I understand about bagging all of it. However, I mention my training only
for Scios who may be lurking, as I remember when "in"...if a trained person
left, it meant more than an untrained person...to ME.
>
> >What levels DID you get to? I'm interested.
>
> There's no such thing Tory :)
Puuuuleeease. So basically you either didn't do any...or very little, eh?
People who have done various levels usually have no back off in saying so.
Only those who haven't seem to not want to say, and I think it's because
THEY feel their may be some significance attatched to it. If there was none,
why not say?>
Of course there is no such thing ~really~~but what level did you attest to,
while "in"?
Cough it up. :)
Tory/Magoo!
>
Magoo
> >>
> >> Examples of overblown rhetoric are commonplace on this ng, but since
> >> it's you I'm responding to, how about 'Tory/Magoo - Nailed to the
> >> Cross - Spiritual Rape !' :) ?
> >>
If you were...of course you'd be against what I say. I doubt you were, but
> >it's just a point.
> >If you weren't....you have no idea how it felt. But to call it Spiritual
> >Rape is straight across the boards what it was.
> >Sorry it "pushes your buttons" (to use scientologiese)...but that's what
> >went down, plain and simple.
> >
> >Tory/Magoo!
> >
>
> Just thought I'd run it up the flag-pole and see if you saluted :)
(T) FEEBLE!!! The truth is, you said what I said was
"Overblown rhetoric". I explained how that's not true..
and is in fact BS, and now you respond saying you
"just thought I'd run it up the flag-pole...."?
That's a horseshit response, or a horseshit action. Which is it?
The first you can apologize for and the second will tell me what your
~real~intentions are.
Tory/Magoo!
Magoo
Tory/Magoo!
"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
news:b219h...@drn.newsguy.com...
Magoo
I can see you have your "groupings"...and that's up to you to do whatever
you want.
Here is my view of what you've said:
OF COURSE there needs to be honest criticism. OF COURSE
any of us who spent ANY time "In" Scientology had years of "never criticize
another...blah blah" until we nearly puked.
Believe me if you think you have had some criticism, if you followed my
exit.....I had almost the entire World (this one, at least) call me on the
carpet. Because I knew I was going to lose every single friend I had in
speaking out (and yes, because I said who I am, unlike you who has not. I
respect this....but please, it's a little different when your name and face
are out there)....I had to take up each one, and answer very long and
detailed questions.
The OSA 101 thing is well known now...but when I left, I was literally
scared for my life, due to the significance ~they~had on the project...as
well at the secrecy.
Anyways.....these questions turned out to bring some of THE most healing
times in my life. I admit it was super scarry at first, but answering these
very personal questions actually created not only knowledge for others, but
great healing for me. As I always say, "every time I'd hit the 'Send'
Button,
I'd feel a HUGE release of locked up energy. It really was quite amazing.
However, there IS a difference in honest criticism, and nagging, pounding,
almost spreading of *crap*.....vs. honest criticism. One is true, one is
very definitely used by OSA.
I know you and some others hate to hear the word OSA.
Well, sorry about that. I hate some things here too, but guess what? Whether
you want to believe they are here on ARS or not, doesn't really matter does
it? It doesn't even really matter IF someone is OSA or not.
However, there is a point where a poster...and always anonymous.....will
almost never post anything factual, or new or unknown here and will just be
pounding on someone over and over. The person has answered, yet they
continue to "criticize". You can say let it be...and that is your choice.
All I say is that IS a different thing than just plain honest criticism.
Who are these so called "Victim X-Scios"? You said it, so who are they? To
me that in itself is something OSA has been spreading since when I was "in"
and watching Yaude post.
So whether you like it or not, or think it is "yours"....they started it, to
slime the critics, long ago.
My best to you ~~
Tory/Magoo!
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:5XAV6L7J3765...@anonymous.poster...
Magoo
"NotAScn" <w...@Ex.Scn> wrote in message
news:d9684v42cq646vqf6...@4ax.com...
Yea Cerri....is it? (She never asked me...but hey....sometimes
I can squeeze in this way :))
T
>
>
Magoo
"pts2" <pt...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:c39de0a7.03020...@posting.google.com...
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message
news:<5XAV6L7J3765...@anonymous.poster>...
> > "Lulu Belle" <exes...@yahoo.com> wro
<snip>
> >
> > It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat anonymously and
> > I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and claim
> > that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
Well...OSA ~does~ always post via remailers.....
hahahahahahahaha! :)
T
Ps: How ~does~ one post via 'remailers"??
Please fill me in.
Magoo
> ><snip>
> > In terms of 'technical' training, as dated as it is, I guess I'd be in
> > the top few percent on this ng.
>
> What level might that be? Please tell us.
Naturally....no response. Would you care to dance?
>
> Tory/Magoo!
>
>
NotAScn
wrote:
>"ExScn" <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message
>> >> Examples of overblown rhetoric are commonplace on this ng, but since
>> >> it's you I'm responding to, how about 'Tory/Magoo - Nailed to the
>> >> Cross - Spiritual Rape !' :) ?
>> >>
> If you were...of course you'd be against what I say. I doubt you were, but
>> >it's just a point.
>
>> >If you weren't....you have no idea how it felt. But to call it Spiritual
>> >Rape is straight across the boards what it was.
>> >Sorry it "pushes your buttons" (to use scientologiese)...but that's what
>> >went down, plain and simple.
>> >
>> >Tory/Magoo!
>> >
>>
>> Just thought I'd run it up the flag-pole and see if you saluted :)
> (T) FEEBLE!!! The truth is, you said what I said was
> "Overblown rhetoric". I explained how that's not true..
Umm, no you didn't actually
>and is in fact BS, and now you respond saying you
>"just thought I'd run it up the flag-pole...."?
That comment was simply a way of my acknowledging that it was a
difficult time for you and so choosing not to labor the point.
However, if you want - this cheap & melodramatic imagery of being
'Nailed to the Cross' is a text-book example of overblown rhetoric.
I also believe that is how the average non-Christian wog would see it
(I can easily visualise the typical reaction - "Oh, Gaawd, here we go
<groans>") and so quite probably not bother to read any further, while
those who take their Christianity as seriously as you once did your
Scientology, might justifiably take great offence at your use of it.
NotAScn
>>On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 05:38:06 GMT, "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ok..cut the BS "ExScn"....
>>>It's a Newsgroup, and Warrior has every right to ask you a question
>>>without a barrage of *crap* pitched back on why it's useless.
>>>If it's sooo useless, what do you care?
>
>In article <4sh64v81ss4s5tj2m...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>>
>>Okay, just for you I'll give an answer of sorts, then I must quit
>>since I've been on an ars binge for a frightening number of hours
>>and I'm in trouble domestically :(
>
>And you called me "obsessive"? Ha ha ha!!!!!
A momentary abberation, because I had a day off. I won't happen again
I promise.
>>When I quit Scn many years ago, I did what many do and that is, 'hung
>>onto' certain things. That didn't work to my satisfaction so I opted
>>for the 'cold-turkey' approach, namely 'bin the lot'.
>
>Maybe you had no things of value to anyone.
Nothing that I binned, which was essentially all Hubbardian concepts
and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had, I did indeed
consider to be things of no value to anyone, in particular me at the
time.
I certainly had no incriminating documentation or the like, if that's
what you might be alluding to. I was never even on staff although
others in my family were, elsewhere.
>
>You seem to be very bitter about it all and unable to deal with any
>reminders of your time in Scientology.
Your 'analysis' is as worthless as the scio certs I binned. Mind if I
do the same with it ?
While bitterness was something I can recall once being almost consumed
by (after first visiting ars and critics websites funnily enough), I
got over it long ago, and prefer now to laugh at my folly, It's far
healthier.
>>I choose not to return to giving any credence to Scientology
>>classifications or certifications in any form, as in I'm a 'Class
>>I.....XII', OTX.
>
>Well, from what little you've written, it's impossible to determine
>if you did much in Scientology
And again, how does this matter ? What's it to you ?
> so naturally it makes sense you would say this.
Whatever.
>You're certainly delusional. There was no "repetitive questioning
>about" your "certs". That's at least three times I've seen you repeat
>your same lie.
Well even just twice is repetitive, so it's not a lie which I guess
makes you a liar for calling me one. But, it's trivial stuff and I
don't mind stating that in any meaningful sense of the word I don't
consider you a liar, and have never prior to 3 lines above saying so.
>One might suspect you wish to portray me as having
>said things I have not.
Nope, I have no such wish with regards to you or anyone else for that
matter.
>>I can see no good reason at all why he would want such information.
>
>Right. So rather than ask, you carried on like a rabid dog on LSD.
Well, at least I've learned what the behaviour of a rabid dog on LSD
is like in cases anyone asks.
I admit to being grossly over-tired and cranky at the time, realised
it and quit.
>Yeah, you changed it to "NotAScn", so I see you still define your ars
>identity in terms of Scientology.
You seem to attach great meaning to this. It's quite extra-ordinary.
My inital choice of ExScn wasn't something I gave any more than a few
seconds thought to myself, and you may notice that *many* people post
with similar nicks ExScio, ExScnMember etc and probably laboured as
long and hard on the choice as I did.
As to the NotScn, equally true, that was just a 'Gawd, I'll change the
bleeding channel then !' and was probably tiggered by Tom Padgett's
introduction of this bit of stupid irrelevancy as much as your
insistence on this damned cert thing.
>On top of being delusional, you surely must be in denial, since you
>surely are ashamed, embarrassed or afraid of something.
Nope, none of those. But I suspect you'll want to stick with your
own opinions, that being the easier option.
NotAScn
I've just responded to another of your posts.
All I see here is an exchange of insults. You won a close but ugly
scrap on points, okay ?
Warrior
>>Not at all.
In article <tn0a4v4ov5sj4ptvc...@4ax.com>, NotAScn says...
>
>I've just responded to another of your posts.
Yeah, I saw your response.
>All I see here is an exchange of insults.
Of course you say that's "all you see here". You have a bad habit of
asking loaded "questions" which in reality are insults, and you have a
bad habit of not answering questions asked of you.
>You won a close but ugly scrap on points, okay ?
As long as you are going to ask me questions, I would appreciate the
courtesy of your answering my questions.
Fair enough?
Warrior
>>>onto' certain things. That didn't work to my satisfaction so I opted
>>>for the 'cold-turkey' approach, namely 'bin the lot'.
>On 7 Feb 2003 22:36:13 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Maybe you had no things of value to anyone.
In article <nqr94vo9olcvpongi...@4ax.com>, NotAScn says...
>
>Nothing that I binned, which was essentially all Hubbardian concepts
>and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
Now that you've told me this much, I can think of a couple of lawyers
and scholars who might have been able to put your materials to good use.
>and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had,
There you go again with your nebulous "may have had" statement. It sounds
like you're not even sure about whether you ever had any "certs" to begin
with.
>I did indeed consider to be things of no value to anyone, in particular
>me at the time.
I understand.
Warrior
>and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
>and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had,
>On 7 Feb 2003 22:36:13 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>You seem to be very bitter about it all and unable to deal with any
>>reminders of your time in Scientology.
>Your 'analysis' is as worthless as the scio certs I binned.
LOL! I guess you "binned" those "certs" you "may have had".
NotAScn
Yes, that's what I said. I guess there's a joke somewhere there.
NotAScn
>>>In article <4sh64v81ss4s5tj2m...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>>Nothing that I binned, which was essentially all Hubbardian concepts
>>and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
>
>Now that you've told me this much, I can think of a couple of lawyers
>and scholars who might have been able to put your materials to good use.
Can't possibly see how but I can't say I care.
>
>>and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had,
>
>There you go again with your nebulous "may have had" statement. It sounds
>like you're not even sure about whether you ever had any "certs" to begin
>with.
You're just so hung up on this !
Here's how it typically went - one did a course with a check-sheet and
got things ticked off/signed until the last page which said something
like 'You've finished', get on the cans and write the obligatory phony
success story.
So is that a cert ? Who cares ?
And no, I have no intention of detailing the when, what, how, where
and why of any of this and if that leads you to some mystical
insightful conclusion then good luck to you in what appears to be your
latest career of Cult Exiting Pseudo-Analyst, I'm done with it.
NotAScn
>Of course you say that's "all you see here". You have a bad habit of
>asking loaded "questions" which in reality are insults, and you have a
>bad habit of not answering questions asked of you.
And that's not an insult ? Never mind - I guess that's just another
loaded question which is an insult.
>As long as you are going to ask me questions, I would appreciate the
>courtesy of your answering my questions.
There is no rule of tit-for-tat that globally applies as far as I'm
concerned. You have the right to answer my questions or not, or even
see them as not questions at all, as above. I have the right to
answer questions with a simple 'That's none of your business', or even
with 'What's your purpose ?', interestingly enough being one you
haven't answered in which case I'll try to work out the answer myself
just as you do. If I remain interested enough.
Cerridwen
> Cerri...
>
> I can see you have your "groupings"...and that's up to you to do
whatever
> you want.
> Here is my view of what you've said:
>
> OF COURSE there needs to be honest criticism. OF COURSE
> any of us who spent ANY time "In" Scientology had years of "never
criticize
> another...blah blah" until we nearly puked.
Agreed
You and I chose different paths for our exit and healing. Mine is not
better than yours, they are just different.
I chose to leave quietly. There was little trauma and no drama. That
is the way I like it. You chose a different path. That is fine and
you seem to be doing well.
I could not have taken the road out as you did. I don't like all the
noise,the questions or the disruptions in my life. I can only imagine
how rough it was on you as I know how rough it was on me and I didn't
have one hundredth of all the crap you had to put up with.
But again, I am not saying your path is correct and mine is wrong. It
is just the path we both chose. If I was to do it again, I would do it
the exact same way, as that is what suits my personality the best.
Noisy, dramatic and traumatic outings are not something I recommend for
anyone.
The realization alone is bad enough without being hammered by external
forces.
The fact that you are still here and willing to fight is a testimony to
your strength and I admire you for that.
>
> However, there IS a difference in honest criticism, and nagging,
pounding,
> almost spreading of *crap*.....vs. honest criticism. One is true, one
is
> very definitely used by OSA.
> I know you and some others hate to hear the word OSA.
> Well, sorry about that. I hate some things here too, but guess what?
Whether
> you want to believe they are here on ARS or not, doesn't really matter
does
> it? It doesn't even really matter IF someone is OSA or not.
Here's how I see it.
I don't give a flying fuck what OSA thinks or does on ars. I don't care
if they slam critics or not. I don't give a shit if they have a
strategy or not. I do not care. I give them zero credence here. They
can come here and attack anyone, including me if they'd like. The
difference with me is I give them as little ammunition as possible.
The worst they can say about me is I manage to mangle the English
language quite effectively.
The concept that I am having difficulty communicating is that what they
say or think or plan here is NOT important. It is only important if
you let them be important.
OSA's plans and stats are NOT more important than the freedom to speak
freely.
If I think a critic is a loon or stating looney shit, I should be able
to say so without "fear of consequences" from other critics, telling me
to shut up or to stop doing OSA's work.
OK so they have the right to say that, and I am not denying that. But
it reeks of Scn thinking to do that.
That is what I am protesting. The Scn mindset behind the words
"doing OSA's work" .
Yes, yes, yes, it is all true that OSA is just a skanky organization
that does disgusting things to anyone that criticizes Scn. That is a
given. But to accuse anyone and everyone of doing OSA's work because
they dare to criticize another critic is something that I completely
disagree with.
One does not help OSA by criticizing another critic. Actually quite to
the contrary, it in the long run hurts OSA because the OSA ops that
read or participate in ars may eventually have a "cog" that criticism
is a good and healthy thing. People freely communicating without any
qualifiers hurts OSA and Scn in the long run because they can't stand
that type of open communication.
>
> However, there is a point where a poster...and always
anonymous.....will
> almost never post anything factual, or new or unknown here and will
just
be
> pounding on someone over and over. The person has answered, yet they
> continue to "criticize". You can say let it be...and that is your
choice.
> All I say is that IS a different thing than just plain honest
criticism.
I am not sure who exactly you are talking about.
>
> Who are these so called "Victim X-Scios"? You said it, so who are
they? To
> me that in itself is something OSA has been spreading since when I was
"in"
> and watching Yaude post.
> So whether you like it or not, or think it is "yours"....they started
it,
to
> slime the critics, long ago.
Gerry Armstrong and Caroline come to mind immediately. Both have
even posted about being "Scn fair game victims".
Scn did not coin the word victim. It's been around a long time. And
there are certain people that for whatever reason, seem to enjoy being
a victim. I know of non Scns with this same mentality. You can say
that my calling them victims is an example of the Scn mindset, but I
would disagree. Just because Scn uses the word victim in a derogatory
way doesn't mean, I am using it in the same context.
There are in fact people who are true victims of events and then
there are others who relish being a victims and milk it for all it's
worth.
I refuse to be a victim of Scientology. I personally think that it is
a lot better for one's mental health not to adopt a victim mindset,
especially a full time professional one.
--
pts2
LOL Trying introduce an argument of "religion" on a NG
that's about a group that sells itself as the Modern Science of
Mental Health - a cult that's "uses" religion as a ruse. How
transparent of you ExScn/NotAScn! :)
tp
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<w...@Ex.Scn> wrote:
>IP or PI - In and still Programmmed - The Ips, the Pies ?
>OP or PO - Out but still Programmed - the Ops, the Poes ?
>ID or DI - In but detoxed - The Ids, the Dies
>OD or DO - Out and Detoxed - the Odds [mmm :( dunno], The Does
>NIK - Never In but Okay - the Niks
>NIM - Never In but quite mad anyway - the Nims
>NITHO - Never In Teutonic Humourless Obsessives - The Nithoes -
>special group
Okay, I have a question; how would you abbreviate - Never In But Super?
So, someone like me (heh). No, NIBS won't do for obvious reasons :-)
Mikey
--
forum.whyaretheydead.net
NotAScn
(Cerridwen) wrote:
>
>
>"NotAScn" <w...@Ex.Scn> wrote in message
>news:2fq84v0lel4u8mrdn...@4ax.com...
>
>> On 8 Feb 2003 00:26:54 -0000, Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>> (Cerridwen) wrote:
>>
>> >Too bad we are anon posters, I'd love to partake in backchannel
>> >gossipmongering with ya!
>>
>> Yay, yay !! Yeah, but we gotta have a secret code for everybody first
>> but !!
>>
>It appears you haven't be paying attention. We already have it.
>
><<<<***Buttersquash***>>>> is is secret code word.
He :) I'm not going there.
>> How about, instead of all those Ex-Scn group names (which bring back
>> such bad memories for me anyway)
>>
>> II - In and Indoctrinated - The eyes
>> OI - Out by still indoctrinated - the Oys
>> OU - Out but not indoctrinated - the Yous
>> UI - Unindoctrinated but in - the You-ees
>>
>> Nah, nah...try this
>>
>> IP or PI - In and still Programmmed - The Ips, the Pies ?
>> OP or PO - Out but still Programmed - the Ops, the Poes ?
>> ID or DI - In but detoxed - The Ids, the Dies
>> OD or DO - Out and Detoxed - the Odds [mmm :( dunno], The Does
>> NIK - Never In but Okay - the Niks
>> NIM - Never In but quite mad anyway - the Nims
>> NITHO - Never In Teutonic Humourless Obsessives - The Nithoes -
>> special group
>
>LOL!! Brilliant!
>
>
>This also gives you away as being an Ex. The only people I know that
>compulsively abbreviate everything are Scns and Exscns. I even called
>you NAS, I tell you it's a damn compulsion.
>
>
>>
>>
>> So your SP case level is an ID and I'm an OD ?
>>
>> I can live with that :)
>
>Wait a minute. I suppose technically I am an ID, in that I have not
>announced publically to the C of S that I am out. But then I am not
>really in either.
>
>I think I am a NINTOD-- Not In Not Technically Out but Detoxed.
Damn ! Squirrelling already :(
Being Source and also holding the Qual Sec post from above, below and
sideways simultaneously, I proclaim the correct term for you is IDIOD.
The middle I is you, and you're between an ID and an OD. Basically,
you're just not quite the full OD yet.
Off to cramming with you ! Clay Demo, M4 & star-rate. And go get your
dirty grey rags back out of the basement on the way, it might help
keep you focused.
>It's not very pretty but it will have to do. ;-)
I think you're not taking this critic business anywhere seriously
enough. May I remind you that the entire future of every man woman
and child in wogdom, depends on what YOU do, right here, right now !
Where's your bloody Webpage for a start !
pts2
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 05:30:34 GMT, "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net>> >news:4c644vgdmdplsj7hb...@4ax.com...
> >> "Magoo" wrote:
> >> >"ExScn" wrote
> >> >> >"ExScn" wrote
>
> >> >> I don't use a specific set-piece battle plan, armed with documents or
> >> >> URLs, rather it is more a matter of looking for an opening when we get
> >> >> to talking about things Scientological.
> >> >>
> >> >> Generally the younger ones are quite awestruck when it comes to LRon -
> >> >> how he discovered 'everything', knows 'everything' and selflessly
> >> >> sacrificed so much so that others can be free - you know the spiel I'm
> >> >> sure.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I point out things such as LRon's theft of dianetics from (the
> >> >> abandoned) abreactive therapy, that any demonstration of the existence
> >> >> of engrams has failed, the multitude of lies that LRon told about his
> >> >> background etc etc etc - generally I guess it's sowing seeds of doubt.
> >> >>
> >> >> As far as URLs go - Chris Owen's, Andreas's, Jeff Jacobsen, indeed I
> >> >> use many of the critics' websites for material, as well as some posts
> >> >> from ars I have kept over the years.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is an ongoing, fairly low-key, non-confrontational 'battle' which
> >> >> actually is mostly good fun and done in good spirit. I'd like to
> >> >> point out that these kids (and *all* of my Scn family members) are
> >> >> quite happy, quite normally functioning decent members of society,
> >> >> none are drunks, none have drug problems, all are gainfully employed
> >> >> or doing well at school.
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact, in terms of having healthy lifestyles and fulfilling lives
> >> >> they are way out in front of so many of the sad cases among the critic
> >> >> group who are so quick to ridicule and pour scorn on the silly
> >> >> 'clams'.
> >> >>
> >> >> This of course doesn't make Scientology 'right' or 'good' but if the
> >> >> critic group wasn't so inbred it might be able to appreciate these
> >> >> points of view and maybe rethink some of its tactics.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> A great deal of the overblown rhetoric and beat-up horror stories of
> >> >> >> former members that appear on ars are counter productive in my
> >> >> >> opinion, and I express that opinion from time to time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm glad you left that bit in :)
>
> >> >And who do you tell this to? Schools or individuals?
> >>
> >> Just my relatives, they are the only Scientologists I am in contact
> >> with on any sort of regular basis.
> >>
> >> >I understand what you're saying about the critics, and since I've left I
> >> >have told anyone I could that what helped me was Andreas' honest and
> caring
> >> >HELP. It wasn't anyone puting down what I thought was MY religion or me,
> and
> >> >had he not helped me, I very well may never have had the chance to fully
> >> >wake up.
> >>
> >> I have pointed this out previously to those critics crowing over this
> >> claimed 'ars success'. Patient one-on-one is the key and I applaud
> >> Andreas for *all* of his efforts not just those with respect to you.
> >>
> >> >However, I think you are over critical of the critics, too. Have you met
> >> >any of them? Many of the ones I've met have very good lives also.
> >>
> >> kooks, the conspiracy theorists, those who continuously cry 'OSA !!'
> >> as a means of stifling discussion, the 'professional victims' and
> >> probably most particularly those whose lives appear to be either a
> >> total mess or at least devoid of any meaning outside of this
> >> newsgroup, somehow seeing themselves as superior.
> >>
> of
> >> >former members".
> >> >
> >> >Can you give some specifics? The ones I've read are very real, true they
> are
> >> >horror stories, but the ones I've read are not "overblown rhetoric". The
> >> >facts are amazing in themselves, and often horrific.
> >>
> >> Examples of overblown rhetoric are commonplace on this ng, but since
> >> it's you I'm responding to, how about 'Tory/Magoo - Nailed to the
> >> Cross - Spiritual Rape !' :) ?
> >>
> >
> >it's just a point.
> >
> >If you weren't....you have no idea how it felt. But to call it Spiritual
> >Rape is straight across the boards what it was.
> >Sorry it "pushes your buttons" (to use scientologiese)...but that's what
> >went down, plain and simple.
> >
> >Tory/Magoo!
> >
>
> Just thought I'd run it up the flag-pole and see if you saluted :)
Funnee, A couple of weeks ago ran the name "Spurgon" up the flag pole
to see if anybody would salute it. Diane R. snapped to attention and
jumped on it like a big dawg in heat -- much more than a salute! :)
tp
NotAScn
Before we consider your application you do realise this is a secret
and private club, Mikey ?
Do you have any 'certs' ?
Okay. I'll repeat the question. Do you have any 'certs' ?
Okay, where *exactly* did you get them ? Good, When was that
*exactly* ? Fine, How many ? Alright, How pretty are they ? Good, Who
else was there when you got them ? Thank You, What did they say that
you nearly didn't understand ? Good, And what did they do to make you
wonder why you bothered in the first place ?
NotAScn
(Cerridwen) wrote:
-- snipt only because there's a couple of things I want to ask about
>You and I chose different paths for our exit and healing. Mine is not
>better than yours, they are just different.
>
>I chose to leave quietly. There was little trauma and no drama.
I think this is a very significant statement, Cerri. That despite the
length of time you were in (I forget - don't take much notice of stuff
like that), your exit was quite painless. That of course goes against
the grain of the 'hypnotised-brainwashed-exit counselling' group of
'experts', and you've really got to wonder....
>There are in fact people who are true victims of events and then
>there are others who relish being a victims and milk it for all it's
>worth.
There's no doubt there's plenty of people in this business, with all
sorts of cults not just Scientology and whenever there's some sort of
'expose' on some cult or other they get trotted out for the
sound-bites.
The trouble with this whole 'tactic' is the general public has seen it
all so many times that they just don't buy it any more, and when there
are 'real' victims they suffer all the more because of it.
>I refuse to be a victim of Scientology. I personally think that it is
>a lot better for one's mental health not to adopt a victim mindset,
>especially a full time professional one.
Yeah, well just wait till you've been in the one I'm setting up. I'll
show you victim !
Love ya work :)
Warrior
>>>previously using the nickname "ExScn" says...
>>>
>>>Nothing that I binned, which was essentially all Hubbardian concepts
>>>and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
>On 8 Feb 2003 06:30:07 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Now that you've told me this much, I can think of a couple of lawyers
>>and scholars who might have been able to put your materials to good use.
In article <ac7a4v8fovhoi6tkq...@4ax.com>, NotAScn says...
>
>Can't possibly see how but I can't say I care.
>>"NotAScn", previously using the nickname "ExScn" says...
>>>
>>>and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had,
>>There you go again with your nebulous "may have had" statement. It sounds
>>like you're not even sure about whether you ever had any "certs" to begin
>>with.
>You're just so hung up on this !
Not really, although you certainly do continue to make unclear statements
about your possibly once existing "certs".
Perhaps you have "certs" confused with "success stories".
>Here's how it typically went - one did a course with a check-sheet and
>got things ticked off/signed until the last page which said something
>like 'You've finished', get on the cans and write the obligatory phony
>success story.
Do tell me more about an "obligatory phony success story".
>So is that a cert ?
No. A "succes story" is not the same thins as a "cert".
>Who cares ?
>
>And no, I have no intention of detailing the when, what, how, where
>and why of any of this
Good, because I had no intention of asking.
>and if that leads you to some mystical insightful conclusion
Your responses lead me to the conclusion you are confused about what
"certs" are.
>then good luck to you in what appears to be your latest career of Cult
>Exiting Pseudo-Analyst, I'm done with it.
Well, as your initial speculation is false, so your last bit is not
relevant.
Whether you "are done with it" remains to be seen.
Cerridwen
>
> > Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message
> news:<5XAV6L7J3765...@anonymous.poster>...
>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat
anonymously and
> > > I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and
claim
> > > that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
>
> Well...OSA ~does~ always post via remailers.....
>
> hahahahahahahaha! :)
Not usually, they have but generally they seem to have used AOL, cotse,
and newsguy. Cotse and Newsguy don't disclose their IP address so they
have been very useful to them. Remailer can be complicated and I doubt
OSA wants to teach a bunch of guys how to use remailers. That could
definitely back fire on them.
>
> T
> Ps: How ~does~ one post via 'remailers"??
> Please fill me in.
Sure read this.
http://www.xenu.net/aid/anonymous.html
Be sure to click on the remailer link
--
Cerridwen
Warrior
>>
>>Of course you say that's "all you see here". You have a bad habit of
>>asking loaded "questions" which in reality are insults, and you have a
>>bad habit of not answering questions asked of you.
In article <2t8a4vkcvgndjh60f...@4ax.com>, NotAScn says...
>
>And that's not an insult ? Never mind - I guess that's just another
>loaded question which is an insult.
There is no question, let alone a loaded question in these two sentences:
Of course you say that's "all you see here". You have a bad habit of
asking loaded "questions" which in reality are insults, and you have a
bad habit of not answering questions asked of you.
>>As long as you are going to ask me questions, I would appreciate the
>>courtesy of your answering my questions.
>There is no rule of tit-for-tat that globally applies as far as I'm
>concerned.
Thanks for clarifying. If your statement is to be taken at face value,
you see this as only tit-for-tat, I guess.
>You have the right to answer my questions or not, or even
>see them as not questions at all, as above.
I generally perceive questions as questions, and statements as statements.
>I have the right to answer questions with a simple 'That's none of your
>business', or even with 'What's your purpose ?', interestingly enough
>being one you haven't answered
That's an obvious lie. I answered that question.
Jommy Cross
<3pa64v8ma0ci26nur...@4ax.com>:
>On 7 Feb 2003 04:06:57 +0100, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 20:39:23 GMT, ExScn <no...@thnx.net> wrote in msg
>><q4f54v4ma5au55vl3...@4ax.com>:
>><snip>
>>>I've done ship-loads of training - lots of courses with all those
>>>terrific check-sheets, TRs, E-Meter drills, clay-demos,
>>>tape-listenings, red-on-white M4s & star-ratings, etc, etc ad nauseum
>><snip>
>>
>>Hmmm... ad nauseam sounds bad. Was *any* of it worth turning up for?
>
>Listening to the tapes wasn't bad. LRH just bull-shitted on about
>anything and everything, making it all up as he went along. Total
>crap, virtually zero 'technical' content but quite entertaining.
>
>Some of the TRs you could make into fun - specially screaming at
>ashtrays and disrupting the entire org and getting away with it, even
>if they stuck you in the basement. My plan was to get the sucker up
>through sound-waves alone. Nearly did it too !
>
>>What do you think keeps $cienos going?
>
>Can't answer from experience since I didn't keep going :)
>
>If it was cheap (most training is - or was) and I could get a bit of a
>laugh I could do it, but if it was going to cost anything or if it got
>to taking any of it seriously I baled.
>
>Perpetually building sand-castles at the foot of the Bridge was I :)
>
Thanks, d00d.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Warrior
<Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote:
>
>Here's how I see it.
>
>I don't give a flying fuck what OSA thinks or does on ars.
Sure. That's why you post anonymously. You don't care
what OSA thinks or does on ars. That makes perfect sense. :)
>I don't care if they slam critics or not. I don't give a shit if they
>have a strategy or not. I do not care. I give them zero credence here.
<snip>
Certainly they are important enough to you that you keep your identity
hidden. That's okay, but I have a really hard time accepting your
statement that you don't care what OSA thinks or does on ars. The very
fact that you remain anonymous to OSA would seem to support the idea
that you *do* care.
>The concept that I am having difficulty communicating is that what they
>say or think or plan here is NOT important.
So, if OSA posts falsehoods to ars, it's not important to you, even
though it may cause trouble (e.g., sporgery, for but one example) for
someone.
>It is only important if you let them be important.
I see.
Warrior
>
>What do you think keeps $cienos going?
I think it's their expectation or hope that they will achieve the
"gains" or "EP" promised by Scientology, at some level.
Magoo
"NotAScn" <w...@Ex.Scn> wrote in message
> On 8 Feb 2003 06:30:07 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <4sh64v81ss4s5tj2m...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>
> >>Nothing that I binned, which was essentially all Hubbardian concepts
> >>and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
> >
> >Now that you've told me this much, I can think of a couple of lawyers
> >and scholars who might have been able to put your materials to good use.
>
> Can't possibly see how but I can't say I care.
>
> >
> >>and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had,
> >
> >There you go again with your nebulous "may have had" statement. It sounds
> >like you're not even sure about whether you ever had any "certs" to begin
> >with.
>
> You're just so hung up on this !
>
> Here's how it typically went - one did a course with a check-sheet and
> got things ticked off/signed until the last page which said something
> like 'You've finished', get on the cans and write the obligatory phony
> success story.
T) Hmmmmm sounds a bit fishy here, unless you did very little.
However, even with the most basic courses you always get a "cert" or
Certificate ~proving~you did that course. Most people I knew had a tons
stashed back in their garage or in a folder, etc. The higher you get the
bigger they are.
Hey...I just realized OSA managed to pitch/take all of mine when they did
the big sift through my house while I was gone and get rid of every single
Scio deal. Just as well..one more thing I don't have to pitch.
>
> So is that a cert ? Who cares ?
T) I do...and you've yet to answer my initial question. Which level did you
finally get to? Here are the basic stopping points, although you may have a
different tune. One thing I know is people ~don't~forget:
Life Repair
Grades 1-4
Power
Clear
OT 1, 2, 3 ,
OT 4
OT 5
OT 6-7
OT 8
Of course there are 'other' areas or levels ....but I'm just asking IF you
did any of those, and if so, which ones?
You said "OT 1-X which there isn't...so fill us in, and answer the
question...eh?
And no, I have no intention of detailing the when, what, how, where
> and why of any of this and if that leads you to some mystical
> insightful conclusion then good luck to you in what appears to be your
> latest career of Cult Exiting Pseudo-Analyst, I'm done with it.
Ahhh the ol, "I'm done with you" as we keep asking the question. Why not
just answer the question--- Seems easy enough. If you're afraid your family
will notice, I'd suggest leaving off OT 5-8 as there are so few people who
did those levels, they could whittle down a bit with that info.
But it's up to you......
Tory/Magoo!>
>
Magoo
"NotAScn" <w...@Ex.Scn> wrote in message
My Christian minister helped me come up with that.
But you wouldn't know a damn thing about that, would you?
Thanks for being so tender towards my feelings. If only I believed you.
Tory/Magoo!
>
>
Magoo
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:T28HQHN63766...@anonymous.poster...
> "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:KB41a.26921$rq4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message
> > news:<5XAV6L7J3765...@anonymous.poster>...
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat
> anonymously and
> > > > I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and
> claim
> > > > that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
> >
> > Well...OSA ~does~ always post via remailers.....
> >
> > hahahahahahahaha! :)
>
> Not usually, they have but generally they seem to have used AOL, cotse,
> and newsguy. Cotse and Newsguy don't disclose their IP address so they
> have been very useful to them. Remailer can be complicated and I doubt
> OSA wants to teach a bunch of guys how to use remailers. That could
> definitely back fire on them.
>
>
> >
> > T
> > Ps: How ~does~ one post via 'remailers"??
> > Please fill me in.
>
> Sure read this.
>
> http://www.xenu.net/aid/anonymous.html
>
> Be sure to click on the remailer link
Excellent...thank you! We should post this link quite often for people who
knewly arrive here.
Why might it backfire on them? (as if it would for them, wouldn't it for
people trying to keep anonomous?)
Best
Tory/Magoo!
Phil Scott
>
>"ExScn" <no...@thnx.net> wrote in message
>news:4sh64v81ss4s5tj2m...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 05:38:06 GMT, "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>
>I understand about bagging all of it. However, I mention my training only
>for Scios who may be lurking, as I remember when "in"...if a trained person
>left, it meant more than an untrained person...to ME.
>>
>> >What levels DID you get to? I'm interested.
>>
>> There's no such thing Tory :)
>
>Puuuuleeease. So basically you either didn't do any...or very little, eh?
>People who have done various levels usually have no back off in saying so.
>Only those who haven't seem to not want to say, and I think it's because
>THEY feel their may be some significance attatched to it. If there was none,
>why not say?>
>Of course there is no such thing ~really~~but what level did you attest to,
>while "in"?
>
> Cough it up. :)
The true believers these days are mostly people who have done some of the
lower level bait and then *believed the bullshit about upper levels to be
likewise impressive. (base on testimony from people who just finished thier
last bit of brainwash...given before they crashed again into all the previous
disasters)
These have lied to me repeatedly.... then you see them after 20 years in
the cult listed as having just completing the dianetics course or CCRD. ...Mikie
Kobrin after 20 years has just done OT-3.... Im sure he is starting to smell
fish already... clueless..all they know is the conn job but they have not yet
experienced the rip off.
Its part of the plan apparently... keep them in and sucking on the bait as long
as possible.
Phil Scott
>
> Tory/Magoo!
>>
>
>
NotAScn
wrote:
>
>"NotAScn" <w...@Ex.Scn> wrote in message
>news:ac7a4v8fovhoi6tkq...@4ax.com...
>> On 8 Feb 2003 06:30:07 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>>In article <4sh64v81ss4s5tj2m...@4ax.com>, ExScn says...
>>
>> >>Nothing that I binned, which was essentially all Hubbardian concepts
>> >>and constructs as well as the course materials such as check-sheets
>> >
>> >Now that you've told me this much, I can think of a couple of lawyers
>> >and scholars who might have been able to put your materials to good use.
>>
>> Can't possibly see how but I can't say I care.
>>
>> >
>> >>and even the rare bits of certifications I may have had,
>> >
>> >There you go again with your nebulous "may have had" statement. It sounds
>> >like you're not even sure about whether you ever had any "certs" to begin
>> >with.
>>
>> You're just so hung up on this !
>>
>> Here's how it typically went - one did a course with a check-sheet and
>> got things ticked off/signed until the last page which said something
>> like 'You've finished', get on the cans and write the obligatory phony
>> success story.
>
>T) Hmmmmm sounds a bit fishy here, unless you did very little.
>However, even with the most basic courses you always get a "cert" or
>Certificate ~proving~you did that course.
You most certainly don't. Maybe in your neck of the woods, not in
mine. I mentioned this write at the start
Message-ID: <q4f54v4ma5au55vl3...@4ax.com>
>Of course there are 'other' areas or levels ....but I'm just asking IF you
>did any of those, and if so, which ones?
> You said "OT 1-X which there isn't...so fill us in, and answer the
>question...eh?
>
> But it's up to you......
I know. Glad you realise that.
ladayla
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header says...>
>You and I chose different paths for our exit and healing. Mine is not
>better than yours, they are just different.
>
>I chose to leave quietly. There was little trauma and no drama. That
>is the way I like it. You chose a different path. That is fine and
>you seem to be doing well.
>
>I could not have taken the road out as you did. I don't like all the
>noise,the questions or the disruptions in my life. I can only imagine
>how rough it was on you as I know how rough it was on me and I didn't
>have one hundredth of all the crap you had to put up with.
>
>But again, I am not saying your path is correct and mine is wrong. It
>is just the path we both chose. If I was to do it again, I would do it
>the exact same way, as that is what suits my personality the best.
>Noisy, dramatic and traumatic outings are not something I recommend for
>anyone.
>
>The realization alone is bad enough without being hammered by external
>forces.
>
>The fact that you are still here and willing to fight is a testimony to
>your strength and I admire you for that.
I was interested in reading what you said above about what suits your
personality. I have been curious about your presence here, and why you have
chosen to remain anonymous. I have a different point of view. When I left cos, I
did it openly and altho I am not a 'noisy' person, I believe that as many as 40
people were influenced by my leaving and either left themselves, or took a good
look at what was going on in the orgs.Then left. I felt then, and I feel now,
that integrity demanded that I make my stance known. Someone said 'different
strokes for different folks', and i reckon that's the way it is.
la
>