Slander and stuff.
Max
With best intentions:
I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
Scientologists aren't being critized JUST because of the fact that
they are scientologists (or atleast they shouldn't be) but rather for
what they believe in. Sure, everybody has the right to believe
whatever he/she wants, but it is also everybody's right to question
and critize whoever they feel needs to be critized. I would go as far
as saying that it's not only a right, but also an obligation. But
slandering and making irrational posts wont get you anything but the
disrespect of other people. You don't have to like the critics, no-one
is asking you to, but you should atleast be able to produce answers
that make sense rather than simply ignoring the questions and calling
someone a #%&@.
This is not a hategroup, it is a place where information and news on
certain topics can be made publicly availeble for the benefit of free
speech. Not approving of something is not the same thing as hating
something.
Max
Garry Scarff
Incorrect. It is a hategroup coordinated by 5 year olds.
Roland
Max wrote:
>
> With best intentions:
>
> I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
> people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
> that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
Sorry boy. Flame war going on here. I ain't got time for talking.
Roland
--
Watch the Xemu Cartoon: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/xemurams/
Visit Xemu's Home Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/index2.html
Also the incomparable Operation Clambake: http://www.xenu.net/
The TRUE story of Hubbard: http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/bfm/
Hubbard's "No Christ": http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Nochrist.ram
The famous Xenu flyer: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/flyers/Xemu.html
Zinj
The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
fetish with it.
Zinj
In article <slrn6j3h6n.t...@user2.teleport.com>, gunbu...@yahoo.com
says...
>
>On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 02:42:15 GMT, Max <ursami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>With best intentions:
>>
>>I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
>>people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
>>that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
>>
>
>Obviously you are misinformed.
>
>Keith
>
Lron...@aol.com
In article <353173ba...@news1.telia.com>,
ursami...@hotmail.com (Max) wrote:
>
> With best intentions:
>
> I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
> people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
> that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
>
> they are scientologists (or atleast they shouldn't be) but rather for
> what they believe in. Sure, everybody has the right to believe
> whatever he/she wants, but it is also everybody's right to question
> and critize whoever they feel needs to be critized. I would go as far
> as saying that it's not only a right, but also an obligation. But
> slandering and making irrational posts wont get you anything but the
> disrespect of other people. You don't have to like the critics, no-one
> is asking you to, but you should atleast be able to produce answers
> that make sense rather than simply ignoring the questions and calling
> someone a #%&@.
>
> This is not a hategroup, it is a place where information and news on
> certain topics can be made publicly availeble for the benefit of free
> speech. Not approving of something is not the same thing as hating
> something.
>
> Max
>
>
looks as though some of the people here find it much easier to call someone a
stupid #$%# then to think about a clear and concise response. But that would
also mean the stupid, inane and off topic posts would have to stop also. I
don't think the pointless one line posts are going to stop or the one-line
responses to them. But for the most part I think this news group is still very
affective at getting the information out about Scientology. Even though there
has been a resent attempt to change the news group to alt.scarff. I for one
don't care if Gary doesn't like Martin or Tillman or Roland. Me being a newbie
I don't pretend to know what it's all about (the in fighting).
IMHO
Best Regards,
Lronlied http://members.aol.com/ggt711/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Keith
On 13 Apr 98 10:13:09 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
>The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
>He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
>fetish with it.
Sure Zinj, blame the Scientologist for others moral shortcomings.
Keith
Enzo Piccone
Keith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 02:42:15 GMT, Max <ursami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >With best intentions:
> >
> >I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
> >people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
> >that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
> >
>
>
> Keith
LOL. Hang in there, Keith!
E
Garry Scarff
Zinj wrote:
>
> The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
> He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
> fetish with it.
>
> >>With best intentions:
> >>
> >>I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
> >>people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
> >>that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
> >>
> >
> >Obviously you are misinformed.
> >
> >Keith
Like I'm enjoying my "fetish" with HIV?
> >
Garry Scarff
Keith wrote:
>
> On 13 Apr 98 10:13:09 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
>
> >The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
> >He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
> >fetish with it.
>
>
> Keith
Hey, it's the popular thing to do on this gossip mill.
Max
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 07:55:03 GMT, gunbu...@yahoo.com (Keith) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 02:42:15 GMT, Max <ursami...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>With best intentions:
>>
>>I thought this newsgroup was about scientology. Not about whether
>>people are homo or heterosexual, not about what one person might think
>>that another person likes to do with pigs etc. etc.
>>
>
>Obviously you are misinformed.
So why don't you inform me then, instead of just saying that I'm
wrong? Should I interpret your answer as if this newsgroup IS about
the sexual interests of people and not at all about scientology? C'mon
Keith, not even you can seriously think that. Tell me what's bugging
you.
Max
Max
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:44:58 -0700, Garry Scarff
<sca...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Max wrote:
>>
[snipt]
>> This is not a hategroup, it is a place where information and news on
>> certain topics can be made publicly availeble for the benefit of free
>> speech. Not approving of something is not the same thing as hating
>> something.
>>
>> Max
>
>Incorrect. It is a hategroup coordinated by 5 year olds.
I suppose it's your right to read whatever you want into the purpose
of this NG, but if this really is a hategroup then you have as much
part in turning it into one as the ones you claim are responsible for
it. Like the things you said to Anti-Cult for example. What was all
that about? I know you don't like him (do you hate him?), that's not
the point, but keeping the faul language up will make you just as much
a moron as you claim Anti to be a moron.
And whose side are you on anyway? Are you just fighting people because
you take some sadistic pleasure in it? Or are you really OSA as some
people here say you are? Tell us Garry. Fighting people just for the
fun of it wont bring things forward ya know.
Btw Garry, when is YOUR sixth birthday coming up? And please give me
the names of the other four.
Max
Max
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:27:29 GMT, kew...@teleport.nospam.com (Keith)
wrote:
>On 13 Apr 98 10:13:09 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
>
>>The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
>>He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
>>fetish with it.
>
>Sure Zinj, blame the Scientologist for others moral shortcomings.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong Keith, but wasn't wgert the one who brought up
this thing with the pig? And wasn't the pig only existing in someone's
dreams when the person to whom the dream belonged was asleep? This
whole piggy thing says alot more about wgert's mind than it does about
Armstrong's. And perhaps it says some about your's aswell.
Max
Paul
Keith wrote:
>
> On 13 Apr 98 10:13:09 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
>
> >The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
> >He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
> >fetish with it.
>
> Sure Zinj, blame the Scientologist for others moral shortcomings.
Um...what moral shortcomings? Gerry had a weird dream and discussed it
in a (supposedly) confidential auditing session. This is a moral
shortcoming?
Now wgert's pathetic attempt to dead-agent Gerry with this weird dream
is definitely evidence of moral shortcomings, don't you think?
-Paul
Max
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 06:09:45 GMT, gunbu...@yahoo.com (Keith) wrote:
>On 13 Apr 98 10:13:09 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
>
>>The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
>>He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
>>fetish with it.
>
>Sure Zinj, blame the Scientologist for others moral shortcomings.
>
>
>
>Keith
Keith, you still haven't answered what the "moral shortcomings"
consist of.
Max
gerry armstrong
posted and emailed
On 16 Apr 1998 00:33:32 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>In article <35371283....@news2.teleport.com>,
>Keith <kew...@teleport.nospam.com> wrote:
>>On 13 Apr 98 10:13:09 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
>>
>>>The simple fact is that the whole pig thing is wgert's fault.
>>>He tried to use what's called a DA pack.. and we are still enjoying his
>>>fetish with it.
>>
>>Sure Zinj, blame the Scientologist for others moral shortcomings.
>
>Ahh... Keith? wgert tried to use as a weapon of ridicule and shame a
>dream --a dream!-- Gerry Armstrong had and reported to his MINISTER in
>CONFIDENCE while he was in that most holy church of scientology. It is
>quite evident that wgert got his hands on it because the "church" does NOT
>hold confession sacred as it promises but instead USES "confession" of
>things that trouble their "parishioners" as items of potential blackmail
>or embarassment.
>
Barbara:
Although the cult does use people's "confessions" made in auditing for
base purposes, and the cult has used my auditing files against me, the
pig dream wasn't from auditing. I'll explain below.
>====
>I'm going to ask you a series of questions, and I'd sincerely appreciate
>it if you'd take the time to think about them and answer them. They can
>all be answered "yes" or "no."
>
>1) If someone confessed a sin to a Catholic priest and later left the
>church and criticized the church in public, do you think it would be
>OK for the Catholic Church to then make the contents of that person's
>confession public?
>
>2) If Garry had a dream --a _dream_ for heaven's sake!-- and shared this
>with his auditor with the understanding that information shared in
>auditing is held to be as confidential and as sacred as the Catholic
>confessional, do you think it is right or justified that a representatiive
>of scientology now posts this dream to the entire world with the purpose
>of shaming and ridiculing him as a person?
We have to watch this. Garry having a dream is different from Gerry
having a dream. But you're absolutely right, it was a dream --a
_dream_ for heaven's sake!
>
>3) Do you find it in the slightest degree deplorable that people enter
>scientology with the assurance that what they confide in their auditors
>during their sessions will be kept private but are later betrayed?
>
This cult's cynical abuse of the statements made by its adherents who
have an expectation of privacy, confidentiality and therapy is one of
the truly evil practices of that organization.
>4) Do you feel even the slightest discomfort about the fact that this is
>apparently SOP in scientology?
>
>5) Would you want to be treated this way?
>
>6) Is it a matter of indifference to you that others are treated this
>way?
>
>7) If you have children, would it be OK with you if they were treated
>this way?
>
>--Barbara
>
>
>
Below is my first post on the pig dream subject, giving its history
and Scientology's misuse of the writing in and out of court. Following
this post wgert posted the language of the writing, with a few errors.
Knowing the history of the writing and the court order sealing it, I
took wgert's posting as another confirmation (as if one were needed)
of his being a cult operated agent (similar to his obtaining the
Henson RiversideTRO).
Note that Whippersnapper has "corrected" wgert's errors in the dream,
showing that he too is a cult operated agent who was given the writing
for attack purposes. Compare the wgert and whippersnapper renditions.
I see that the various cult agents are seeking to have wgert's affair
with the pig end, but they want to continue to attack me for having
this dream. I think let nature run its course. If the cultists believe
that wallowing with the swine is the bridge to OT it's natural that
they'll pull in a lot of crap. HCO bring ordure!
I really do thank God that my life has been so ordinary that the cult
has to seize on my one pornographic dream -- a _dream_ for heaven's
sake -- to have something to fuck with.
Subject: For Grady with Love and Squalor
From: arms...@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Date: 1997/11/14
Message-ID: <346bf873....@news.dowco.com>
Scientology has been disseminating one of my writings, which has
come to be known as the "Pig Dream," and I thought I should
mitigate my damages by letting the world know what it is, and its
long and amazing history.
It doesn't hold a candle to Grady Ward's coprophilic opera, but
draws from the same set of short scatologisms, which probably
come from Old Norse, and Scientology uses it to attack me in the
same way it uses Grady's literature to attack him. It is an honor
to share both Scientology's attacks and the English language with
the man.
On March 9, 1985, while staying at the Wilsonville, Oregon home
of Garry McMurry, attorney for Julie Christofferson, and while
waiting to testify in her trial, I had a dream. I have had few
dreams in my life which were memorable and that I remembered the
next morning. I have had fewer still that I wrote down; and I
have had only one really raunchy dream that was memorable, that I
remembered, and that I wrote down.
Because of the Scientology war, March, 1985 was a stressful
enough time for me to excuse my dreaming any sort of dream. But
the pig dream doesn't really relate to anything then going on,
and, being a dream, it doesn't need excusing. Only years later
did I come to understand, aside from its immediate and very
obvious message, what it meant in my life.
What follows is a version with the expletives excised, because
that's the only version I have with me, and because it's enough
for Scientology's prurient purposes. ARS wordsmiths are invited
to fill in the blanks.
[Quote]
3-10-85
Last night as I dreamed I received a warning to not [blank]
the [blank blank]. If I did I would myself turn into a [blank].
Sometime later, sure enough, there appeared a [blank blank
blank blank] and [blank]. She turned her [blank blank blank]
almost in [blank blank], and turned her head back, looking at me
[blank blank blank blank]. Her [blank] was [blank blank]. Her
ears [blank blank]. Her mouth didn't move but she asked in
perfect English if I'd like [blank blank blank]. There were
[blank] of [blank] around her [blank].
I wanted to [blank blank] but I said no. She disappeared. I
woke up.
I have thought of her several times today. She was there.
I'm still here. [Blank blank blank blank blank]
(c) G. Armstrong
[End Quote]
For some then inexplicable reason I sent a copy of the unexcised
recitation of the dream to my friend Dan Sherman, who had been,
unbeknownst to me, operated by Scientology since 1982 to become
my friend and ultimately to set me up in a cult intel op. I say
"then inexplicable" because future events have made clear why I
was moved to send the writing to Sherman.
During my cross-examination in the Christofferson trial in the
spring of 1985 cult lawyer Earle Cooley revealed that Sherman had
been working for Scientology, that I had been set up, that they
had four hours of illegally taken videotapes of me during parts
of which I swear like a logger, and that they had a number of
writings they'd tricked from me, plus the dream. My recollection
is that Multnomah County Judge Londer didn't allow the cult to
admit it into evidence.
On July 3, 1986 cult lawyer Donald Randolph of the LA lawfirm
Overland, Berke, Wesley, Gits, Randolph and Levanas signed and
filed in Armstrong I (LASC No, 420153) the cult's "Objection of
Cross-Defendant Church of Scientology of California to Release of
Pre-Clear Files," supported by, among other exhibits, the pig
dream. It is possible that Randolph later had a falling out with
the cult; and there might be a reference to that in the 1992
American Lawyer article, which unfortunately I don't have here.
What the cult had Randolph do in my case to prevent me from
obtaining my pc folders was really low, and for a lawyer with any
conscience left that could have been enough for a falling out.
More about this in a future post.
In the 7/3/86 objection to release of my files, Randolph wrote:
"The above admissions (statements Randolph claimed
were extracted from my pc folders), if the Church is
ever forced to use them, must be construed as
admissions against Armstrong's interest. They paint an
incredibly sad picture of a pathetic and troubled
individual who engaged in one illegal or deviant act
after another until entering the Church; who continued,
although in a comparatively minor way, to practice his
debased activities while a member of the Church; and
who immediately resumed his extremely aberrated
activities upon leaving the Church as demonstrated by
his theft of thousands of pages of personal materials
and his "talking pig" essay, a sickening "personal
creative work" authored by Armstrong for potential
publication."
On November 18, 1986 I executed a declaration in Armstrong I
which stated:
"The organization has demonstrated continually
throughout the litigation of this case that truth,
which must have some relationship to legitimate
discovery, is, as far as the organization is concerned,
irrelevant. Attached hereto [ ] is a copy of a
recitation of a dream I had in March 1985. I have
blacked out for this purpose, anything which could be
considered offensive. Donald Randolph has, in
furtherance of the organization's goals, defined the
recitation of the dream a "sickening work"
demonstrating my "extremely aberrated activities." The
dream was a dream. The recitation was true, and as
artistically tight as I was capable of. To the
organization, if it suits its purposes, however, dreams
are reality, and truth is whatever can be twisted
therefrom. The only thing "sickening" about the dream
is how the organization acquired it and went about its
degradation. I sent it to my friend Dan Sherman, a
professional writer who had throughout 1984 encouraged
me to write and who had "critiqued" some of my work.
Sherman was, of course, being operated by the
organization in the "Armstrong Operation" (the same
operation which John Peterson says never happened), and
Sherman either gave the organization the "dream" he had
dutifully tricked me into sending him, or the
organization simply stole it from him. Attached hereto
[ ] is a letter from Sherman from March 1986 in which
he indicates that the organization was indeed getting
his mail. Since writing me, however, Sherman has
apparently again been pressured by the organization
because he has again cut communication with me and gone
into hiding." (parens in orig).
The "settlement" of my litigation occurred in December, 1986, and
the case file, which contained the pig dream, was, on
Scientology's insistence, sealed.
When I again became involved in the Scientology war, I filed in
the appeal the cult had taken from the 1984 Breckenridge decision
a declaration I executed March 15, 1990 in which I wrote about
Scientology's next use of the pig dream.
"On December 21, 1988 I received a call from
Michael Flynn who relayed a message from Michael Lee
Hertzberg, one of the organization's leading attorneys.
Paul Morantz, Bent Corydon's attorney in one or another
case, filed a motion to unseal the _Armstrong_ court
file. Judge Geernaert, who had inherited the
_Armstrong_ file after Judge Breckenridge retired,
allowed the unsealing. The organization had 30 days to
appeal. They wanted me to file a pleading to keep the
court file sealed. They said that otherwise the "pig
document" would come out. (This document, which was
specifically sealed by Judge Breckenridge, was a
recitation of a dream I had in 1985.) They also stated
that if I didn't file something it would unsettle the
settlement. They said they have a case on point. They
said it would be bad for me. I could have to give the
(settlement) money back. Mr. Flynn translated for me:
"It's a veiled threat." I said my decision at that time
was to do nothing." (Parens in orig)
"On December 27, 1988 I again spoke by telephone
with Mr. Flynn who had himself spoken to lawyers on
both sides of Mr. Corydon's litigation. This is what I
considered relevant at the time. Following Judge
Geernaert's unsealing of the _Armstrong- court file,
the organization filed a petition for a writ of
supersedeas claiming the sealing of the file was
consideration for settlement. In his response Paul
Morantz filed some settlement documents, a notary seal
from the State of Pennsylvania on which identified Bill
Franks, like me a former organization executive and
witness in various organization-related cases, as their
source. Mr. Franks had sent the documents to a lawyer
to look at and the lawyer gave them to another lawyer
who gave them to Mr. Morantz. The organization reacted.
They claimed to have "the smoking gun," the proof of
settlement violations. They charged that there were
numerous breaches: they knew last summer that Mr.
Franks had spent time with the Aznarans (who I
understood to be organization executives who had
recently defected and had sued the organization); and
they had some instance of Homer Schomer doing something
three weeks before. Mr. Flynn advised me he was going
to file a pleading to say the settlement documents
should remain sealed. I said I felt the court file
should be unsealed and almost certainly would be at
some point, but that I wouldn't do anything at that
time." (Parens in orig)
When I was in Johannesburg, South Africa in August, 1991 at the
request of Malcolm Nothling to testify in his case against
Scientology, one of the cult's local attorneys smirked to
Malcolm's attorney that he had the "pig dream."
Various cult black PR packs on me obtained in discovery in my
Marin County litigation contain a statement parroting this one:
"Armstrong's state of mind is illustrated by
various "literary" writings authored by him, none of
which more clearly demonstrated it than a document now
known as the "pig letter," in which Armstrong purported
to describe a dream. [Attachment]"
One of the cult's black PR attacks on Factnet contained this
statement:
"Gerry Armstrong, according to their Articles of
Incorporation, is the President of FACTNET.
In December 1981 Armstrong, who worked as a
librarian for the Church of Scientology, stole more
than 10,000 pages of records belonging to L. Ron
Hubbard and the Church. Armstrong loaned and showed the
documents to others who were bent on attacking the
Church to support their attacks.
Armstrong's state of mind is clearly illustrated
by various "literary" writings authored by him, none of
which more clearly demonstrated it than a document now
known as the "pig letter," in which Armstrong described
in graphic detail a dream he had where a pig asked him
to have sex and he declined despite the fact he wanted
to. Armstrong was formerly a heavy drug user, and on at
least one occasion he was paid to provide homosexual
sex."
At the 1993 Nonscam CAN Convention in Minneapolis, a cult heavy
(I think named something like Bratchi, and a sometimes sidekick
of Gene Ingram) hassled me about the dream.
Last month OSA mean guy Lynn Farny sent the dream and a bunch of
other black PR on me to Channel 4 in the UK to try to stop the
Hubbard documentary. In Edmonton, Alberta, Yvette Shank, OSA mean
woman, sent the dream and another set of black PR to CHED Radio.
I suppose the cult will soon be sending it to Congress, if they
haven't already.
But they know that my writing about my dream is, as their
attorney Donald Randolph stated under oath, my "personal creative
work authored for potential publication." And they should know
the copyright law well enough to know that by their dissemination
of my unpublished work they are just being lowdown sneaky little
garden variety copyright terrorists.
Gerry
WHIPPERSNAPPER
Gerry wrote:
>Note that Whippersnapper has "corrected" wgert's errors in the dream,
>showing that he too is a cult operated agent who was given the writing
>for attack purposes. Compare the wgert and whippersnapper renditions.
It was cut and pasted directly, unchanged, from wgert's 2 Dec 97 post.
- Whippersnapper
Well, you just zap it, and presto, it's an iguana! -- Calvin
Anonymous
On 16 Apr 1998 00:33:32 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>Ahh... Keith? wgert tried to use as a weapon of ridicule and shame a
>dream --a dream!-- Gerry Armstrong had and reported to his MINISTER in
>CONFIDENCE while he was in that most holy church of scientology. It is
>quite evident that wgert got his hands on it because the "church" does NOT
>hold confession sacred as it promises but instead USES "confession" of
>things that trouble their "parishioners" as items of potential blackmail
>or embarassment.
Was the story initially posted by wgert or by Armstrong? Anyone still have the
original post and can repost it?
>====
>I'm going to ask you a series of questions, and I'd sincerely appreciate
>it if you'd take the time to think about them and answer them. They can
>all be answered "yes" or "no."
>
>1) If someone confessed a sin to a Catholic priest and later left the
>church and criticized the church in public, do you think it would be
>OK for the Catholic Church to then make the contents of that person's
>confession public?
No.
>2) If Garry had a dream --a _dream_ for heaven's sake!-- and shared this
>with his auditor with the understanding that information shared in
>auditing is held to be as confidential and as sacred as the Catholic
>confessional, do you think it is right or justified that a representatiive
>of scientology now posts this dream to the entire world with the purpose
>of shaming and ridiculing him as a person?
No.
>3) Do you find it in the slightest degree deplorable that people enter
>scientology with the assurance that what they confide in their auditors
>during their sessions will be kept private but are later betrayed?
No.
>4) Do you feel even the slightest discomfort about the fact that this is
>apparently SOP in scientology?
Evidences?
>5) Would you want to be treated this way?
No.
>6) Is it a matter of indifference to you that others are treated this
>way?
No.
>7) If you have children, would it be OK with you if they were treated
>this way?
No.
Your series of questions is really the same question repeated differently, all
based on an assumption you didn't prove.
Zinj
Thanks for the whole story Gerry. I'm glad to see it here, and I'm not
snipping it because I think it should be seen.
I'm just about paranoid enough to think that Whip apologized only to hope to
change wgert's original posting.
As for other threads.. Why isn't it one? Could it be that there was some hope
to distract?
What Whippersnapper doesn't explain is why for christ sake anyone would think
that a dream was suitable for a DA pack.
Not 33 posts of the dream.. but why even one?
That wgert is a porcophile peurile pustule is a given. But why does Whip think
that even a single posting of a mildly humorous dream would horrify us?
Could it be that Whippersnapper missed wgert's earlier 'It's sex! it's
scandal!' posts?
Lets face it Whip.. the so called church will die not in a blast, nor in a
whimper, but in a mildly regrettful chuckle.
Zinj
In article <35357847...@news.dowco.com>, arms...@dowco.com says...
Steve A
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:17:44 GMT, arms...@dowco.com (gerry
armstrong) wrote:
> HCO bring ordure!
<cackle, snort>
--
Would you protect from the law a Scientologist who abused YOUR
children? Scientology would. Read alt.religion.scientology.
Anonymous
On 18 Apr 1998 20:28:03 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>In article <6h4d8q$j...@basement.replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote:
>>On 16 Apr 1998 00:33:32 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>Gerry Armstrong posted the entire sequence of events after wgert divorced
>the dream from its context and posted it. Again and again and again and
>again and again and again.
And from the sequence of events, I gather that it isn't something that
comes out from his PC folder. You made an hasty conclusion.
>>>1) If someone confessed a sin to a Catholic priest and later left the
>>>church and criticized the church in public, do you think it would be
>>>OK for the Catholic Church to then make the contents of that person's
>>>confession public?
>>
>>No.
>Why not?
It's confidential.
>Why is it OK for scientology to do this but not the Catholic
>church?
Did I say it was OK for Scientology?
>What's the difference, if they're both genuine religions?
You are again building up inference on something that wasn't said.
>Does not scientology make a profession to the raw meat entering on auditing
>courses that what they confide to auditors during sessions will be held in
>confidence?
They do, and to the best of my knowledge, they always fought as much as
they could to prevent anyone getting hold of these folders.
>Don't they even specifically compare the practice to the
>Catholic confessional?
More baseless inferences.
>>>2) If
>correction: Gerry
> had a dream --a _dream_ for heaven's sake!-- and shared this
>>>with his auditor with the understanding that information shared in
>>>auditing is held to be as confidential and as sacred as the Catholic
>>>confessional, do you think it is right or justified that a representatiive
>>>of scientology now posts this dream to the entire world with the purpose
>>>of shaming and ridiculing him as a person?
>>
>>No.
>
>You don't.
>Then why do they do it?
I have seen no evidence that they do. I have seen evidence that they
strongly protect this confidentiality.
>If it's not official policy encouraged and
>condoned by scientology, then how do people like wgert get their hands on
>such information?
Did you read the answer from Armstrong to you or not? In it, he clearly
says that the information does not come from his PC folder.
>>>3) Do you find it in the slightest degree deplorable that people enter
>>>scientology with the assurance that what they confide in their auditors
>>>during their sessions will be kept private but are later betrayed?
>>
>>No.
>
>You don't? Then why did you say above that it is _not_ right and
>justified for representatives of scientology to post confidential material
>about identifiable individuals for the purpose of shaming and humiliating
>these individuals? Are you saying that you don't think it's right but at
>the same time you don't find it deplorable?
Sorry. I misread the question. This should have been a "yes".
>>>4) Do you feel even the slightest discomfort about the fact that this is
>>>apparently SOP in scientology?
>>
>>Evidences?
>
>First-person testimony, affidavits, books. References to the betrayal of
>confidential information for the purpose of intimidation and blackmail are
>abundant in the literature available on the web and in published books.
>We have seen it happen right here in front of our faces on a.r.s. How
>much evidence do you need, and of what nature?
The most easy for me would be messages-ID that I can trace through
DejaNews. If you say that it "happen right here in frontof our faces on
a.r.s.", then I am quite sure you will have no problem at providing me with
some messages-ID I can look up in DejaNews, or better even, post them here.
>>Your series of questions is really the same question repeated differently, all
>>based on an assumption you didn't prove.
>
>Please explain how all seven questions are the same question.
It's basically the same question, in all kind of variation, i.e. Whether I
approve or not the disclosure of confidential information coming from PC
folders.
>The proof is available to any honest person of good will who is capable
>of reading English.
And who has time. I barely have the time right now to read this newsgroup
(and believe me or not, I have been reading almost *every* posts of it for
the last two or three days, and to make quick answer to some posts (and I
don't have time to answer everything). So, I don't have time to wade
through pages of pages of biases information. But I will read whatever is
posted here.
So far, you made a series of incorrect inferences based on an incorrect
assumption, and I haven't seen you provide any evidence one way or the
other. So, I don't think that you have much of a case so far.
Now my question to you. Do you approve of the seizing of confidential PC
folders by German authorities in order to find out if the person confessed
to a crime?
The Watcher