Ask A Clam
Don NOTs
I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
a variety of subjects. The following people are volunteer 'experts' on
$cientology:
Greg Churilov
http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=4811&Category=949
Lynn Farny
http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=5255&Category=949
Lynne Sagner
http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=5475&Category=949
There appears to be room for a expert critic of Scientology on the main
page, http://www.allexperts.com/getExpert.asp?Category=949 .
Who's volunteering?
-Don NOTs
SP5
--
Hot, Hot, Hot: www.xenu-city.net
Ishmael
<121019991118539450%wko...@gmx.de>, Don wrote thusly...
I've put in my application but I won't know for a week if I'm accepted.
David
>
>-Don NOTs
>SP5
>
>--
>Hot, Hot, Hot: www.xenu-city.net
***************** Meet me in Clearwater, December 5, 1999 *****************
Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this
combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards
them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville
http://www.offlines.org/my_essay.html
gerry armstrong
>Hi Ess Peas,
>
>I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
>a variety of subjects. The following people are volunteer 'experts' on
>$cientology:
>
>Greg Churilov
>http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=4811&Category=949
>
>Lynn Farny
>http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=5255&Category=949
This is cool. Lynn Farny at least is an O$A whore. I don't know the
other people.
It will be great to ask Farny questions. I have a couple of days of
Farny's deposition in $cientology v. Armstrong. He sure pretended to
be anything but an expert in that depo/
(c) Gerry Armstrong
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Lynne Sagner
>http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=5475&Category=949
>
>There appears to be room for a expert critic of Scientology on the main
>page, http://www.allexperts.com/getExpert.asp?Category=949 .
>
>Who's volunteering?
>
podkayne
> Hi Ess Peas,
>
> I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
> a variety of subjects. The following people are volunteer 'experts' on
> $cientology:
>
Check their "frequently asked" on "Religion"
http://www2.allexperts.com/faqs/religion/index.shtml
"Religion Frequently Asked Questions
* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
mind control?'
"
!
--
I can only fight one abusive nut-cult per day.
Today's your day, and tomorrow's looking good for you too.
Read more Heinlein
podkayne
> Hi Ess Peas,
>
> I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
> a variety of subjects. The following people are volunteer 'experts' on
> $cientology:
Cor, I'm an expert on the Internet - according to their "difficult and
challenging test", multiple-choice with qs like "The full name of the Web
is " World Wide Web, and "the Internet was originally designed for "
miltary and scholarly exchanges
Oh, and the Scn FAQ I mentioned? It's cut-and-paste from the CoS webpages :-(
Your friend(s) will be sent the following:
Hello. Your friend has just passed a difficult and challenging test and is
now officially labeled an ***EXPERT*** at Allexperts.com!!!!! If you'd
like to see the test your friend passed and see if you measure up as an
expert, try taking a test yourself! You can see a list of our challenging
tests at http://www2.allexperts.com/quiz/index.shtml In the meantime be
sure the congratulate your friend, the smartest of the smart!!!!
Russell Shaw
podkayne wrote in message ...
>In article <121019991118539450%wko...@gmx.de>, Don NOTs <wko...@gmx.de>
wrote:
>
>> Hi Ess Peas,
>>
>> I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
>> a variety of subjects. The following people are volunteer 'experts' on
>> $cientology:
>>
>
>
>http://www2.allexperts.com/faqs/religion/index.shtml
>
>"Religion Frequently Asked Questions
>
>* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
>mind control?'
I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit "much"
to be around.
____
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
- Samuel Goldwyn
Elron Xemoo
want to; there's just that much more for the rest of us.
You see, our personalities consist of those body thetans, and when they
discard them, they have less and less personality (this explains their lack
thereof).
Shy David www.xenu.net
>>Lynn Farny
>>http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=5255&Category=949
>This is cool. Lynn Farny at least is an O$A whore. I don't know the
>other people.
>
>It will be great to ask Farny questions. I have a couple of days of
>Farny's deposition in $cientology v. Armstrong. He sure pretended to
>be anything but an expert in that depo/
ROTFL! Sounds like excellent grounds for a re-trial to me. :-)
By the way: expect a phone call from me (you left your phone number and
asked that I call---- I have no idea why).
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
---
7 days left then I'm OUT OF HERE!
Thomas J Best
Russell Shaw wrote in message <38042...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>
>podkayne wrote in message ...
>>In article <121019991118539450%wko...@gmx.de>, Don NOTs <wko...@gmx.de>
>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ess Peas,
>>>
>>> I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
>>> a variety of subjects.
>I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit
"much"
>to be around.
Mr Russell Shaw
You ponce. Speaking of questions - what are 'auditors' capable of? Was Lisa
MacPherson '...a bit "much" to be around'? Or was she just inconvenient to
have around?
What about the "context" for the clam engrams? Got any OT scientific data
to answer the question?
tam
Garry
> >> Hi Ess Peas,
> >>
> >> I've found a wonderful new site where one can ask experts questions on
> >> a variety of subjects. The following people are volunteer 'experts' on
> >> $cientology:
> >* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
> >mind control?'
>
> I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit "much"
> to be around.
I find the word 'clam' to be very out of touch with the 90's, notwithstanding,
any spew coming from the mouth of Don Nots, or whatever his name of the week is,
trying to prove to the world what an idiot truly acts like. The word 'oyster'
is acceptable.
Garry
Uhh.. I think you might be confusing the Scientologists with our
representatives in D.C.
Garry
> >I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit
> "much"
> >to be around.
>
> Mr Russell Shaw
> You ponce.
What is a "ponce"? It's not in my Webster's dictionary.
Conner
<38042...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
[clip]
>>* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
>>mind control?'
>
>I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit "much"
>to be around.
>____
>Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
> - Samuel Goldwyn
i thought phrenology was passe
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner)
Eppur si muove - Galilei
Russell Shaw
Conner wrote in message <380497f6....@news2.lightlink.com>...
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:15:57 -0000, in message
><38042...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
>>
>[clip]
>
>>>* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
>>>mind control?'
>>
>>I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit
"much"
>>to be around.
>>____
>>Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
>> - Samuel Goldwyn
>
> i thought phrenology was passe
You are correct, but as a clam - I am stuck in the past.
Rob Clark
<gar...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>Thomas J Best wrote:
>
>> >I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit
>> "much"
>> >to be around.
>>
>> Mr Russell Shaw
>> You ponce.
>What is a "ponce"? It's not in my Webster's dictionary.
Definitions looked up on Scientology-run www.onelook.com
ponce n :
gay or affected person, show off.
ponce n :
pimp, or simply an unpleasant parasite.
[from British ® American
http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/lexe-a.html#ponce
ponce
Noun. 1. A despicable person. Derog.
2. An effeminate male. Derog.
Verb. To beg or freeload.
ponce about /around
Verb. To waste time, to idle away hours.
http://www.peevish.u-net.com/slang/p.htm
I dunno what I think about these. Not much actually. I've heard
"ponce" used just generally as something like "foolish person."
"What a silly ponce!"
Then again we're talking limeys here, and limeys are the sort who are
so upper-crust-seeming and so on, but they go about calling each other
"silly cunts" as if this were normal, and say "darkie" and "Jewboy"
without even a flush of embarrassment.
You can never tell with these limey fruits.
rob
Thomas J. Best
Sassenach, again, 'n see you, Jimmy, ah'll blooter ye!
And, what's more, you will never see me or hear me use racist, or sexist,
language.
I call Shaw a ponce because I think he's an affected, posturing, ninny.
I wave my big blue hairy Scots backside in your general direction. {TM Mel
gibson]
nemo me impune lacessit!
tam
Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:04:29 -0700, Garry
> <gar...@postoffice.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Thomas J Best wrote:
> >
>
> >> Mr Russell Shaw
> >> You ponce.
>
> >What is a "ponce"? It's not in my Webster's dictionary.
>
> Definitions looked up on Scientology-run www.onelook.com
>
> ponce n :
> gay or affected person, show off.
> ponce n :
> pimp, or simply an unpleasant parasite.<snip>
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>You are correct, but as a clam - I am stuck in the past.
>
I'm going to call you: Russell (As-Is) Shaw.
Personally, I don't think your solo efforts will succeed.
You will have to get other clams to call themselves clams also.
Surely there are lurking clams here, join Russell in this As-Is
exercise. When enough of you clams are calling yourselves clams, then
the critics will stop. And then, only clams will be using the 'clam'
word. Hope this helps.
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
says...
Heh, what you are seeing here, is a fall back position,
always trying to contain the changes in perceptions
people have.
Just like when scientology used to try to surround the picketers
in clearwater - to prevent to perception of their ideas...
Russel here, having abandoned croaking BIGOT, BIGOT, [ a take off
on the budweiser commercials always comes to mind ] and religious
persecution....
is just admitting that we have forced the inner circle designed
to contain the spread of understanding of what scientology really is
outward a bit.
And the clams will just fall back again, to the next defensive
position.
Until all thats left is the dwarf alone with a few of his zombies
in a bunker, Or on the beach in south america perhaps...
I think that Scientology will shortly be fighting TO be percieved
as even a cult -
Anything is better than outright FRAUD.
Arnie Lerma
Ex-Actor in the global magic show called Scientology
>
Secrets are the mortar binding
bricks as lies together into prisons for the mind.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com
Martin Hunt
>>* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
>>mind control?'
>
>I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit "much"
>to be around.
This reminds me of when my mom asked me if I was brainwashed
and I replied that my brain could do with a bit of brainwashing.
Russell, you don't really want your mind controlled. You want
to control it yourself, which is an entirely different matter.
To be self-determined, to be totally free, is to be able to
do as you wish. Being totally free doesn't include limitations
on what you can see and read or whom you can talk to.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Watch Xenu TV: http://www.xenutv.com
Go to a protest in your area: http://www.xenu.net/picket/
The premier Scientology webpage: www.xenu.net
Mr. Hamra said, "The Church of Scientology now had a database
of information on every subscriber which included names, credit
card info., credit reports, telephone info., computer info.,
who had referred them to Earthlink and who were their previous
ISP providers." Mr. Hamra told me about the "other Earthlink
building" which was next door on New York Avenue in Pasadena.
Mr. Hamra told me that the other building was high security and
is where Earthlink and the Church of Scientology did all the
monitoring of the internet. - DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. CIPRIANO.
Elron Xemoo
>>Uhh.. I think you might be confusing the Scientologists with our
>>representatives in D.C.
Ah...yer full o' body thetans!
barb
>
> "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
> >>* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
> >>mind control?'
> >
> >I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit "much"
> >to be around.
>
> This reminds me of when my mom asked me if I was brainwashed
> and I replied that my brain could do with a bit of brainwashing.
I find Mental Floss to be very effective following a good wash and
rinse.
>
> Russell, you don't really want your mind controlled. You want
> to control it yourself, which is an entirely different matter.
> To be self-determined, to be totally free, is to be able to
> do as you wish. Being totally free doesn't include limitations
> on what you can see and read or whom you can talk to.
>
> --
> Cogito, ergo sum. http://scientologysucks.lron.com
>
> Watch Xenu TV: http://www.xenutv.com
>
> Go to a protest in your area: http://www.xenu.net/picket/
>
> The premier Scientology webpage: www.xenu.net
>
> Mr. Hamra said, "The Church of Scientology now had a database
> of information on every subscriber which included names, credit
> card info., credit reports, telephone info., computer info.,
> who had referred them to Earthlink and who were their previous
> ISP providers." Mr. Hamra told me about the "other Earthlink
> building" which was next door on New York Avenue in Pasadena.
> Mr. Hamra told me that the other building was high security and
> is where Earthlink and the Church of Scientology did all the
> monitoring of the internet. - DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. CIPRIANO.
--
barb
"Scientology is much like dope in that it gives you
the feeling of success/high status without actually
having either."
-Keith Henson
Russell Shaw
Martin Hunt wrote in message <+RmB4Mdlg...@islandnet.com>...
>"Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
>>>* Scientology Answer to such questions as 'Does Scientology believe in
>>>mind control?'
>>
>>I know I sure do. People whose minds are out of control can be a bit
"much"
>>to be around.
>
>This reminds me of when my mom asked me if I was brainwashed
>and I replied that my brain could do with a bit of brainwashing.
:-)
>
>Russell, you don't really want your mind controlled.
Correct, not by others.
>You want
>to control it yourself, which is an entirely different matter.
Again. I totally agree. (Which *was* my point. Sorry, if it wasn't
"clear":-)
>To be self-determined, to be totally free, is to be able to
>do as you wish. Being totally free doesn't include limitations
>on what you can see and read or whom you can talk to.
Again, totally agree.
Russell Shaw
Ted Mayett wrote in message <3808b721...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:27:55 -0000, "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>You are correct, but as a clam - I am stuck in the past.
>>
>
>I'm going to call you: Russell (As-Is) Shaw.
>
>Personally, I don't think your solo efforts will succeed.
>You will have to get other clams to call themselves clams also.
>
>Surely there are lurking clams here, join Russell in this As-Is
>exercise. When enough of you clams are calling yourselves clams, then
>the critics will stop. And then, only clams will be using the 'clam'
>word. Hope this helps.
Why THANK YOU, Ted! :-)
>
>
Russell Shaw
Thomas J Best wrote in message <8154m5$urt$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
>
>Russell Shaw wrote in message <380d7...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>Clotstool? No, lesser by far. This is a public forum, I cannot abuse you
>in the terms I would use in private.
Sure you can, go ahead. I rather liked "clotstool", btw.
>I should wish to have a mouth and
>voice so filthy..... and yet, I do repent me thus.... you are a dupe, a
>fool, a prating coxscomb.. I waste my time with you.
>
>tam
>
>
Russell Shaw
Thomas J Best wrote in message <8154ma$urt$2...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...><snip>
>
>>Again, totally agree.
>>
>
><snip>
>Mr Russsell Shaw, still poncing and posturing? Answering questions?
>You will, won't you? Or rather, you won't in the absence of 'Source', will
>you?
>
>'Context', you said. Your dead god's ramblings about Piltdown Man and
>that archaeological fraud's effect upon a person's psychological state
>had to be considered in it's 'context'. Yes? No? So, what, exacty, is
>the 'context'? Answer?
>
>Thought not. You fraud. Coward. Real estate agent. Libeller. Liar.
>Clotstool. Shall I go on?
Yes, please do.
>Answer!
>
>tam
>
>
Thomas J Best
>Again, totally agree.
>
<snip>
Mr Russsell Shaw, still poncing and posturing? Answering questions?
You will, won't you? Or rather, you won't in the absence of 'Source', will
you?
'Context', you said. Your dead god's ramblings about Piltdown Man and
that archaeological fraud's effect upon a person's psychological state
had to be considered in it's 'context'. Yes? No? So, what, exacty, is
the 'context'? Answer?
Thought not. You fraud. Coward. Real estate agent. Libeller. Liar.
Clotstool. Shall I go on? Answer!
tam
Thomas J Best
>>On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:27:55 -0000, "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are correct, but as a clam - I am stuck in the past.
>>>
>>
>>I'm going to call you: Russell (As-Is) Shaw.
<snip>
>Why THANK YOU, Ted! :-)
Mr Russell Shaw, poncing on another corner? Your postures will get
you into trouble. Why? That's a question.
Questions, questions, questions. You are a clam? Context? You remember
that you said that the Great Dead Tub O' Lard's 'scientific' writings about
clams and their relevance to human psychology had to be taken 'in context'?
That's a question. You have an answer? Thought not.
So, what is the 'context'? That's a question. Is it the same 'context' in
which
we must examine your dead god's 'scientific' writings about 'PTS' members
of your 'church'? That's a question.
What does 'PTS' mean? You've had lots of 'training' - tell us. Does it mean
'Potential Trouble Source'? Does that mean a 'PTS' for your 'church'?
Does it mean a 'PTS" for your 'parishioner'? What does your 'church' *do*
for someone in this condition? Tell us, you're trained, you can confront
these
issues. No? I thought not.
Clotstool? No, lesser by far. This is a public forum, I cannot abuse you
in the terms I would use in private. I should wish to have a mouth and
Thomas J Best
Russell Shaw wrote in message <38363...@news2.lightlink.com>...
<snip>
>>Clotstool. Shall I go on?
>
>Yes, please do.
>
>>Answer!
<snip>
Came there none. Pathetic, defenseless, brain-sucked spineless mouthpiece.
tam
Thomas J Best
>>
>>Russell Shaw wrote in message <380d7...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>
>
>>Clotstool? No, lesser by far. This is a public forum, I cannot abuse you
>>in the terms I would use in private.
>
<snip>
Mr Russell Shaw, still posturing, still not answering. Stillnot
'confronting'.
Still not fully trained? Still incapable? Still feeling good about your 'big
wins'? Still don't know what the 'context' is, do you?
The context is, Mr Russell Shaw, that you represent, in your own glib,
supercilious and repulsive postings, a criminal enterprise. An
enterprise capable, I assert, of murdering those it finds inconvenient.
Capable, I assert, of training hapless scum like you to confine, starve
and torture inconvenient people. Capable of abandoning their pathetic
tools to the consequences of the enterprise's orders and actions. Are
you capable of refuting these assertions? With anything approaching
evidence? Thought not.
tam