For John and Claire Swazey--the $190,000,000 Question
Anonymous
I just saw a post from Veritas. Glad to see they're back.
Which got me to thinking.
Nobody has asked the Swazeys the $190,000,000 question:
Claire and John - what do you think about the Veritas site? (You can't get
there if you have the $cio-$uper-NetNanny installed. But, you must not,
'cause you are able to get here.)
If for any reason you haven't been there yet, it's at this url:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
There are no Seckrit Skriptyoors or copyright violations on the site--just
documents about a libel suit against CST and information about who owns the
copyrights, etc.
So please let us know what you think about it.
BTW, for every Scientologist posting here so far, this question has been
like garlic or a cross is to a vampire. Not one has ever been willing or
able to discuss one single issue on that site yet. And when asked, they
usually soon disappear for good. (Unless they are OSA-bots. Those are
harder to get rid of than the crabs, and of course they just ignore the
hard questions altogether.)
As a bonus question, why do you think $cn management wanted this site
censored with the $cieo-$uper-NetNanny?
Really, really look forward to your answer...
Curious
WONDERFULR
>Subject: For John and Claire Swazey--the $190,000,000 Question
>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>Date: Mon, Jul 6, 1998 23:43 EDT
>Message-id: <1998070703...@basement.replay.com>
>
>
>I just saw a post from Veritas. Glad to see they're back.
>
>Which got me to thinking.
>
>Nobody has asked the Swazeys the $190,000,000 question:
Or me.
>
>Claire and John - what do you think about the Veritas site? (You can't get
>there if you have the $cio-$uper-NetNanny installed. But, you must not,
>'cause you are able to get here.)
>
I can get there.
>If for any reason you haven't been there yet, it's at this url:
>
>http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
>
>There are no Seckrit Skriptyoors or copyright violations on the site--just
>documents about a libel suit against CST and information about who owns the
>copyrights, etc.
>
I thought it was trying to make a lot of something out of nothing.
The following is quoted from that site:
..The true name of the corporation is "Church of Spiritual Technology"
(CST).
.....From Library of Congress records, it seems that CST now owns ALL
copyrights to everything L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote.
__
The above is stated like it was some sort of revalation. I never knew it was
even a secret to anyone.
__
The story of how CST
came into ownership of all the copyrights is graphed in How CST Grabbed
the Copyrights. As shown in that chart, the copyrights did not transfer
to CST until AFTER they were granted tax exemption by IRS. But it goes
deeper than that. As a result of that tax exemption, CST now also holds
the power and authority to seize all trademarks that are related in any
way to Dianetics or Scientology, and to seize the confidential "Advanced
Technology" (which includes the "OT Levels").
__
>So please let us know what you think about it.
I think I just did.
>
>BTW, for every Scientologist posting here so far, this question has been
>like garlic or a cross is to a vampire. Not one has ever been willing or
>able to discuss one single issue on that site yet.
Yes, this is real unconfrontable to everyone. No, make that boring - yes
*that's* it.
> And when asked, they
>usually soon disappear for good. (Unless they are OSA-bots. Those are
>harder to get rid of than the crabs, and of course they just ignore the
>hard questions altogether.)
And the really pointless ones as well.
>
>As a bonus question, why do you think $cn management wanted this site
>censored with the $cieo-$uper-NetNanny?
>
>Really, really look forward to your answer...
>
>Curious
I think that most ~all~ of the anti church sites would get wrapped in that
blanket.
Can you imagine the kind of e-mail that many Scientologists *would* have
received if not fot the net nanny?
Please send the $190,000 to: wonde...@aol.com, asap.
Thanking you in advance for your speedy reply!
Claire Swazey
Yeah.Everybody knows about that.
john S.
Warrior
says...
>
>Can you imagine the kind of e-mail that many Scientologists *would* have
>received if not fot the net nanny?
I have never sent any hateful emails to Scientologists.
Sadly, Scientologists cannot all say the same about their
emails to me.
In fact, the only emails *and* postal mail with profanity
directed at me that I have *ever* received in my entire
life have ALL been from Scientologists.
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
and http://www.factnet.org
Starshadow
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
rmayf
Warrior wrote in message <6nsk2j$a...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <199807070538...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com
>says...
>>
>>Can you imagine the kind of e-mail that many Scientologists *would* have
>>received if not fot the net nanny?
>
<Snipped>
Regardless, they could use a killfile, and decide for themselves, rather
then let others make the decision for them.
rmayf
__________________________________________
The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a
condition of it.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Warrior
stars...@mindless.com says...
>
> Scarffbag has never emailed you? Lucky you...
He's never sent me any nasty emails.
Warrior - for stories from ex-Scienos (including mine)
see http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/
Lisa Chabot
>Regardless, they could use a killfile, and decide for themselves, rather
>then let others make the decision for them.
Yeah, I thought Scientology was supposed to make you more able...
but I thought it was supposed to do this by making you smarter and
stronger, not by wrapping you in cotton wool.
What gives?
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
Anonymous
On 7 July 1998, in message
<199807070538...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wonde...@aol.com
(WONDERFULR) wrote:
<SNIP>
>>what do you think about the Veritas site?
<SNIP>
>I thought it was trying to make a lot of something out of
>nothing.
>
>The following is quoted from that site:
>
>..The true name of the corporation is "Church of Spiritual
>Technology" (CST).
>.....From Library of Congress records, it seems that CST now
>owns ALL copyrights to everything L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote.
>
>The above is stated like it was some sort of revalation. I
>never knew it was even a secret to anyone.
Well, WonderBluss, you're either:
1. Lying,
2. Incredibly out of touch with other Scientologists,
and/or
3. Among the cognoscenti of Scientology (like, er, OSA, maybe), and
therefore much better informed than even the higher echelons of the
rank-and-file public or staff.
After seeing Veritas, A couple of friends and I did our own informal survey
of Scientologists we know, both staff and public, both active and former.
Out of 22 people asked, NOT ONE knew:
A. That CST and L. Ron Hubbard Library were one in the same.
B. That CST owned all the copyrights.
C. What the L. Ron Hubbard Library was or did.
D. That CST was anything more than an "archiving project" of "the Church."
That's a statistical ZERO. Note even ONE out of 22.
And, since there is NOT ONE piece of official, printed Scientology
literature that can be found ANYWHERE that tells the truth, to whit:
A. That CST and L. Ron Hubbard Library are one in the same,
B. That CST owns all the copyrights,
C. That the "L. Ron Hubbard Library" is just a fictitious business name for
CST, and
D. That CST - far more than being just an "archiving project" of "the
Church" - is actually the most powerful organization in the entire
Scientology heirarchy,
why, then, did you not think it was a secret? How did YOU find out? Who
told you the truth? It's not in the big squirrel handbook, "What is
Scientology." It's not in policy. It's not in any brochures or magazines or
handouts. It's not on any public org board. So how did YOU know about it,
prior to Veritas?
<SNIP>
>>
>>BTW, for every Scientologist posting here so far, this question
>>has been like garlic or a cross is to a vampire. Not one has
>>ever been willing or able to discuss one single issue on that
>>site yet.
>
>Yes, this is real unconfrontable to everyone. No, make that
>boring - yes *that's* it.
>
Which part is boring? The part about CST co-founder Meade Emory being a
former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, during the same period when
IRS employee Gerald Wolfe was passing stolen government documents to GO
operatives?
(see: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/secret/index.htm )
You find THAT boring, even though you know that Emory co-founded the
corporation (CST) which then wound up owning ALL the copyrights? Hmmm. That
bores you? I notice you didn't refer to that part of the site. Can you
comment on THAT? (And don't forget: that IRS employee Wolfe WAIVED his
legal right to be indicted within 45 days of his arrest, thereby allowing
the government over a YEAR after his arrest to build a case against Mary
Sue and the GO. I found that just simply fascinating. Didn't you?)
Or how about the fact that three out of four of the co-founders of CST are
non-Scientology lawyers? Don't you find that just a teensy-weensy bit
interesting? Or does that bore you, too, oh worldly-one? Is that another
one of those ho-hum "everybody knows" kind of things not worth mentioning?
I ask because you didn't mention it.
And let's not forget "A New Slant on Fraud"
(see: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/newslant/index.htm )
All that alter-is of L. Ron Hubbard's writings is just "boring," huh? Could
you comment on the squirrelling being done by the copyright owners:
non-Scientologist-dominated CST, WonderBluss? Or would you just rather
ignore the hard questions altogether, just like one of the...
>>OSA-bots. Those are harder to get rid of than the crabs, and of
>>course they just ignore the hard questions altogether.)
>
>And the really pointless ones as well.
Pointless? As in, "Why is CST putting out squirrel versions of all the
books?" Is that pointless? Or can you answer it? I'd really like to hear
what you have to say on it.
>>
>>As a bonus question, why do you think $cn management wanted
>this site censored with the $cieo-$uper-NetNanny?
>>
>>Really, really look forward to your answer...
>>
>>Curious
>
>I think that most ~all~ of the anti church sites would get
>wrapped in that blanket.
Which blanket is that? The smothering blanket of censorship?
Regardless, how is Veritas at all anti-church? Do you mean it contains
false reports, lies? Can you document ONE lie on the site? Just ONE, Russ?
Please? Humor me. If you have some disagreement with Veritas, it must have
some lies there. And, if so, you surely can prove the lies. Remember,
that's what "Dead Agenting" really is: prove just ONE lie, and Veritas
becomes a "Dead Agent." That's how you're supposed to do it. That's in the
PR Series. Creating censorship software isn't. That isn't in the tech
anywhere. In fact, LRH says that ARC lines are sacred, and specifies some
STRICT handlings for management who would cut or pervert those lines. So,
why don't you be more "in-tech" than the current "management," and do the
right thing: Dead Agent Veritas by proving ONE lie that is there on the
site.
>Can you imagine the kind of e-mail that many Scientologists
>*would* have received if not fot the net nanny?
WTF does that have to do with Veritas?
>Please send the $190,000 to: wonde...@aol.com, asap.
>
>Thanking you in advance for your speedy reply!
You're off by a factor of 10: That's $190,000,000. And you didn't answer
the question. So, will you answer now?
Curious
Anonymous
On 7 July 1998, in message <35A1CA19...@home.com>, John Swazey,
d.b.a. Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>, regarding the web site at
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
wrote:
>WONDERFULR wrote:
<SNIP>
>Yeah.Everybody knows about that.
>
>john S.
Well, hi there, Mr. Me-Too.
Since all you "me-too-ed" was WONDERFULR's evasion of the tough questions,
I'll put the same ones to you that I did in my response to him:
QUESTION #1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is NOT ONE piece of official, printed Scientology literature that can
be found ANYWHERE that tells the truth, to whit:
A. That CST and L. Ron Hubbard Library are one in the same,
B. That CST owns all the copyrights,
C. That the "L. Ron Hubbard Library" is just a fictitious business name for
CST, and
D. That CST - far more than being just an "archiving project" of "the
Church" - is actually the most powerful organization in the entire
Scientology heirarchy,
So, why, then, did you not think it was a secret? How did YOU find out? Who
told you the truth? It's not in the big squirrel handbook, "What is
Scientology." It's not in policy. It's not in any brochures or magazines or
handouts. It's not on any public org board. So how did YOU know about it,
prior to Veritas?
QUESTION #2:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Were you aware of CST co-founder Meade Emory being a former Assistant to
the Commissioner of IRS, during the same period when IRS employee Gerald
Wolfe was passing stolen government documents to GO operatives?
(see: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/secret/index.htm )
Emory co-founded the corporation (CST) which then wound up owning ALL the
copyrights. Hmmm. I notice you didn't refer to that part of the site. Can
you comment on THAT? (And don't forget: that IRS employee Wolfe WAIVED his
legal right to be indicted within 45 days of his arrest, thereby allowing
the government over a YEAR after his arrest to build a case against Mary
Sue and the GO. I found that just simply fascinating. Didn't you?)
QUESTION #3:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that three out of four of the co-founders of CST are
non-Scientology lawyers? Don't you find that just a teensy-weensy bit
interesting? Or does that bore you, too, oh worldly-one? Is that another
one of those ho-hum "everybody knows" kind of things not worth mentioning?
I ask because you didn't mention it.
Tell us what you think about that.
QUESTION #4:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And let's not forget "A New Slant on Fraud"
(see: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/newslant/index.htm )
All that alter-is of L. Ron Hubbard's writings is just "boring," huh? Could
you comment on the squirrelling being done by the copyright owners:
non-Scientologist-dominated CST? Do you think it is in any way related to
the fact that the "Special Directors" of CST are non-Scientologist tax
attorneys? Or didn't you know that either?
So, would you and/or the real Claire care to comment? Or are you going to
wait for WONDERFULDODGE to avoid the questions in his thread, and then
"me-too" him again?
Curious
Claire Swazey
This is just in relation to the questions of whether or not this was
hidden information. This was covered at an C of S event that I attended
several years ago. And no, I don't have the specifics, it just wasn't
that big a deal at the time.
Claire is going to be unavailable for a little while.
John S.
John_M...@my-dejanews.com
You seem to be saying that, at this C of S event, they discussed CST altering
LRH texts, and that it was not big deal. Is this what you are in fact saying?
Such alteration of LRH texts sounds mighty off-policy to me. Please clarify.
[Scott]
NYC SP
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
David Gerard
:Claire is going to be unavailable for a little while.
Damn, I said two weeks and it turned out to be one day.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
The above was written by the container formerly known as David Gerard.
See http://www.subgenius.com/ for details. It's too late to pay your $30.
Claire Swazey
>
> On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 01:08:20 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> :Claire is going to be unavailable for a little while.
>
> Damn, I said two weeks and it turned out to be one day.
You were referring to a temporary absence? The ng thought you were
betting on permanent...
WONDERFULR
>$190,000,000 Question
>From: Warrior <war...@entheta.net>
>Date: Tue, Jul 7, 1998 03:51 EDT
>Message-id: <6nsk2j$a...@drn.newsguy.com>
>>received if not fot the net nanny?
>
I never said *you* did.
The question was: Can you imagine the kind of e-mail that many Scientologists
*would* have received if not fot the net nanny?
There are many here who feel the ~need~ to give Scientologists the "truth"
about Scientology. I have had those "truths" sent to me and posted for me on
ars, many times.
Some critics have a pretty high concept of truth, and tend to not say things
that are just invented. Others do not quite see it the same way.
I have seen - here on ars - posting of 800 numbers ,encouraging the readers to
call in order to waste the church's money. Or to send in bricks with a postage
paid envelope.
I'm not saying *you* did these things - but I am saying they do occur here.
Routinely.
>Sadly, Scientologists cannot all say the same about their
>emails to me.
>
Some can, some can't. Same as my point about critics, above.
>In fact, the only emails *and* postal mail with profanity
>directed at me that I have *ever* received in my entire
>life have ALL been from Scientologists.
I can get you on some interesting mailing lists if a lack of profanity is a
problem for you. :-)
>
>Warrior
WONDERFULR
>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>Date: Tue, Jul 7, 1998 19:45 EDT
>Message-id: <1998070723...@basement.replay.com>
>
>
>On 7 July 1998, in message <35A1CA19...@home.com>, John Swazey,
>d.b.a. Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>, regarding the web site at
>
>http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/
>
>wrote:
>
>>WONDERFULR wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah.Everybody knows about that.
>>
>>john S.
>
>Well, hi there, Mr. Me-Too.
>
>Since all you "me-too-ed" was WONDERFULR's evasion of the tough questions,
>I'll put the same ones to you that I did in my response to him:
I wasn't trying to "evade" your questions - they just seemed so deeply rooted
in paranoia that it was difficult to take them seriously.
Plus there was an antagonism exhibited that I found way out of line for someone
really trying to get a question answered.
I don't "owe" you or anybody else my time to answer your questions.
David Gerard
:David Gerard wrote:
:> On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 01:08:20 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
:> :Claire is going to be unavailable for a little while.
:> Damn, I said two weeks and it turned out to be one day.
:You were referring to a temporary absence? The ng thought you were
:betting on permanent...
Did it?
Sunday 19th July currently stands. Perhaps another two week sif going into
Enzo mode.
Stephen Jones
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
<snip>
>The question was: Can you imagine the kind of e-mail that many
>Scientologists *would* have received if not fot the net nanny?
>There are many here who feel the ~need~ to give Scientologists the "truth"
>about Scientology. I have had those "truths" sent to me and posted for me
>on ars, many times.
Russell, should I mark you down as:
1. Supporting the CoS Net filter as it is.
2. Supporting the CoS Net filter with some modifications.
3. Not in support of the CoS Net filter.
4. Somewhere between 1 and 3.
The filter wouldn't be an issue to me if the CoS would allow the users the
ability to modify the list of filtered names if they so desired. Users
could look at the list if they wanted and change it or never ever look at
it. I'm feeling this is a great solution that would support the claim the
CoS wants members to think for themselves. Who could disagree?
I'm curious how you see it. Whip has just ignored the question. Perhaps
I'm in his killfile. Myabe i've missed 'em. Who knows? I'd just like to
get some feedback from the other side of the fence.
Damn, I used the feedback word. I might as well crawl back into my little
cubicle to finish my transformation into The Proactive Go-to Guy! C'mon,
everyone, let's write some mission statements!
Writer of world-class usenet posts that lead the market in proactive
solutions to the dynamic distribution of opinions, weird hyphenations and
loads of little dots.........
Stephen Jones
<snip>
Starshadow
wonde...@aol.com says...
> >Subject: Hey Russ! - was Re: For John and Claire Swazey--the
> >$190,000,000 Question
> >From: Warrior <war...@entheta.net>
> >Date: Tue, Jul 7, 1998 03:51 EDT
> >Message-id: <6nsk2j$a...@drn.newsguy.com>
> >
> >In article <199807070538...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> >wonde...@aol.com
> >says...
> >>
> >>received if not fot the net nanny?
> >
>
> I never said *you* did.
>
> *would* have received if not fot the net nanny?
Russ, my e-mail address is readily available. If your rationale is true,
then scientologists also have equal opportunity to send hate e-mail or
whatever to me. Yet I retain the abilty to accept it or not, as I please.
Why is your cult so afraid to allow its members that ability?
>
> There are many here who feel the ~need~ to give Scientologists the "truth"
> about Scientology. I have had those "truths" sent to me and posted for me on
> ars, many times.
And your point is what? That you retain the right to see them, or
delete them, whereas others may not think for themselves? Is this kind
of like your bigot page which you say you defend but have yet to, point
by point?
>
> Some critics have a pretty high concept of truth, and tend to not say things
> that are just invented. Others do not quite see it the same way.
Invented? Like what, Russ? Name me what you think is invented. Your
guru's imaginary war record? His happy married life, including the wife
he denied having? His wonderful relationship with sons Quentin and Nibs?
What inventions are you talking about?
>
> I have seen - here on ars - posting of 800 numbers ,encouraging the readers to
> call in order to waste the church's money. Or to send in bricks with a postage
> paid envelope.
And you've also seen many critics saying this is a bad idea. This is
Usenet, not a cult. People disagree, and some people say stupid things.
>
> I'm not saying *you* did these things - but I am saying they do occur here.
> Routinely.
So do your cult's lies. Routinely. Your point?
>
>
> >Sadly, Scientologists cannot all say the same about their
> >emails to me.
> >
>
> Some can, some can't. Same as my point about critics, above.
>
> >In fact, the only emails *and* postal mail with profanity
> >directed at me that I have *ever* received in my entire
> >life have ALL been from Scientologists.
>
> I can get you on some interesting mailing lists if a lack of profanity is a
> problem for you. :-)
>
> >
> >Warrior
Actually the only problem email I've gotten is from Scarffbag, and I
don't know whether he is a paid OSA operative, a person who badly needs
attention no matter what kind, or a total flake. Maybe all of the above.
But I've bounced mail from him, and I made that decision. Nobody else.
Me.
Anonymous
Waaaaaay back on 11 July 1998, in justifying his earlier non-response to
several very clear questions, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) submitted the
following communication lag:
>
>I wasn't trying to "evade" your questions - they just seemed so
>deeply rooted in paranoia that it was difficult to take them
>seriously.
>
>Plus there was an antagonism exhibited that I found way out of
>line for someone really trying to get a question answered.
>
>I don't "owe" you or anybody else my time to answer your
>questions.
Well, WONDERFULR, thank you for the reasonable explanation. I've waited in
vain since then, hoping you would post again, actually answering the
questions I had asked. But you haven't answered, though I've waited
quietly, patiently.
Here are some pertinent quotes from L. Ron Hubbard:
"In Scientology there is a test for sanity and comparative
sanity which is so simple that anyone can apply it. What is
the communication lag of the individual? When asked a
question, how long does it take him to answer? When a remark
is addressed to him, how long does it take for him to
register and return? The fast answer tells of the fast mind
and the sane mind, providing the answer is a sequitur; the
slow answer tells of downscale."
L. Ron Hubbard
The Journal of Scientology
Issue 13-G, 1953 (ca. early April)
"The exact definition of a communication lag is: 'the length
of time intervening between the posing of a question, or
origination of a statement, and the exact moment that
question or original statement is answered.'
"If you will look very closely at this definition you
will discover that nothing is said, whatever, about what goes
on between the asking of the question or the origination of a
communication and its being answered. What goes on in
between is lag. It does not matter if the preclear stood on
his head, went to the North Pole, gave a dissertation on
Botany, stood silent, answered some other question, thought
it over, attacked the auditor, or began to string beads. Any
other action but answering, and the time taken up by that
action, is communication lag."
L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics 55!
So, now that we've had a little refresher course, here, again, are the
questions I asked that are STILL unanswered:
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNANSWERED QUESTION #1:
After seeing Veritas, A couple of friends and I did our own informal survey
of Scientologists we know, both staff and public, both active and former.
Out of 22 people asked, NOT ONE knew:
A. That CST and L. Ron Hubbard Library were one in the same.
B. That CST owned all the copyrights.
C. What the L. Ron Hubbard Library was or did.
D. That CST was anything more than an "archiving project" of "the Church."
That's a statistical ZERO. Note even ONE out of 22.
And, since there is NOT ONE piece of official, printed Scientology
literature that can be found ANYWHERE that tells the truth, to whit:
A. That CST and L. Ron Hubbard Library are one in the same,
B. That CST owns all the copyrights,
C. That the "L. Ron Hubbard Library" is just a fictitious business name for
CST, and
D. That CST - far more than being just an "archiving project" of "the
Church" - is actually the most powerful organization in the entire
Scientology heirarchy,
why, then, did you not think it was a secret? How did YOU find out? Who
told you the truth? It's not in the big squirrel handbook, "What is
Scientology." It's not in policy. It's not in any brochures or magazines or
handouts. It's not on any public org board. So how did YOU know about it,
prior to Veritas?
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNANSWERED QUESTION #2
(In an earlier post you had referred to the Veritas site as "boring.")
Which part is boring? The part about CST co-founder Meade Emory being a
former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, during the same period when
IRS employee Gerald Wolfe was passing stolen government documents to GO
operatives?
(see: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/secret/index.htm )
You find THAT boring, even though you know that Emory co-founded the
corporation (CST) which then wound up owning ALL the copyrights? Can you
comment on THAT? (And don't forget: that IRS employee Wolfe WAIVED his
legal right to be indicted within 45 days of his arrest, thereby allowing
the government over a YEAR after his arrest to build a case against Mary
Sue and the GO. I found that just simply fascinating. Didn't you?)
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNANSWERED QUESTION #3
How about the fact that three out of four of the co-founders of CST are
non-Scientology lawyers? Do you have anything to say on that subject?
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNANSWERED QUESTION #4
And let's not forget "A New Slant on Fraud"
(see: http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/newslant/index.htm )
Could you comment on the squirrelling being done by the copyright owners:
non-Scientologist-dominated CST,
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNANSWERED QUESTION #5
Why is CST putting out squirrel versions of all the books? I'd really like
to hear what you have to say on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNANSWERED QUESTION #5
You grouped Veritas in with "anti-church site." How is Veritas at all
anti-church? Do you mean it contains false reports, lies? Can you document
ONE lie on the site? Just ONE, Russ? Please? Humor me. If you have some
disagreement with Veritas, it must have some lies there. And, if so, you
surely can prove the lies. Remember, that's what "Dead Agenting" really is:
prove just ONE lie, and Veritas becomes a "Dead Agent." That's how you're
supposed to do it. That's in the PR Series. Creating censorship software
isn't. That isn't in the tech anywhere. In fact, LRH says that ARC lines
are sacred, and specifies some STRICT handlings for management who would
cut or pervert those lines. So, why don't you be more "in-tech" than the
current "management," and do the right thing: Dead Agent Veritas by proving
ONE lie that is there on the site.
So, there you go, WONDERFULR. Eminently answerable questions posed to an
eminent authority: you.
And they take on an even greater level of interest in light of Mike
Rinder's purported claim of "friends in high places." (Of course, if he's
referring to the agencies named in that article, it just goes to show how
beauty and ugliness, goodness and badness, highness and lowness, are alike
considerations, doesn't it? That's a rhetorical question. No answer
expected.)
But as for the non-rhetorical questions, will there be another eminent
communication lag?
Starting stopwatch....NOW!
WONDERFULR
>From: Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
>Date: Mon, Aug 3, 1998 11:33 EDT
>Message-id: <1998080315...@replay.com>
>
>
>Waaaaaay back on 11 July 1998, in justifying his earlier non-response to
>several very clear questions, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) submitted the
>following communication lag:
>
>>
>>I wasn't trying to "evade" your questions - they just seemed so
>>deeply rooted in paranoia that it was difficult to take them
>>seriously.
>>
The above is just typical of the kind of crap that wonderfulr writes. It is no
small wonder that he is mainly regarded as a big giant asshole.
>>Plus there was an antagonism exhibited that I found way out of
>>line for someone really trying to get a question answered.
>>
>>I don't "owe" you or anybody else my time to answer your
>>questions.
>
>Well, WONDERFULR, thank you for the reasonable explanation.
You are quite welcome, Anonymous.
> I've waited in
>vain since then, hoping you would post again, actually answering the
>questions I had asked. But you haven't answered, though I've waited
>quietly, patiently.
You have done everything right. I've been totally wrong.
>
>Here are some pertinent quotes from L. Ron Hubbard:
>
>
> "In Scientology there is a test for sanity and comparative
> sanity which is so simple that anyone can apply it. What is
> the communication lag of the individual? When asked a
> question, how long does it take him to answer? When a remark
> is addressed to him, how long does it take for him to
> register and return? The fast answer tells of the fast mind
> and the sane mind, providing the answer is a sequitur; the
> slow answer tells of downscale."
>
> L. Ron Hubbard
This is a great quote. Too bad for me that it establishes me as being insane.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>UNANSWERED QUESTION #1:
>
>After seeing Veritas, A couple of friends and I did our own informal survey
>of Scientologists we know, both staff and public, both active and former.
>Out of 22 people asked, NOT ONE knew:
>
>A. That CST and L. Ron Hubbard Library were one in the same.
>
>B. That CST owned all the copyrights.
>
>C. What the L. Ron Hubbard Library was or did.
>
Guess - like anything else - it depends on who you ask.
>D. That CST was anything more than an "archiving project" of "the Church."
>
>That's a statistical ZERO. Note even ONE out of 22.
Shocking. Is it possible that none of them cared?
>why, then, did you not think it was a secret?
Because I knew.
> How did YOU find out?
I really don't remember. That *IS* the answer. It was not some sort of "big
event" in my life when I got the data. It was just data.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>UNANSWERED QUESTION #2
>
>(In an earlier post you had referred to the Veritas site as "boring.")
Yes. And I went and looked at it again last night. My answer is still the
same.
>
>Which part is boring?
Most all of it.
It seemed chock full of the kind of conspiracy stuff that I have seen many
times over the years (Tri Lateral Commission running Washington type stuff).
Real boring.
> The part about CST co-founder Meade Emory being a
>former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, during the same period when
>IRS employee Gerald Wolfe was passing stolen government documents to GO
>operatives?
Yes. This is just a sample of what I found boring.
>You find THAT boring, even though you know that Emory co-founded the
>corporation (CST) which then wound up owning ALL the copyrights? Can you
>comment on THAT?
Yes. I found it boring.
You don't find it boring. So think about it and try to get others to think
about it all you want. That isn't going to make it interesting to me.
>the government over a YEAR after his arrest to build a case against Mary
>Sue and the GO. I found that just simply fascinating. Didn't you?)
No. This kind of crap has always bored me.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>UNANSWERED QUESTION #3
>
>How about the fact that three out of four of the co-founders of CST are
>non-Scientology lawyers? Do you have anything to say on that subject?
No.
You have several points that - TO YOU - are "real interesting". And the fact
that I (along with most others find all of it to be of no consequence is - TO
YOU - UNBELIEVABLE.
Just more *proof* of a "cover up". The ~fact~ that I "don't want to say
anything" *proves* something.
Just like the John Birch guys who wanted to establish Dwight Eisenhower was a
communist. I see it as the same level of "proof". (and just as a point - I
found all that crap real *uninteresting* as well).
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>UNANSWERED QUESTION #4
>
>And let's not forget "A New Slant on Fraud"
>
>Could you comment on the squirrelling being done by the copyright owners:
>non-Scientologist-dominated CST,
Yes.
I think (and this most certainly includes you) that anyone who thinks of this
as "squirreling" is a ** complete** idiot. (add moron and cretin too)
To take data that is INTENDED FOR A PUBLIC AUDIENCE and make it "div 6"
compatible - just like I would verbally, if I were giving a talk - and then say
that they are doing something *wrong* for doing that is beyond comprehension.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>UNANSWERED QUESTION #5
>
>Why is CST putting out squirrel versions of all the books? I'd really like
>to hear what you have to say on it.
>
See above. Including my name calling.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>UNANSWERED QUESTION #5
>
>You grouped Veritas in with "anti-church site." How is Veritas at all
>anti-church? Do you mean it contains false reports, lies? Can you document
>ONE lie on the site? Just ONE, Russ? Please? Humor me.
I already have. Consider yourself lucky.
>
>So, there you go, WONDERFULR. Eminently answerable questions posed to an
>eminent authority: you.
Only semi-smart thing in your entire post. (the eminent authority part :->)
>But as for the non-rhetorical questions, will there be another eminent
>communication lag?
>
>Starting stopwatch....NOW!
Do you have the kind of stopwatch that you can wind WHILE it is running?
ace of clubs
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Hellll-l-l-l-oh, WonderBluss!
Why, I no sooner get back from a loverly summer vacation, when what, to my
wondering eyes, did appear but a puerile and pusillanimous post from
you--dear, sweet pucker-butt OSA-line boy that you are--fire-hosing yer own
unique, partikyoolahr brand of party-line entheta around.
So I jes' HAD to drop you a note! Aren't you happy to see me! How about a
big kiss for ol' Ace! No? Well, let's jest get to yer post, then,
pucker-butt OSA-line boy.
You said, to my good friend Anoneemoose:
>>I wasn't trying to "evade" your questions - they just seemed so
>>deeply rooted in paranoia that it was difficult to take them
>>seriously.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, WonderWhacker! Them's mighty high-falutin' PSYCH terms
yer slinging around, there! "Paranoia?" Tsk, tsk! Whose tek are you oozin'
and usin' these days, WonderBread? Is that what yer wog-lawyer masters are
having you study now? Psych shit? Did they send you to see ol' Jolly
hisself? (BTW, how's his wife? She still connected with VA hospitals?)
Sounds like you been gettin' a little of that Jolly medicine, 'cause you've
already started talkin' about yerself in the third person. You sed, about
yer-own-self:
>The above is just typical of the kind of crap that wonderfulr
>writes. It is no small wonder that he is mainly regarded as a
>big giant asshole.
Well, I wouldn't want to try and improve on yer own self-assessment, even
when done in the third person. I believe that it is a good first step in
the psychiatric approach to self-improvement. Lenske would be proud of you,
and I am too.
Now, I noticed that my dear friend and compatriot, the now famous and
omnipresent Anonymous, then tried to steer you gently away from CST's
psych-saturated "tek," and bring you back into the Scientology fold:
>>
>>Here are some pertinent quotes from L. Ron Hubbard:
>>
>>
>> "In Scientology there is a test for sanity and comparative
>> sanity which is so simple that anyone can apply it. What is
>> the communication lag of the individual? When asked a
>> question, how long does it take him to answer? When a
>> remark is addressed to him, how long does it take for him
>> to register and return? The fast answer tells of the fast
>> mind and the sane mind, providing the answer is a sequitur;
>> the slow answer tells of downscale."
>>
>> L. Ron Hubbard
And you sed:
>This is a great quote. Too bad for me that it establishes me
>as being insane.
Hmmmm. Well, let's move on, shall we?
The ever-astute and inquisitive Anonymoose, a scholarly lad, then inquired
about how you--unlike the vast majority of starry-eyed scienos--managed to
find out about CST's secretive total control over Scientology:
>> How did YOU find out?
>
>I really don't remember. That *IS* the answer. It was not some
>sort of "big event" in my life when I got the data. It was just
>data.
Uh, WonderBluss, have you ever evaluated any "data," or is every datum just
like every other datum to you? You do realize, don't you, that yer Founder
and Spiritual Leader, L. Ron Hubbard, sed:
"LOGIC 9. A DATUM IS AS VALUABLE AS IT HAS BEEN EVALUATED."
"LOGIC 10. THE VALUE OF A DATUM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE AMOUNT
OF ALIGNMENT (RELATIONSHIP) IT IMPARTS TO OTHER DATA."
So, WonderWitz, where does the datum that "CST is the ultimate supreme
power over everything and everybody in Scientology, while pretending to be
something else, and while being guided by hidden, secretive non-Scientology
lawyers," fit into yer own cosmology of "data"? Jest a little buzzing gnat
of no partikyoolahr significance?
I see where yer coming from, WonderNut. Lessee: submarines, hot dogs,
Dachsunds, Datsuns, Japanese, sneeze, Louise, Dylan, CST wog lawyers
running Scientology, petunias, petticoats, junction, thighs.... I get you.
It's just data. Got it. Thanks, man.
No point junkin' up yer over-crowded mind tryin' to keep track of where
THAT silly ol' datum about CST being in ultimate and complete control over
your religion came from. Meaningless.
(BTW, I sure would like it if you'd challenge the statement I made above,
about CST being in ultimate and supreme power. I got a few leeettle
dokyuments here that a silent friend dropped in my box, some that I ain't
had a good exkyoose to post yet. Sure would love to oblige you if you want
to challenge me.)
Then my worthy colleague, Anoniemeese, inquired about which parts of the
Veritas site--the planet I am rumoured to hail from, where bug-eyed
monsters with snapping, saw-toothed mandibles lurk behind every purple,
tentacled bush--was "boring" to you:
>>Which part is boring?
>
>Most all of it.
>
>It seemed chock full of the kind of conspiracy stuff that I
>have seen many times over the years (Tri Lateral Commission
>running Washington type stuff).
>Real boring.
WonderPucker, I jest want to extend to you my personal, warm thanks for the
invaluable service you provide to mankind.
Without putrefaction, we could not fully appreciate healthy wholeness.
Without snuffling perverts, we would have no way to properly praise moral
rectitude. And without knee-jerk, cliche-ridden idiots like you, we would
never take due notice of the intelligent, the discerning, the thoughtful
among us. I salute you.
There must be a maxim: "Give an idiot more than one fact, and he will call
it a conspiracy."
And a corollary: "Give an idiot more than two facts, and he will call it
boring."
And another corollary: "Give an idiot that which he has no answer for, and
he will automatically derisively invoke 'The Trilateral Commission' or the
'John Birch Society' as a defense against it--knowing nothing about either
except for having heard the names."
God bless, you WonderfulR. You and maggots. God put you both here for a
purpose.
Here's the truth, though, for those who watch where they step: Yer bosses
at CST are scared SHITLESS about the Veritas site, because it's the first
time the whole story has been laid out in full, and they can't do a damn
thing about it.
If they could, they would have. If anything on that site were false, they
would have sued. But they can't. And they can't get it taken down, try
though they did. And they failed embarrassingly. So they censored the site
instead. And they send morons like you to try and position it with nut-case
"conspiracy" theories, and to down-play the significance of the information
on the site with yer bullshit "ho-hum" attitude and yer Reagan-inspired "I
can't remember where I found out" bullshit.
In other words, like yer wog-lawyer masters, like Davey The Carved
Front-Boy Miscavige, like Lyin' Lymon Spurtlack, like the Lyin' Lenske
Bros., like Meade "You Show Me Yours And I'll Show You Mine" Emory (more to
follow on that--stay tuned!), we have jest one more lyin' motherfucker
spoutin' the party line.
I luv you for it! Won't you reconsider givin' Ace a big ol' wet kiss? No?
Then how about we explore this a little further? How about we get out the
sharp probes and forehead reflectors, like they did with an old guy we all
know and love (what's up in those VA hospitals, anyway?), and jest dig
around a little bit. Do a little exploratory surgery into this pus-swollen
cavity. Les' jest open 'er up a little bit and see what pulses and spews
out, shall we, WonderPus?
Anonymous asked about:
>>The part about CST co-founder Meade Emory being a
>>former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, during the same
>>period when IRS employee Gerald Wolfe was passing stolen
>>government documents to GOoperatives?
And YOU sed:
>Yes. This is just a sample of what I found boring.
Well, there's a new little piece of news that's recently emerged regarding
yer "boring" friend, Mr. "You Show Me Yours And I'll Show You Mine" Emory,
that holiest of Founders of CST--the lead church of yer chosen religion.
Yes, there's some mighty interesting background material, and I hope you'll
call him up and let him know that several members of his Fan Club around
the country--and around the world--are right now holding onto these
fascinating tidbits about his championing of the "naked" truth (he'll
know), jest waiting for them to ripen before shipping them. It's an export
that the world isn't quite ready for yet, but the time draws nigh. (He'll
know.) Stay tuned, WonderFool. If you can stay awake.
But the rapier-witted Anonymouse axed you:
>>
>>How about the fact that three out of four of the co-founders of
>>CST are non-Scientology lawyers? Do you have anything to say on
>>that subject?
And you sed:
>No.
A shining moment of candor. Of course, WTF *CAN* you say about it. It's
jest a pathetic, stinking ugly fact that has been hidden from the
pew-fillers since CST was founded in 1982. Now it's out in the disinfecting
light. And of course you can't say fuck-all about it. You can't deny it,
can you? Jest give it the ol' ho-hum treatment, and hope it'll go away,
right? Wrong, fuckhead.
Anonymous then wanted to know about the sly alterations to L. Ron Hubbard's
works:
>>And let's not forget "A New Slant on Fraud"
>>
>>Could you comment on the squirrelling being done by the
>>copyright owners: non-Scientologist-dominated CST,
You sed:
>Yes.
>
>I think (and this most certainly includes you) that anyone who
>thinks of this as "squirreling" is a ** complete** idiot. (add
>moron and cretin too)
Lemme' see if I can keep up wit'choo, WunderWuss. I'm gon' put on my
thinkin' cap real firm, here, and try REAL HARD to follow yer logic. Now,
tell me if I gotchou right here: L. Ron Hubbard--who is the source of
Scientology--defined "squirrelling" as "altering Scientology." And you say
that anyone who refers to the act of altering Scientology as "squirrelling"
is a **complete** idiot, moron, and cretin. Hmmmm.
Well, WonderDunce, I'm afraid that marks you as too stoopid to even have a
functioning autonomic nervous system.
But, like most fools, you jest couldn't leave it alone:
>
>To take data that is INTENDED FOR A PUBLIC AUDIENCE and make it
>"div 6" compatible - just like I would verbally, if I were
>giving a talk - and then say that they are doing something
>*wrong* for doing that is beyond comprehension.
>
Of COURSE it's beyond YOUR comprehension, you fucking slug food! That's
predictable! Because L. Ron Hubbard also sez: "Squirreling (...altering
Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension."
So of COURSE it's beyond your stoooopid fucking excuse for "comprehension."
You're jest another fucking squirrel, jest like yer fuckhead wog lawyer
fucking masters, you twit! THAT'S why you parrot their "reasonable"
explanations for squirreling. THAT'S why you can't recognize it for what it
is.
Your lame excuse bullshit rationalization above just shows how much you're
"with the program," lackey. How do they do it? Is it the combination of
chloral hydrate and their squirrel processes? Is it PDHing? Or are there
jest enough idiots like you walking around in a natural state of degraded
fucking robotism that they jest wind you up and let you go?
It's the same ol' fucking lawyer-authored party line:
"LRH didn't quite get it right. Oh, but we fuckin' fixed it; here is the
'Golden Age of Dreck!'"
and...
"Why SPDs? Well, LRH couldn't think of *everything*." (Actual quote.)
and...
"Oh, LRH intended it for a 'public audience,' but we FIXED it to make it
'Div 6' compatible."
Yeah, squirrel. Go ahead and justify. And tell us all how anybody who calls
squirrelling by its rightful name is an idiot. It hurts real deep. I'm
bleedin', here. I'm cryin'. Squirrel.
What else did you have to say? Squirrel. Oh, yeah. There was this little
exchange:
Anonymous sed:
>>You grouped Veritas in with "anti-church site." How is Veritas
>>at all anti-church? Do you mean it contains false reports,
>>lies? Can you document ONE lie on the site? Just ONE, Russ?
>>Please? Humor me.
And you sed:
>I already have. Consider yourself lucky.
Already have what? Humored us? Okay, I'm humored. You're one funny
motherfucker, WonderTwit. But you didn't prove that anything on the site
was a lie. See, stumphead, if you had PROVED that the alterations hadn't
taken place, you mighta' done something. All YOU did, fuckhead, is puke up
a justification for them. So you admit that the site it TRUE. You admit
that there ARE alterations.
And whether you can "comprehend" it or not--and you can't--those
alterations ARE squirrelling, exactly as defined by the Founder of
Scientology, the man who coined the term as it relates to Scientology.
Of course, his definition isn't good enough for you.
Because you're too fucking stoopid to comprehend it. And after
non-comprehension comes squirrelling. Squirrel.
Here, Scientologists--you who can comprehend. Go find out the truth. That's
what Veritas means--Truth:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm
This is the site that WonderFool has been sent here to tell you is (yawn)
"boring." This is the site that WonderPus's bosses at CST want you to
believe is meaningless--even though they went fucking nuts trying to get it
shut down. This is the site that is so "insignificant" that it has been
CENSORED by the church, even though there is NO "SeKrIt SkRiPtYuRe" there,
and not one word that is anti-Scientology or anti-L. Ron Hubbard. This is
the site that has pages and pages of facts, not ONE of which has ever been
successfully challenged or even addressed by any of the OSA-bots or any
Scientologists posting to this newsgroup.
As for you, WonderWonderWonder--you can go back to sleep. Squirrel. Try not
to drool.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
--Albert Einstein
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
ace of clubs
Bev
Okay, I know you weren't addressing me, but a few questions if
you please.
> having you study now? Psych shit? Did they send you to see ol' Jolly
> hisself? (BTW, how's his wife? She still connected with VA hospitals?)
Who is Ol' Jolly? What's his relationship with the Co$, and with
VA hospitals via his wife?
> "LOGIC 9. A DATUM IS AS VALUABLE AS IT HAS BEEN EVALUATED."
>
> "LOGIC 10. THE VALUE OF A DATUM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE AMOUNT
> OF ALIGNMENT (RELATIONSHIP) IT IMPARTS TO OTHER DATA."
>
> So, WonderWitz, where does the datum that "CST is the ultimate supreme
> power over everything and everybody in Scientology, while pretending to be
> something else, and while being guided by hidden, secretive non-Scientology
> lawyers," fit into yer own cosmology of "data"? Jest a little buzzing gnat
> of no partikyoolahr significance?
I also will be interested in his answer, if he answers that is.
> No point junkin' up yer over-crowded mind tryin' to keep track of where
> THAT silly ol' datum about CST being in ultimate and complete control over
> your religion came from. Meaningless.
>
> (BTW, I sure would like it if you'd challenge the statement I made above,
> about CST being in ultimate and supreme power. I got a few leeettle
> dokyuments here that a silent friend dropped in my box, some that I ain't
> had a good exkyoose to post yet. Sure would love to oblige you if you want
> to challenge me.)
Posting them would be nice, unless it would screw up the time factor
of a future surprise :-)
> Here's the truth, though, for those who watch where they step: Yer bosses
> at CST are scared SHITLESS about the Veritas site, because it's the first
> time the whole story has been laid out in full, and they can't do a damn
> thing about it.
>
> If they could, they would have. If anything on that site were false, they
> would have sued. But they can't. And they can't get it taken down, try
> though they did. And they failed embarrassingly. So they censored the site
> instead. And they send morons like you to try and position it with nut-case
> "conspiracy" theories, and to down-play the significance of the information
> on the site with yer bullshit "ho-hum" attitude and yer Reagan-inspired "I
> can't remember where I found out" bullshit.
I don't get to follow the NG all the time, and I know there are others
who are lurking that are newly come to a.r.s.
Would you be able to post just a brief outline of actions Co$ has
attempted against Veritas to catch people (and me <g>) up?
> Bros., like Meade "You Show Me Yours And I'll Show You Mine" Emory (more to
> follow on that--stay tuned!)
Well, that sounds . . . interesting.
> Anonymous then wanted to know about the sly alterations to L. Ron Hubbard's
> works:
>
> >>And let's not forget "A New Slant on Fraud"
> >>Could you comment on the squirrelling being done by the
> >>copyright owners: non-Scientologist-dominated CST,
>
> You sed:
>
> >Yes.
> >I think (and this most certainly includes you) that anyone who
> >thinks of this as "squirreling" is a ** complete** idiot. (add
> >moron and cretin too)
>
> Lemme' see if I can keep up wit'choo, WunderWuss. I'm gon' put on my
> thinkin' cap real firm, here, and try REAL HARD to follow yer logic. Now,
> tell me if I gotchou right here: L. Ron Hubbard--who is the source of
> Scientology--defined "squirrelling" as "altering Scientology." And you say
> that anyone who refers to the act of altering Scientology as "squirrelling"
> is a **complete** idiot, moron, and cretin. Hmmmm.
I notice, constantly in almost every Co$ members posts, that if others
do something it is one thing, but when the Co$ does the same thing
then suddenly it is another. That is one logic I see in Co$ members
consistently that I marvel at, the ability of self-deception.
> But, like most fools, you jest couldn't leave it alone:
> >
> >To take data that is INTENDED FOR A PUBLIC AUDIENCE and make it
> >"div 6" compatible - just like I would verbally, if I were
> >giving a talk - and then say that they are doing something
> >*wrong* for doing that is beyond comprehension.
> Of COURSE it's beyond YOUR comprehension, you fucking slug food! That's
> predictable! Because L. Ron Hubbard also sez: "Squirreling (...altering
> Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension."
> So of COURSE it's beyond your stoooopid fucking excuse for "comprehension."
> You're jest another fucking squirrel, jest like yer fuckhead wog lawyer
> fucking masters, you twit! THAT'S why you parrot their "reasonable"
> explanations for squirreling. THAT'S why you can't recognize it for what it
> is.
To me, the altering of publications says that they are afraid of
leaving it as LRH put is, not because of the non-comprehension of
the public, but because they want to put forth revisionism, which
means they feel there is something to be hidden from the public.
Are they now actually ~ashamed~ of LRH's works?
Are they saying that LRH didn't get it right, that they are the
ones who have it right and must ~modify~ LRH?
> "LRH didn't quite get it right. Oh, but we fuckin' fixed it; here is the
> 'Golden Age of Dreck!'"
Oh, reading further I see you see the same thing.
> "Why SPDs? Well, LRH couldn't think of *everything*." (Actual quote.)
> "Oh, LRH intended it for a 'public audience,' but we FIXED it to make it
> 'Div 6' compatible."
In my opinion, another reason they keep changing things around, going
back and forth, coming up with new ~discoveries~ etc., is to keep a
constant barrage of new courses and cycles of action that have to be
taken, and then ~re~taken to correct old courses and cycles of action,
in order to continue the constant flow of money that it keeps bleeding
from the pockets of their members.
The more there is to be done to attain "The Bridge", the more money
will be brought in to the Co$ coffers.
Leaving the rest of your post in for any Co$ members who might have
missed your original post.
Beverly
ska...@postoffice.pacbell.net
> ace of clubs wrote:
>
> Okay, I know you weren't addressing me, but a few questions if
> you please.
>
> > having you study now? Psych shit? Did they send you to see ol' Jolly
> > hisself? (BTW, how's his wife? She still connected with VA hospitals?)
>
> Who is Ol' Jolly? What's his relationship with the Co$, and with
> VA hospitals via his wife?
Jolly West, member of the old CAN who also counseled Patty Hearst after her
capture. Scientology hates him.
Garry
ace of clubs
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
On Wednesday, 5 August 1998, Bev sed:
>Okay, I know you weren't addressing me, but a few questions if
>you please.
Ma'am, when you ask so sweet and all, how can a grizzled ol' buzzard like
Ace do anything but take his hat off and comply? I'd be honoured.
You axed:
>Who is Ol' Jolly?
His name is Dr. Louis Jolyon West, "Jolly" to his friends and to elephants
(more in a moment). He is a psyhiatrist. He was a long-time Director of the
Neuropsychiatric Institute. and was also chairman of the Department of
Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, both at UCLA. He is considered an
"expert" in the fields of brainwashing, torture, drugs, violence and
"cults."
In the late '60's, he lived in the Haight, running a Stanford
research project out of his "psycho-pad" on Frederick Street, experimenting
(on whom, we don't know--no records) with LSD and other hallucinogenics.
He hs been described as "CIA psychiatrist and veteran of the Agency's MK
Ultra 'mind control' experiments." Due to the nature of such connections,
his exact relationship is unknown.
It is known that he was personally acquainted with MK-ULTRA director Sidney
Gottlieb. Under the terms of a CIA-funded contract, West ran a program at
the University of Oklahoma that experimented with LSD. It was during that
period that he gave an elephant a huge dosage of LSD at the Oklahoma City
Zoo. It was such a huge dose that the elephant went into convulsions and
died.
There is evidence that his connections to CIA's MK-ULTRA (which included
chloral hydrate experiments) evolved into what was one of his many infamous
pet projects: The "Center for the Study and Reduction of Violence." Using
his own research and that of the Strangelovian Dr. Jose Delgado, the plan
was to draw guinea pigs from the "target populations"--mainly
minorities--to test drugs, implants, and psychosurgery techniques (at an
isolated military missile base in California) to curb people's "violent
tendencies." The project, fortunately, never got the necessary funding.
West was also instrumental in the CIA's "Remote Viewing" projects, which,
like West's Haight LSD experiments, were conducted in connection with
Stanford. More about that in a minute.
He was a board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF),
making sure that children who recalled things understood clearly that they
were entirely full of shit.
Of the institutionalized, West once said--indicating, I s'pose, his deep
compassion: "We have medications that keep them docile."
Then you axed me:
>What's his relationship with the Co$, and
>with VA hospitals via his wife?
Now, as to his connections with Scientology, nobody knows, I'm afraid.
There has ostensibly been a war between them. You, being astute, surely
know that the game-makers of this world always play both sides--never just
one. Only the players and the pieces play one-side-only. But not the makers
of the games.
NameBase NewsLine, No. 5, April-June 1994, put it very well:
"Some speculate that the CIA is working both sides of the
street on the cultism issue. This is the approach that any
good intelligence agency would prefer; it provides an
opportunity to shape the terms of the public debate, and
allows maneuverability to protect and promote their
interests."
Is there a connection between West and Scientology? Who knows. I believe
that I can assure you, though, without fear of negation, that any
"connection" Jolly West ever had with Scientology would not have been fer
its glorification and propagation, nor would it have been fer the continued
health, long life, and well-being of its Founder, Mr. Hubbard. There are
checkered, odd bits and pieces. Do with them whachou will.
Could this be one? Here's a message from a rather obscure board; the writer
is Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, rumoured to be (or to have been--I ain't
been able to sort this out yet) the "official biographer" for the church's
version of the life of L. Ron Hubbard:
"Sometime In 1955 when I went into the Pentagon after my
three years in the Far East during the Korean War, I was
assigned to the Unconventional Warfare Division of the
headquarters Air Force. It didn't take long to find that one
of their 'boys' was Major Jolyn West. He and his cohorts were
characters: Jim Monroe, Bob Biderman--or was it Dick?--Ewen
Cameron and others.
"This was the era of Big Switch and Little Switch as they
were getting back the POW's from Korea. They created the
story that the men had been 'Brainwashed.' Brainwashed was a
new term then, and you know all about that. A great RAND
project. I was being assigned to a new function, i.e. support
of the CIA... ."
And could this be another? Central to the CIA's "Remote Viewing"
experiments in the '70's--which I tol' you about a few paragraphs
back--were Scientologists Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, and Pat Price. Now, the
official line is that Puthoff and Swann "left Scientology." Might be a
fact. Price died "of a heart attack" right about when the experiments
started producing some, uh, "disturbing" results; Price was accurately
"viewing" things that were extremely secret. What was ol' Jolly doin' with
these boys? We don' know, and he ain't a-tellin'.
And what was ol' Jolly and his sweet wife (comin' up) doin' during the 7
distinct periods when old man Hubbard disappeared in the company of Nurse
Kima between 1972 and 1980? We don' know, and he ain't a-tellin.'
Seemingly on the "non-connection" side is the fact that dear ol' Jolly was
on the advisory board of CAN. But then, CAN got et up by Scientology,
didn't it, dear heart?
Another "non-connection" datum? Well, West, at one time, was supposedly
assisting Wollersheim in his civil case against the Church. How's that
going, BTW?
As fer Jolly's sweet, sweet wife, her name is Dr. Kathryn L. West,
described as "a professional prober of the mind." She served as staff
psychologist at the Veterans Administration. Tha's about all I care to say
on that subject fer the time being, if it pleases you, ma'am.
I hope this has been of some small assistance.
You then went on to ax ol' Ace about some "dokyooments.":
>Posting them would be nice, unless it would screw up the time
>factor of a future surprise :-)
Well, you jest melt my gristly ol' heart. So, I'll tell you what; I'll post
some of the mos' important pieces of 'em, and give you a link where you can
go grab the whole basket. How's that?
Here ya' go...
The first one is entitled "ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY COVENANT--ESTATE AND RTC,"
and here are the excerpts:
--------------------------------------------------------------
THIS COVENANT, effective this 30 day of November 1988, is
hereby executed by and between NORMAN F. STARKEY, as
Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard, doing business as L.
Ron Hubbard Library (hereinafter referred to as "the
Estate"), and RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California
non-profit religious corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"RTC") RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit
religious corporation (hereinafter referred to as "RTC")
...
G. L. Ron Hubbard died on January 24, 1986 and Norman F.
Starkey was, on February 16, 1986, duly appointed the
Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard...and therefore the
Estate currently owns all rights in the Advanced Technology
that were owned by L. Ron Hubbard at the time of his death
and has the right to control the use of such Advanced
Technology. The Estate is now prepared to grant authority to
RTC to protect and control the utilization of the Advanced
Technology throughout the world in accordance with
Scientology Scriptural requirements.
...
5(b) This Covenant is subject to termination at any time by
any successor of the Estate to the rights in the Advanced
Technology. Any continuation of this Covenant after such a
succession will be at the will of the Estate's successor.
[NOTE: The "successor" became CST--see later document.]
...
(d) On termination of this Covenant for any reason, RTC
shall immediately cease all use of the Advanced Technology,
shall promptly account to the Estate for each physical copy
of the Advanced Technology, and shall transfer all such
copies within RTC's possession, custody, or control to the
Estate or to the Estate's successor, OR TO THE DESIGNEE
[emphasis added] of the Estate or the Estate's successor.
...
7. Title and Copyrights.
(a) RTC acknowledges that all copyright rights covering the
Advanced Technology are retained and owned exclusively by
the Estate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So there ya' have that one. This proves conclusively that Starkey, as
Executor, retained ALL copyright rights, while licensing jest the use and
enforcement of the AT to RTC in 1988. So I HOPE this will lay to rest,
onc't and fer ALL, any question about who OWNS THE COPYRIGHTS TO THE AT!
Because, as you will soon see, Starkey later transferred ALL COPYRIGHTS
from the estate to CST.
Now, one little oddity in all this is that a license agreement for the AT
is recorded with the Liberry of Kongress between Starkey and RTC--but that
transaction, in the LoC records, is dated 21 November 1986! This is shown
on the Veritas site at:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/copygrab.htm
And LoC does NOT have this 1988 covenant recorded. Go figure.
On to the next dokyooment. This one, ya' gets the whole thang:
---------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT
WHEREAS, L. Ron Hubbard was the author of and owned all right title and
interest in a body of works, both published and unpublished (hereinafter
the "Works").
WHEREAS, all right, title and interest in the Works, as assets of the
estate of L. Ron Hubbard, were transferred pursuant to the Judgment Of
Final Distribution On Waiver Of Accounting And For Allowance Of Attorney's
Fees For Ordinary Services And Judgment Of Final Distribution, dated
January 3, 1989, issued by the Superior Court of the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, to Norman F. Starkey, Trustee of the Author's
Family Trust-B, an Inter-Vivos Trust established January 23, 1986, 6515
Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90028 (hereinafter the "Trustee").
WHEREAS, the copyrights in certain of the Works, listed in Attachment B
hereto, both published and unpublished, were registered in the Copyright
Office (hereinafter the "Registered Works").
WHEREAS, all right, title and interest in the Works, including the
copyright registrations for the Registered Works, and any pending
applications for copyright registration of the Works, both in the United
States and abroad, are now owned by the Trustee.
WHEREAS, the documents attached hereto as Attachment A, evidencing the
transfer of all right, title and interest in the Works from the Estate of
L. Ron Hubbard to the Trustee, were recorded in the Assignments and
Documentation Division of the United States Copyright Office on February
14, 1989.
WHEREAS, Church of Spiritual Technology (hereinafter "CST"), is a
non-profit religious corporation, organized under the laws of the State of
California, having an address at 419 N. Larchmont, No. 162, Los Angeles,
California.
WHEREAS, the Trustee wishes to assign all rights of the Trustee of any kind
in the Works, both in the United States and abroad, to CST, including the
rights of the Trustee in the copyright registrations for the Registered
Works and in any pending applications for copyright registration of the
Works and CST wishes to have a recordable document evidencing the ownership
of all rights of any kind in the Works by CST, both in the United States
and abroad, including ownership of the rights in the copyright
registrations for the Registered Works and in any pending applications for
registration of the Works.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and
sufficient consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
ackowledged, the Trustee hereby transfers to CST all right, title and
interest of the Trustee in the Works, both in the United States and abroad,
including the copyright registrations for the Registered Works and any
pending applications for copyright registration of the Works, along with
any rights that the Trustee may have to recover for past infringement of
any rights regarding the Works, including all rights of the Trustee under
the copyright registrations and any pending applications for copyright
registration identified in Attachment B hereto.
By: __________[signature]____________
Norman F. Starkey, Trustee Author's Family Trust-B, an Inter-Vivos Trust
established January 23, 1986
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) 59.
COUNTY OF Los Angeles )
On this 30th day of November, in the year 1993, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Norman F.
Starkey , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in
his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the
instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,
excecuted the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. ____________[signature]____________ My
Commission Expires: 29 NOV '96
[plus stamp, Ryland G. Hawkins, Los Angeles County]
----------------------------------------------------------------
There it is, lock, stock, and barrel. The whole she-bang. Over to CST.
Adios. Good-bye. From Norman Starkey to the Lenskes and their fuckin'
cronies. <SPIT!> Sorry. Fer a moment there, I fergot I was talkin' to a
lady.
The above assignment is recorded with LoC, and correctly illustrated on the
Veritas chart...
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/cst/copygrab.htm
...as happenin' right after the agreement formerly known as the "SeKrIt
AgReEmUnT" with Meade's buddies over at IRS.
And, finally, an unrecorded transaction was executed on the following
day--30 November 1993--also between snaggle-tooth Norm and the Lenske
contingent. It is known as "ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (RTC)."
Here again, I gives you the whole thang:
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (RTC)
This Assignment and Assumption (RTC) is made and effective this 29th day of
November, 1993, by and between NORMAN F. STARKEY, Trustee of Author's
Family Trust-B ("Assignor"), and CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, a
California nonprofit religious corporation ("Assignee").
Reference is made to the following described agreements between NORMAN F.
STARKEY, as Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard or as Trustee of
Author's Family Trust, and RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California
nonprofit religious corporation ("Agreements"):
Title Date
(a) License Agreement September 17, 1987
(b) Advanced Technology
Covenant- Estate/RTC November 30, 1988
(c) Addendum to Advanced
Technology Covenant-
Estate/RTC May 13, 1991
L. Ron Hubbard died on January 24, 1986, and NORMAN F. STARKEY was
appointed Executor of his Will by the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court
on February 18, 1986. On January 3, 1989, said Superior Court ordered
distribution of the estate of L. Ron Hubbard, including ownership of
various interests in the Advanced Technology, the subject matter of the
Agreements, to Assignor.
The agreement by and between Assignor and L. Ron Hubbard, dated January 23,
1986, establishing Author's Family Trust-B, requires distribution to
Assignee of all assets held in trust by Assignor.
In consideration of Assignee's agreement to perform all of the obligations
of Assignor, if any, under the Agreements, Assignor hereby assigns,
transfers and sets over to Assignee all of his right, title and interest in
the Agreements. Assignee, in consideration of the foregoing assignment and
transfer by Assignor, hereby assumes and agrees, on behalf of Assignor, to
perform the obligations, if any, imposed upon Assignor under each of the
Agreements. Notice of this Assignment shall be given by Assignee. IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption
as of the date first above written.
__________[signature]__________
NORMAN F. STARKEY, Trustee of
Author's Family Trust-B
The foregoing Assignment and Assumption is hereby accepted and
agreed to in accordance with its terms.
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY
By______[signature]____________
RUSSELL BELLIN, Its President
By______[signature]____________
JANE McNAIRN, Its Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------
So CST took over ownership, stewardship and absolute authority over all the
covenants and agreement that Starkey had made with RTC. They already had
been given all the copyrights (yesssss, including the AT copyrights) the
day before. Now they had been given complete, utter authority and power
over ever aspect of the agreement, including the option to yank it all back
any time they damn well pleased.
[NOTE: There ain't no mention of a 1986 agreement, which is recorded with
the LoC, and shown on Veritas's chart]
If you want to see all these, plus there attachments, both as ASCII files
and as gifs, pernt yer browser to:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4334//ab-index.htm
Don't know who the kind soul wuz who put 'em up, or who alerted me to 'em,
but my thanks go out.
So the proof is in: CST is in charge. Veritas had it right.
This is why you occassionaly see ol' Ace gettin' a little bit--well,
gruff--toward "EcKzPeRtZ"--like my sweetheart, RVY, and his sissified
hand-holder, Gerry Jah-HEEE-zus Armstrong--who sashay around the newsgroup
dippin' snuff and sneezing out their "DM is the all-powerful grand fuckin'
supreme ruling deity of Scientology" bullshit. DM couldn't pour piss out of
a boot if the directions were written on the heel.
Fuck 'em. They're either too STOOOOPID to understand plain facts, or they
know goddamned well what's going on, and are just lyin' moutherfuckers.
Maybe you can guess which side I come down on.
I'm sorry. I fergot yer ladylike sensibilities again. Fergive me. I onc't
got on the wrong side--literally--of a voodoo woman in Slidell, Louisiana
in my younger days, and she hexed me with the curse of callin' 'em as I see
'em.
Since then, some have gone so far as to accuse me of being somewhat rough
around the edges.
You sed:
>I don't get to follow the NG all the time, and I know there are
>others who are lurking that are newly come to a.r.s.
>
>Would you be able to post just a brief outline of actions Co$
>has attempted against Veritas to catch people (and me <g>) up?
I hope you ain't a voodoo lady, 'cause I'm gon' have to beg to decline.
There was some letter from Veritas onc't posted in this newsgroup, but I
ain't got it. Sure to be in DejaNews, though. Maybe some other kind soul
can dig it up fer ya'.
>>Bros., like Meade "You Show Me Yours And I'll Show You Mine"
>>Emory (more to follow on that--stay tuned!)
>
>Well, that sounds . . . interesting.
Oh, it's a knee-slapper.
And though I thoroughly enjoyed yer ponderings and musings that followed, I
fear that I have chewed up more than my share of newsgroup fer one day. So
I will bow out as gracefully as too many badly-repaired broken-bone engrams
will allow.
I trust this has been of some limited enlightenment, and that I have not
disarranged the powder on yer face with my blue exhalations and
exclamations.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
It takes me a long time to lose my temper,
but once lost I could not find it with a dog.
--Mark Twain
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
ace of clubs
gerry armstrong
>
>
>So the proof is in: CST is in charge. Veritas had it right.
>
>This is why you occassionaly see ol' Ace gettin' a little bit--well,
>gruff--toward "EcKzPeRtZ"--like my sweetheart, RVY, and his sissified
>hand-holder, Gerry Jah-HEEE-zus Armstrong--who sashay around the newsgroup
>dippin' snuff and sneezing out their "DM is the all-powerful grand fuckin'
>supreme ruling deity of Scientology" bullshit. DM couldn't pour piss out of
>a boot if the directions were written on the heel.
>
>Fuck 'em. They're either too STOOOOPID to understand plain facts, or they
>know goddamned well what's going on, and are just lyin' moutherfuckers.
>
>Maybe you can guess which side I come down on.
>
> ace of clubs
>
>
>
I'm the Gerry Armstrong you're calling these things. Who are you?
I really think you lack understanding of the plain facts that you do
know, and it undermines your credibility.
You think CST sits atop the house of cards corporation. No one, not me
not RVY, disagrees with you. You know that Meade Emory and the Lenske
Bros are involved. Nobody disagrees with you.
But you don't know who Emory, Lenske, et al. are beholden to. You
don't know who runs CST. You know whose names are on certain
documents, but you don't know what other documents exist, or don't
exist, which govern the actual control of CST and the other parts of
the $cientology enterprise. And you refuse to acknowledge the
actuality of the way things work.
During Hubbard's years of control of $cientology you could not divine
his control from knowing names on the organization's many
corporations' corporate papers. You would have to look at the
actuality of who was giving orders and who was obeying those orders.
As a "legal" insurance, of course, Hubbard plus his agents (the
Guardian's Office) held undated resignations which had been signed by
every corporation's directors. I have seen no evidence that that is
not the case with Scientology's corporations in this Miscavige era,
and I have seen no evidence that that is not the case with CST.
Remember, the lawyers involved in the setup and "control" of CST have
"clients" to whom they have a fiduiciary duty.
I believe that it takes a conspiracy to keep the CST-RTC-CSI-
$cientology, et al. syndicate going. DM can't do it alone. Lenske
can't do it alone. Starkey can't do it alone. Emory can't do it alone.
You have shown me nothing that indicates anything different and I
haven't said, no matter what you say, anything different.
But why don't you ask Jesse Prince who he observed running
$cientology's operations during his stay near the top?
Why don't you apologize to RVY for your baseless, ridiculous and
obscene charges?
And why don't you tell us who you are so we can understand why you're
making these baseless, ridiculous and obscene charges?
Gerry
ace of clubs
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Well, Helll-l-l-l-l-l-ohhh, Gerry!
Didja' wanna' "get in comm" with ol' Ace?
I jes' LUV havin' new pen pals. Especially now, since my good buddy RV
seems to have gone "out of comm." I think he may-a' had an ARC break.
You had some questions you wanted to ax me. Quotin' me, you sed:
>On 6 Aug 1998 06:13:16 +0200, a...@blackjack.no (ace of clubs)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>So the proof is in: CST is in charge. Veritas had it right.
>>
>>This is why you occassionaly see ol' Ace gettin' a little
>>bit--well, gruff--toward "EcKzPeRtZ"--like my sweetheart, RVY,
>>and his sissified hand-holder, Gerry Jah-HEEE-zus
>>Armstrong--who sashay around the newsgroup dippin' snuff and
>>sneezing out their "DM is the all-powerful grand fuckin'
>>supreme ruling deity of Scientology" bullshit. DM couldn't pour
>>piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel.
>>
>>Fuck 'em. They're either too STOOOOPID to understand plain
>>facts, or they know goddamned well what's going on, and are
>>just lyin' moutherfuckers.
>>
>>Maybe you can guess which side I come down on.
>>
>
>> ace of clubs
Then you sed:
>
>I'm the Gerry Armstrong you're calling these things.
>
Plesed t'make yer acquaintance. Tip o' the hat.
>
>Who are you?
>
I'm the fly on yer wall, Geritol. I'm the fuckin' noise in the basement.
I'm the strange light on a faraway hill in the night. But you can call me
Beelzebub. Or you can call me The God of Hell Fire. Or you can call me Al.
But don't YOU fuckin' call me Ace. That's reserved for my friends.
>I really think you lack understanding of the plain facts that
>you do know, and it undermines your credibility.
I disremember expressing the sentiment that I give a flying fuck what you
really think. Fer the record, I don't. Write it down, so's you don't fergit.
>You think CST sits atop the house of cards corporation.
No I don't, twit. I know fucking well it does.
>No one, not me not RVY, disagrees with you.
Well, thank God! Now I'll be able to sleep nights. And BTW, congrats on yer
appointment as RV's spokesperson. He obviously needed one; he ain't sed
shit since he botched the beejeezus out of his assignments and got called
in from the cold.
>You know that Meade Emory and the Lenske Bros are involved.
>Nobody disagrees with you.
Well, tell Mr. Nobody to shove it up his ass, since yer his spokesperson,
too. (That wuz a joke, son. You look too way too fuckin' serious. See?
Right there. That furrow between yer hairy fuckin' eybrows. You look
fuckin' GRIM, Ger.)
Thanks, though, fer finally admittin' to the Lenskes' and Emory's
involvement. (Like you had a fuckin' choice any more.) And since you're
actin' as RV's mouthpiece these days, maybe you'll answer the question he
wouldn't: since you two are the fuckin' ExPeRtZ, why the fuck did you two
spend all yer time in this newsgroup forwardin' the party line, tryin' to
prop DM up? Why didn't YOU tell us about CST's real role? Why didn't RV?
Why did you both spend all that legal paper and court time makin' goddamned
sure that it got into the public record, and into magazines, and into
testimony, that DM was the Main Man? You know, you two, almost all by yer
lonesomes, helped keep CST's actual role completely smokescreened fer damn
near 15 years. That's a FINE record, Ger, ol' boy. How come y'all did that?
Ax him that, and come back and give us a report, lackey. And don't fergit
to remind the lyin' motherfucker that he claims to have BEEN there when CST
wuz set up.
>
>But you don't know who Emory, Lenske, et al. are beholden to.
>
You don't know what I know, fuckhead. Tell yer masters this: there's a team
that's been workin' on it 'round the fuckin' clock. Neither YOU nor THEY
know everything we know. Neither YOU nor THEY know how many us there are,
where we are, who's got what, who's handling which arm of research. That's
why they send their stooopid fuckin' bots in here guessin', guessin',
guessin'. Wait! I take that back! DON'T tell 'em. The entertainment value
is jest too fuckin' high.
>You don't know who runs CST.
Well, why don't you jest share with us, then, Gerrycan? <Snort!>
>You know whose names are on certain documents, but you don't
>know what other documents exist, or don't exist, which govern
>the actual control of CST and the other parts of the $cientology
>enterprise.
Oh, Gerrymander, it's them documents that DON'T exist that keep me pacin'
the floor nights! <Snort! Guffaw!>
Hey, Ger-bilAss, I KNOW you cain't doooplikate Scientology, but didja' ever
hear of Logic Three? Didja', Ger? Or do ya' have a picture of Immanuael
Kant embroidered on yer underwear and tucked under yer pillow? Lemme' help
you out, here Ger:
"Logic Three: 'Any knowledge which can be sensed, measured,
experienced, by any entity is capable of influencing that
entity.' Too true. Just too true. This is, by the way, an
interesting logic in that it is aimed right straight at a
fellow by the name of--I think it's Kant. I guess it's
some impossible name like that. And with a name like that
you'd sure expect that he wouldn't be able to. And he sure
couldn't.
"Now, that's our friend Kant and that's 'All knowledge that
is worth having will be found to be beyond the bounds of human
experience. So you better quit right here at this barricade,
fellow, because us scholastics have got it all nailed down. We
got our machine guns and barbed wire across here and anything
that's worth having is over here and this is the last outpost
toward it and if you try to pass it we're going to fix your
clock.'"
That's by yer nemesis. Ger--L. Ron Hubbard. That guy yer so fuckin' fixated
on, that guy whose good name and reputation yer obsessed with smearin' till
you draw yer last breath. Of course, I know yer too fuckin' dumb to
understand it, but he has more to say, more that you won't grasp:
"For instance, Kant had himself a safe solution and I imagine
that's what made him batty. He had a good, safe solution. A
lot of things were unknowable. They were so unknowable that
nobody would ever know about them. And this, of course, is
completely nuts. If these unknowable things can never at any
time be sensed, measured or experienced, how the hell did he
know they existed? Well, he didn't. So he made up a fantasy
over there someplace called the unknowable. And this made him
very comfortable."
You comfortable yet, Ger-Man? No. Well, pull up a fuckin' ottoman or a
croquet stake and have a seat. Ol' Ace ain't quite done, yet, and you DON'T
want to miss the rest.
BTW, there's a corollary to that Logic (which, by its very name, is almost
an iron-clad guarantee that YOU ain't got a chance in hell of understanding
it). But here it is, anyway, Ger-bilBrain:
"That knowledge which cannot be sensed, measured, or
experienced by any entity or type of entity cannot influence
that entity or type of entity."
But, Ger, I don't want you fallin' fer any of that ElRon bullshit above.
Believe me, Ger, you and Kant are right: there ARE things that go boomp in
the night. There are things outside yer ken. I know, 'cause I'm one of 'em
Ger. I'm one of 'em. And I don't want you fergittin' THAT fact.
>
>And you refuse to acknowledge the actuality of the way things
>work.
>
Ger, Ger, Ger. I have a copy of "The Way Things Work" right here on my
bookshelf, dogearred and worn from use. I also know how you work, Ger.
>During Hubbard's years of control of $cientology you could not
>divine his control from knowing names on the organization's many
>corporations' corporate papers. You would have to look at the
>actuality of who was giving orders and who was obeying those
>orders.
And you are a lyin' motherfucker, jest like yer masters. L. Ron Hubbard
left a record of millions of words detailing his full, unqualified,
complete, irrevocable responsibility for Scientology. Anybody, ANYBODY, can
SENSE, MEASURE, AND EXPERIENCE it, fuckhead. It is a permanent, written or
tape-recorded record. His telexes were a matter of record. His orders were
issued through HCO. He took responsibility for what he ordered, for what he
did.
Then you and RV and your belly-crawling friends came along and wormed your
way into the organizations, created endless lattices of hidden-data-lines,
faked and forged LRH "orders," implemented BTBs, BPLs, set up CMO, WDC, and
yer crowning glory, the RPF (based entirely on Jolly's sleep-deprivation
and work-camp research results, plus reverse auditing), forged FOs and PLs
over the Ol' Man's name, created the SPDs, and started issuing squirrelled
versions of all his original materials--squirrelled JUST enough.
Of course, somebody--"Somebody, you see"--had to wipe out Mary Sue--sending
Quentin as a message, jest so there wuz no misunderstanding--and the GO in
the process, so they could grab the fuckin' copyrights. And they had to, of
course, nullify the Ol' Man. (Don't he look CUTE in those post-leukotomy
pictures, starin' dumbly at the floor, disheveled, drugged, mouth hangin'
open in exactly the classic pose? GOD, these guys are good! Oops! Jest
found this note, Ger: "Armstrong attempted to sell photographs...belonging
to some of his friends, which...included photos of L.R. Hubbard while in
seclusion. Although Defendant Armstrong delivered the photographs to a
Virgil Wilhite for sale, he never received payment or return of his
friend's photographs." Care to say who yer "friends" were, Ger, who TOOK
those photographs? Luv to hear who they were, and why they were lettin' YOU
"sell" the photos fer them. Tha's jest GOT to be a great story. Won't you
TELL us, Ger?)
EVERYBODY did a GOOD fuckin' job, Ger. It jest wasn't quite good enough.
But Ger, take pride. Your part--well, your part has been jest MASTERFUL.
Yer dissemination of disinformation has been better than anything I have
seen outside of the White House or Langley. I admire you fer it. I bow to
yer quiet, unassuming, creeping, martyr-like toxicity. I revel in it. I
praise you fer it. I love the way you boys work. You give syphillis a good
name.
>As a "legal" insurance, of course, Hubbard plus his agents (the
>Guardian's Office) held undated resignations which had been
>signed by every corporation's directors.
Uh-huh. The leprechaun in my back yard showed me one. Sed he got it from
the Loch Ness Monster, and you know SHE never lies. Yer stories match up
purrfektly. That satisfies my unbending rule of three sources, plus seeing
an aKtUaL-bOnAfIdE copy me-own-self. I'd post it here, but a fuckin'
gryphon flew down and snatched it out of me hands, jest as I wuz about to
bring it inside and scan it fer ya'. (Boy, you should have seen that
leprechaun dive under a rock when that gryphon appeared out of the sky!
Close one!) The leprechaun sez he's gon' bring me another copy of it,
though, jest as soon as he visits Wonderland again, and gets one from the
White Knight. It may be a while, though, Gerk-Off--his legs are REAL short.
So don't wait up.
>I have seen no evidence that that is not the case with
>Scientology's corporations in this Miscavige era,
>and I have seen no evidence that that is not the case with CST.
Well, Holleeeeee Shit! Neither have I! Imagine that! Wonder why the fuck
that is? Couldn't be that it doesn't fuckin' EXIST anywhere but in yer
fantasyland, could it? But, hey--who needs fuckin' evidence, Ger? I'm
tellin' you, the White Knight has ALL that shit. Don' worry about it. My
leprechaun friend will pick you up a copy if you really need it.
In the meantime, jest ignore the several reams of hard evidence posted in
this newsgroup and all over the fuckin' net revealing what the fuck is
really going on. Let's jest throw all THAT shit over, and let's go with
YOUR fuckin' theory that the real control is dependent on some mysterious,
invisible shit that nobody has ever seen. It worked for Kant; it works fer
me! I like yer thinkin', Ger! You slay me with yer infinite fuckin'
wizzdumb and logick, boy.
>Remember, the lawyers involved in the setup and "control" of CST
>have "clients" to whom they have a fiduiciary duty.
Well, Ger, I believe yer on to somethin', boy. You may be learnable yet.
.....Nahhhhh--h-h-h-h.
>I believe that it takes a conspiracy to keep the CST-RTC-CSI-
>$cientology, et al. syndicate going.
Shhhhh-h-h-h-h! Ger! Boy, don' be using the fuckin' "C" word around here.
What, you tryin' to make somebody think yer a fuckin' NUTCASE, or somethin'?
>DM can't do it alone. Lenske can't do it alone. Starkey can't do
>it alone. Emory can't do it alone.
Oh, now, Geremiad! They pro'ly all HAVE to do it alone. I mean, would YOU
do it with any of them? (You don' have to answer that. Please don't. It was
a rhetorical question.) I mean, Meade must like his special piktyooor books
for SOME reason. <SNORT!>
>
>You have shown me nothing that indicates anything different and
>I haven't said, no matter what you say, anything different.
>
You are one Zen motherfucker, Gerboa. I'm gon' write that across the
sanitary-certainty paper toilet-band in every motel room I visit, and leave
it there fer the cleanin' people to find.
>
>But why don't you ask Jesse Prince who he observed running
>$cientology's operations during his stay near the top?
>
Well, the very fact of YER embracin' him is the first good reason. If he's
got somethin' more than talk, talk, talk, I'd love ta' see it.
>
>Why don't you apologize to RVY for your baseless, ridiculous and
>obscene charges?
>
Well, in the firs' place, it's 'cause I don't retain scum like you to give
me advice.
But which "baseless, ridiculous and obscene charges" would those be, GerkWater?
Do you mean baseless, ridiculous and obscene charges like these:
"CSI and RTC are components of the global Scientology
syndicate. All of the components are under the direction and
control of David Miscavige."
-Gerry Armstrong
"Armstrong discovered the dark side of Scientology's founder."
-Gerry Armstrong
"Miscavige sits alone and highest at the very center of
'the absolute power center,' controlling absolutely..."
-Gerry Armstrong
"Over Hubbard's adult life he used a philosophy of
'opportunistic hatred' and the 'acts which flow therefrom
(lying, cheating, stealing, compromising, entrapping,
obstructing, bullying, blackmailing, destroying) as the
solution to his problems.'"
-Gerry Armstrong
"Miscavige, the present supreme director of all Scientology
components... ."
-Gerry Armstrong
"I knew of Scientology and Hubbard fraud and other abuses...."
-Gerry Armstrong
"Ultimately this became the purpose of the structure set up
under Miscavige: to allow DM to control Scientology and avoid
legal responsibility. That's what the ASI, CSI, RTC, CST, WDC,
CMO, SMI and so forth scamcorps are all for. ...DM ended up in
control."
-Gerry Armstrong
"Hubbard...had continuously lied about Hubbard's past, his
credentials, and his accomplishments."
-Gerry Armstrong
"...Scientology's all-powerful David Miscavige...as Chairman
of RTC's Board of Directors, head of the Sea Organization, and
Scientology supreme leader, is able to control all Scientology
organizations... ."
-Gerry Armstrong
Is that the kind of bald-faced-lyin', seditious, obfuscating, baseless,
ridiculous and obscene charges yer talkin' about, asshole? Or is it more
like these:
"There is no question whatsoever that Miscavige now holds the
...position of absolute power over Scientology, cutting
across all corporate boundaries... ."
-Robert Vaughn Young
"Hubbard believed himself to be hunted by communists,
psychiatrists and government officials. He was openly under
the delusion that psychiatrists and psychologists wanted to
murder him because he had exposed their profession as a scam."
-Robert Vaughn Young
"David Miscavige...is the head of the Scientology empire."
-Robert Vaughn Young
"[Hubbard] wanted plaques and awards, to prove that he was
important... . It became a megalomania but the irony is that
he died completely alone, in hiding, terrified of being
discovered, dead in the back of an RV, on a psychiatric
tranquilizer."
-Robert Vaughn Young
"Miscavige...runs all of Scientology, regardless of corporate
lines.
-Robert Vaughn Young
"Hubbard...had massive crimes and massive withholds and he
fled to avoid being discovered. That was how he ended up
hiding in Creston. ...He was hiding from the IRS and the feds
and the courts and the media and a host of lawyers who wanted
to serve him.
-Robert Vaughn Young
"Since [1981]...Miscavige has had complete control over all
branches of Scientology."
-Robert Vaughn Young
"Hubbard was completely psychotic on the subject of sex."
-Robert Vaughn Young
"[T]his...settles once and for all that DM is in charge - as
if there was any doubt... .DM is at the top and the rest of
the organizations are underneath. What the agreement does is
paint a massive bullseye [on Miscavige] and paints large
arrows saying, 'Here is the alterego!'"
-Robert Vaughn Young
Is that the kind of intentional, demented, low-life, criminal
disinformation and baseless, ridiculous charges yer talkin' about,
PastyBoy? Fuckhead? Scumbag? Liar?
If not, hows about you elucidate jest a little bit fer poor, slow, ol' Ace,
so's I can unnerstand better what yer referrin' to.
>And why don't you tell us who you are...
I already tol', you, dumb shit. Now listen up good this time, 'cause I'm
only gonna' say this once: I am yer confessor, I am the alpha and the
omega; I am the hammer and I am the nail; I am Astraea; I am Moloch; I am
the Lord of the Flies; I am the Adversary; I am the Old Bogey.
I am you.
Y'all come back, now, y'hear?
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths,
Win us with honest trifles, to betray 's
In deepest consequence.
--William Shakespeare
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
ace of clubs
ef
clubs) wrote:
<snipped a bunch of demented garbage about how ole elron was ill-done-by
some conspiracy or another involving everyone on earth except ... oh damn,
i have lost the thread>
> I already tol', you, dumb shit. Now listen up good this time, 'cause I'm
> only gonna' say this once: I am yer confessor, I am the alpha and the
> omega; I am the hammer and I am the nail; I am Astraea; I am Moloch; I am
> the Lord of the Flies; I am the Adversary; I am the Old Bogey.
ahm... nah... actually you're just plain ole nuts. aceee-o, alph' and
omegger et al.
ef
Starshadow
a.crdva1.bc.wave.home.com>, one....@somewhere.land says...
> In article <1998080902...@replay.com>, a...@blackjack.no (ace of
> clubs) wrote:
>
> <snipped a bunch of demented garbage about how ole elron was ill-done-by
> some conspiracy or another involving everyone on earth except ... oh damn,
> i have lost the thread>
>
>
> > only gonna' say this once: I am yer confessor, I am the alpha and the
> > omega; I am the hammer and I am the nail; I am Astraea; I am Moloch; I am
> > the Lord of the Flies; I am the Adversary; I am the Old Bogey.
>
> omegger et al.
>
> ef
>
read, at least.
He writes in "good ol' boy" pretty fluently, though his education comes
shining through...not that that is totally unusual for a "good ol' boy",
but it is a tad surreal, like that paleoontologist fellow with the full
bushy beard...can't remember his name...but helluva scientist, but looks
like Bubba and all his cousins...
Keith Henson
scientology.
Of this bunch of people, I think Miscavige is the *only* one so screwed
up and ignorant of the outside world that he could make the kinds of
completely screwed up decisions we have seen over the last three-four
years--and see nearly every day.
The rest of them are in service of this nut case.
Far from statements about him being in charge proping up ol' (*), these
statements are about scientology's death knell.
Keith Henson
Tommy
>
>
> I'm the fly on yer wall, Geritol. I'm the fuckin' noise in the basement.
> I'm the strange light on a faraway hill in the night. But you can call me
> Beelzebub. Or you can call me The God of Hell Fire. Or you can call me Al.
> But don't YOU fuckin' call me Ace. That's reserved for my friends.
Whut you iz, ol' pard, is bor-ring! The dialect isn't even good.
Hows 'bout I call you.....*plonked*? How's that grabya, cupcake?
Tommy
--
'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'
-- Hubbard, 1967 letter to his wife submitted to the court in the
Armstrong
case, authenticity unchallenged by LRH/CoS lawyers
Paul Misiunas
"More particularly, the corporation is formed for the purpose of
providing a corporate organization through which and by means of which
the operations and activities of a church, may be accomplished. Its
purpose is to act as the Mother Church, which is the ultimate
ecclesiastical authority of Scientology."
Signed by Rev. Heber Jentsch, President and
Rev. Sandy Brennan, Assistant Secretary
According to the Articles of Incorporation for RTC (restated):
"Its purpose is to espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure and
maintain the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology,..."
"More particularily, the corporation is formed for the purpose of
providing a corporate organization through which and by means of which
the operations and activities of a church, may be accomplished. Its
purpose is to act as the protector of the religion of Scientology by
correctly managing and using, and making available for use by other
Church organizations, religious trademarks and service marks, and the
substantial body of confidential advanced religious technology which
is a part of a body of truths and methods of application and research,
..." blah blah blah.
Signed by Rev. Stephen Marlowe, President and
Rev. Laura Marlowe, Secretary
Paul
http://fza.org
Paul Misiunas
Articles of Incorporation for Church of Spiritual Technology:
"Its purpose is to protect and preserve the religion of Scientology
through establishment of religious scholarship funds, museums,
librarys and such other institutions which will ensure the benefits of
Scientology to future generations."
"No Members of the Corporation: This coporation shall have no
members."
Signed: Sherman D. Lenske, Incoporator
Articles of Incorporation for Bridge Publications, Inc. (restated):
"Its purpose is to operate exclusively for the benefit of Church of
Scientology International by performing the publishing functions of
the Scientology religion as founded by L. Ron Hubbard."
"Sole Member: In accordance with this corporation's status as an
integrated auxiliary of Church of Scientology International, Church of
Scientology International shall be the Sole Member of this
coporation."
Signed by: oops, only signatures are found on this document. printed
names are missing.
I haven't figured this one out. Maybe someone can shed some light on
what it really says:
============
Letterhead:
Church of Scientology of California
United States Ministry of Legal Affairs
Dated: 1 February 1983
Subject: Use of the Name WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY ENTERPRISES.
Dear Sir,
We appreciate the protective action taken by your office regarding the
name of our coporation, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA.
We are aware of the desire to file WORLD INSTITUTE OF SCIENTOLOGY
ENTERPRISES as a corporate name with your Office, and this is to
confirm that there is no objection of any kind to having this name
used by the new corporation.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
Cynthia Morrow
Secretary, Church of
Scientology of California
============
Paul
http://fza.org