Documented Membership??
Jeaux
Roxthefox1 wrote in message <368bcab7...@news.newsguy.com>...
>Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
>they really keep records of such things? Or, do they count every poor
>soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
>member?
Each org keeps Central Files--a major marketing concept in Scientology.
They push every stat to it's limit--30 certain stats, plus 6 uncertain
stats, plus 1 unreadable stat = 37 stats. It's not possible that they have
files on 25 million people who ever bought a book or took a personality
test, but, out of conservatism they only claim "8 million" of them as
members. You can be sure that "8 million" was as high as they could
exaggerate the figure--possibly it is sheer dishonesty as their "Ethics"
requires that they always produce more than the week before. I have no idea
why they left it at "8 million" for the last nine years or so.
Yes. Every person who buys a paperback book, or takes a personality test,
is stuffed into the Central Files for future sales/marketing efforts. When
sales are down, or when they are "doing" Emergency or Danger Condition, they
stay late and write "sales effort" letters to even the least of these names
in the Central Files. Often done as a party--with snacks and music. The
only reason an auditor can 'not' be busy is when sales haven't been so
great. So the idle auditor (and other personnel idle due to no customers)
are the natural choice for getting extra "Letters Out". This is not an
outness. It is good business sense. I did this in my business before I
ever heard of Scientology. But isn't it just like a business?--and putting
this extra demand of hours on very agreeable personnel?
David Alexander
Unknown
they really keep records of such things? Or, do they count every poor
soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
member?
DeoMorto
Oh Rox, you ask the poor scientologists for something they cannot answer.
No the CofS cannot document its claim for "8 million" members or whatever else
they try to persuade newspapers to print.
The reason they cannot document it of course is that its totally bogus.
But, and this is the key point, its much easier to claim a figure than it is
to show that its false.
But give it a try - maybe the latest OSA spammers want to step up and give it
a try.
The "International Association of Scientologists" which is supposed to be the
"membership" has roughly 100,000 members including the cumulative "free six
month memberships" which have been handed out since 1986 - so that gives you a
rough idea of where it stands.
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
Jeaux
> In <3671f8e9...@news.tca.net>, on Sat, 12 Dec 1998 05:08:09 GMT,
> d...@tca.net (dej) wrote:
>
> >
> >Excerpt from CONFESSIONS OF A HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST
> >By: Bradley R. Smith
> >copyright 1988
>
> [snip]
>
> >By this logic the Institute for Historical Review is Nazi because it
> >publishes books and a journal that expresses disbelief about the gas
> >chamber theory. It's that simple. The individuals who work at the
> >Institute are Nazis then by definition, as are those who write for The
> >Journal of Historical Review, while all those who read publications of
> >the Institute are either Nazis or neo-Nazis, a neo-Nazi being someone
> >who cannot be recognized as a full-fledged Nazi by anything he has
> >ever said or done but does not dismiss out of hand every word
> >published by the Institute.
>
> >[end of excerpt]
>
> >And now, dear reader, I'll leave it to the dimwitted holocaustomaniacs
> >who haunt these newsgroups to insult your intelligence with their
> >replies, as is their wont.
> >DEJ
>
> One small problem. Ted O'Keefe and Mark Weber were members of the
> National Alliance before becoming prominent in the IHR. The first
> editor of the JHR was David McCalden, a member of the British National
> Party. While Willis Carto could not be described as a neo-Nazi, his
> Liberty Lobby was justly famous for its antisemitism. And Carto was
> justly famous for one other thing: he founded the IHR out of money
> from the Edison-Farrell legacy which was earmarked for propagandizing
> for Holocaust denial.
>
> The reason some Holocaust deniers are called Nazis or neo-Nazis is
> simply because it is an accurate description. Indeed, it is a
> description which they have not been ashamed to apply to themsleves.
>
> If anyone is insulting your intelligence, it is Bradley Smith. I don't
> know why you put up with it.
>
> >Nothing is worse than active ignorance.
> >Goethe
>
> Indeed. And I think those words apply especially to someone like
> Bradley Smith who promotes ignorance and pretends it is knowledge.
>
> --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
As a matter of interest, what is the 'official' definition of a 'denier'?
Would it include someone who will say that some Jews were killed -- perhaps
even with official sanction -- and yet question major aspects of 'official'
WWII history such as 'Hitler knew about it' qualify as a 'denier'? Or
someone who doesn't deny that it might have happened but does think that it
is not adequately proven? It's an interesting label, but I fear it might be
tarring a lot of different animals with the same brush (if you'll excuse
the mixed metaphor).
David
davi...@my-dejanews.com
(Roxthefox1) wrote:
> Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
> they really keep records of such things? Or, do they count every poor
> soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
> member?
> When the chips are down the buffalo move on.
There's really no point in asking this question. Here is why:
A critic asks the question. The church publishes the figures. The critics say
the figures are false or made up and demand documentation. The church doesn't
do that. The critics keep nagging. The church doesn't publish any
documentation. And while the critics keep nagging more and more, the church
quietly keeps growing more and more.
Davis S - The Buffalo :)
The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is
really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
***Lord Acton - The History of Freedom in Antiquity
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Hartley Patterson
> > Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
> > they really keep records of such things?
> There's really no point in asking this question.
The official membership system of the CoS is the IAS. You have to be an
IAS member to take courses. The first six months are free.
In 1991 the IAS had under 50,000 members. At that point the CoS
compulsion for continually increasing stats took over, and the IAS
'membership' is around 100,000. This probably includes lapsed members,
dead members, SP members, etc.
So yes, they do keep records, but no they are not 'accurate' in the wog
world meaning of the word.
The purpose of talking about membership is that it's a very easy way of
demonstrating to the media that the CoS tells barefaced lies.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
An old universe and a medieval spreadsheet
Featuring JRR Tolkien, Charles Fort and L Ron Hubbard
AndroidCat
<76gk9n$7k0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <368bcab7...@news.newsguy.com>,
> (Roxthefox1) wrote:
>> Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
>> soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
>> member?
>> When the chips are down the buffalo move on.
>
>There's really no point in asking this question. Here is why:
>
>A critic asks the question. The church publishes the figures. The critics
say
>the figures are false or made up and demand documentation. The church
doesn't
>do that. The critics keep nagging. The church doesn't publish any
>documentation. And while the critics keep nagging more and more, the church
>quietly keeps growing more and more.
Well no they aren't. You see, we can reality-check Co$'s figures against
their own org list, and few other things. From the number of orgs which
have closed over the past few years (or gone postal .. box), there is
obviously been a major stats-crash.
Co$ is down to a single $cientology Org/Dianetics Centre in the 5th largest
metropolitan area in North America (I suspect that's leaving out Mexico).
And at last year's LRH birthday "must attend" event at the Ontario Science
Centre, even including friends, freebees and whatnot, the number was 300
max. (And in a couple of months, we'll count them again.) You're sadly
mistaken if you think we need Co$ cooperation to get a good idea of the
current membership numbers.
150,000 tops. Harhar. And that's being damned *nice*! "8 million and
growing" must be counting Space Cooties as membership.
/\<.
Space Cooties
Watch them blow
Pay big bucks
As they go.
Body Thetans
William Barwell
>Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
>they really keep records of such things? Or, do they count every poor
>soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
>member?
>When the chips are down the buffalo move on.
That have their central files. To go beyond the lowest levels
of Scientology, one must join the IAS. International of Scientologists.
After the initial 6 month freebie, it's $400.00 a year or so.
Thus, this would be a pretty fair assessment of how many on lines
Scientologists there are. Most people who drift out of Scientology will
not be paying for membership.
So, yes, Scientology will be able to tell you how many Scientologists
there are by looking at IAS membership.
You have three levels. The 6 month initial free membership, the yearly
and the lifetime memberships. You can bet they keep pretty fair records
of IAS mebership and the breakdown of levels.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
>> Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
>> they really keep records of such things? Or, do they count every poor
>> soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
>> member?
>> When the chips are down the buffalo move on.
>
>
>A critic asks the question. The church publishes the figures. The critics say
>the figures are false or made up and demand documentation.
The cult (not church, cult) does not publish figures.
Never has, never will. The real figures are current IAS
membership. Current managment would rather eat shit til they pop
and die rather then breathe the merest hint of the real
low grade status of how many members they have.
They just repeat the "* million members" lie because
the lazy press repeats it ad nauseum.
"The Auditor", the cult propaganda rag gives a list of recent Clears in
each issue every two months. They used to give a running total of Clears,
at one point a little over 50,000 Clears since 1953 when Scientology
started 'producing' Clears. In the last few years, though, if you add up
their own figures, it is clear (pun intended) that it will take almost 800
years to make that second 50,000 Clears.
They are hurting. By making this calculation and posting it,
I did something that has many people envious. I got cut off from
the damned Scientology mailing list.
I have not had a copy of "The Auditor" to examine since mid 1998.
Ahhhhhh.......
I had the documentation. Scientology's own numbers.
i did the math, connected the dots and showed Scientology
is in steep decline.
Miscavige is downstat. Downstat. Condition of treason.
He must know the numbers but will not make the obvious changes needed
to stop the rot, end the decline.
Won't do the conditions.
Those who monitor ARS simply ordered me removed from all mailing lists.
These numbers were true, and they didn't like my proving
their downstat slide into the toilet bowl one bit.
So, what do YOU know, snot-nose? Obviously little, you were
not here when we were going through the do the math exercise
with the few stats Scientology actually published.
Then to hide the rot, the bad stats, the cult stopped giving a running
total of Clears, they just claimed "over 50,000".
The church doesn't
>do that. The critics keep nagging. The church doesn't publish any
>documentation.
They do, read above.
Also an effort was made by ARS critic inducto to track the real number
or orgs and missions, cutting through the lies, inflated figures and
braggadacio, showing the same rot, missions and orgs shutting down,
many just mail drops or rooms at a local vet or chiropractor's business.
Once again, the cult's own stats and websites and lists of sites
tells the tale, decline, rot, slow but steady shrinkage.
And while the critics keep nagging more and more, the church
>quietly keeps growing more and more.
No, declining. Get your back issues of The Auditor, do the math, at
present rate, how long to make that second 50,000 Clears. Do the math and
come back and tell us what you found.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <76gomd$tae$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Hartley Patterson <hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > > Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
>> > > they really keep records of such things?
>> > There's really no point in asking this question.
>> The official membership system of the CoS is the IAS. You have to be an
>> IAS member to take courses. The first six months are free.
>> In 1991 the IAS had under 50,000 members. At that point the CoS
>> compulsion for continually increasing stats took over, and the IAS
>> 'membership' is around 100,000. This probably includes lapsed members,
>> dead members, SP members, etc.
>> So yes, they do keep records, but no they are not 'accurate' in the wog
>> world meaning of the word.
>> The purpose of talking about membership is that it's a very easy way of
>> demonstrating to the media that the CoS tells barefaced lies.
>Beep beep beep beep ... and my wimp detector just blew another fuse!
Maybe you should quit looking in the mirror so much, then, "Michael".
>You can be glad to not be an active children's teacher otherwise I'd take
>this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
>the sanity of kids.
Wow...I guess you didn't notice where he's posting from, did you? I doubt a
gutless wonder coward like you would be given any credence if you *did* have
the balls to actually try and Fair Game Hartley.
>Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
>taken serious by any sane person.
What's the matter, "Michael"? Are your buttons being pushed by bringing up
the bullshit your masters try and pass off on us unsuspecting wogs?
Good. Expect them to be pushed more often. Keep pulling it in, OSA moron!
If you're the best Scientology can offer, they've already lost the game.
--PLH, and us wogs get to watch
The Demon
>You can be glad to not be an active children's teacher otherwise I'd take
>this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
>the sanity of kids.
>Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
>taken serious by any sane person.
Really? I didn't think so. I think your reply is a transparent attempt at
misdirection.
The "Church" of Scientology has claimed a membership of 8 million people,
worldwide. Yet there are not 8 million Scientologists, worldwide. It's a
figure bandied about by the "Church" because it fits into a sound bite, like
any good headline, and it sounds impressive, lending an air of credibility
to L. Ron's bastard child.
But there's no truth to it. Never was. Never will be. If you don't have
the press in this country, you may as well retire from the field.
Scientology has been under attack by the press since the 60s, and has been
fairly successful suing or harassing detractors into silence, but the public
likes "lurid blood, sex crimes" (or something like that) and the "Church"
has been the source of too many of those.
Its days are numbered. Not in the near future, of course. There are just
too many people out there who are desperately searching for something,
anything to fill up that empty hole that goes straight through the heart of
them.
But they'll learn that there are no easy fixes. No "tech", and no "applied
religious philosophy" delivered under the auspices of the "Church" will ever
fill that hole up, because it means nothing.
Once in a while, the "Church" will gain some ground. Maybe it will win a
lawsuit, or build a new parking garage, or drive all the citizens of
Clearwater away, thereby securing the city for itself, but ultimately it
will fail. Its own paranoia and schizophrenia will destroy it.
It is a serpent that feeds on itself.
William Barwell
Michael Wallace <mw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <76gomd$tae$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Hartley Patterson <hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>
>Beep beep beep beep ... and my wimp detector just blew another fuse!
Beep, beep, beep, our silly Scientologist detector just went off.
Yes, it's true, there aren't 8 million Scientologists like the cult has
been lying for years.
Silly clams. Now, Mike, listen up. Such a non sequitur (word clear that,
son) post like yours makes you look, well, infantile and silly.
Now, as you are about the only Scientologist here posting, don't
you want to aim a little higher than this? Third grade level name calling
that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, how many
Scientologists are there?
>You can be glad to not be an active children's teacher otherwise I'd take
>this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
>the sanity of kids.
You are not exaclty showing us that Scientolgy creates mature and
thoughful adults, Mike Wallace, Scientologist.
You paid all that money to become no better than a not very succesful
flamer? one without real wit or humor?
My, my, my.
And you post, and post and post, yet none of it isrelevant, on
topic, or even interesting.
How much $$$$ did you pay Scientology to become a dork?
Well, if you thought it would make you smarter, more able,
more intelligent, a big being in a world of wogs, you wasted
your money and time.
>
>Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
>taken serious by any sane person.
You don't even argue, Wallace. You haven't got the intellectual
capability to do more than make third grader type ad hominem
attacks.
You are the face of Scientology on ARS now. read your own posts and
think to yourself, "if a new perosn came to Scientology, looked to find a
Scientologist to see what Scientologist does for a person, would I want
them to judge Scientology from my last 10 posts?"
Well, do you? Look at ARS, Mike, how many other clams, Scientologists
are posting here actively? You're it.
You are what people may be judging Scientology from.
Now, I know that that depresses you, it should.
Do aim higher. Think you can give it a whirl?
If you can't, carry on. We promise not to laugh and point
at the same time.
Michael Wallace
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@REMOVE.ME.vossnet.co.uk> wrote:
> davi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > they really keep records of such things?
>
> > There's really no point in asking this question.
>
> The official membership system of the CoS is the IAS. You have to be an
> IAS member to take courses. The first six months are free.
>
> In 1991 the IAS had under 50,000 members. At that point the CoS
> compulsion for continually increasing stats took over, and the IAS
> 'membership' is around 100,000. This probably includes lapsed members,
> dead members, SP members, etc.
>
> So yes, they do keep records, but no they are not 'accurate' in the wog
> world meaning of the word.
>
> The purpose of talking about membership is that it's a very easy way of
> demonstrating to the media that the CoS tells barefaced lies.
>
> Hartley Patterson
Beep beep beep beep ... and my wimp detector just blew another fuse!
You can be glad to not be an active children's teacher otherwise I'd take
this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
the sanity of kids.
Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
taken serious by any sane person.
Michael Wallace ---
"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
--- Publilius Syrus
Tommy
> You can be glad to not be an active children's teacher otherwise I'd take
> this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
> the sanity of kids.
Standard $cientology DA stuff..why don't you do it anyway? Just for
practice...
>
> Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
> taken serious by any sane person.
God forbid that $cientology ever have any encounter with innuendo...
:-)
Hey, Mikey! You a creepy guy for sure!
Tommy
--
"If there were any OT's, none of this would be happening."
Arnie Lerma, to a security guard at the Ft.Harrison during the 1998
pickets
Hartley Patterson
> You can be glad to not be an active children's teacher otherwise I'd take
> this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
> the sanity of kids.
You can be glad you're not still at school otherwise I'd be sending you
to the remedial English class.
So, you don't agree with my stats? Fine, that's what discussion groups
like ARS are all about. Now you have to produce your stats... But you
can't, can you.
Did you know that according to official CoS stats the Church is growing
at 2% per year? That's less than, oh let's see... the Mormons, the
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Bah'ai, Islam, Protestant Christianity, the
population of the World....
> "Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
> --- Publilius Syrus
"Wise words in mouths of fools do oft themselves belie"
--- Beyond the Fringe
Mike de Wolf
Barwell) wrote:
>They used to give a running total of Clears,
>at one point a little over 50,000 Clears since 1953 when Scientology
>started 'producing' Clears. In the last few years, though, if you add up
>their own figures, it is clear (pun intended) that it will take almost 800
>years to make that second 50,000 Clears.
Most of those 50,000 clears were "produced" during a period in the
late 1970s when all you needed to be crowned clear was to hold the
cans and say "I'm Clear!" with a floating needle.
I recently discussed this absurdity with a longtime Scientologist at a
picket and he admitted to it, and even volunteered that he knew of
someone during this time who attended that he had gone clear during a
Linda Ronstadt concert!
Mike de Wolf
"If any of the things these people say are true, there would not be 8 million Scientologists in the world today"
-- CoS Office of Special Affairs (OSA) senior official Mike Rinder commenting on accusations made by former
scientologists at a press conference, Dec 1997
Mike de Wolf
wrote:
>Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
>taken serious by any sane person.
>
>Michael Wallace ---
>"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
>--- Publilius Syrus
Ok, Micheal, let's from the innuendo and probabibility.
We all know that in Scientology all production is carefully measured
by stats.
Please provide two:
1) The number of public who received auditing in Scientology Churches
and Missions in 1997.
2) The number of public who received training in Scientology Churches
and Missions in 1997.
I'll looking forward to seeing them here.
Roland
>
> On 31 Dec 1998 22:45:55 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
> Barwell) wrote:
>
> >They used to give a running total of Clears,
> >at one point a little over 50,000 Clears since 1953 when Scientology
> >started 'producing' Clears. In the last few years, though, if you add up
> >their own figures, it is clear (pun intended) that it will take almost 800
> >years to make that second 50,000 Clears.
>
> Most of those 50,000 clears were "produced" during a period in the
> late 1970s when all you needed to be crowned clear was to hold the
> cans and say "I'm Clear!" with a floating needle.
>
> I recently discussed this absurdity with a longtime Scientologist at a
> picket and he admitted to it, and even volunteered that he knew of
> someone during this time who attended that he had gone clear during a
> Linda Ronstadt concert!
>
> Mike de Wolf
I reckon I went OT listening to a Tangerine Dream concert in London. :o)
Seriously though, music can have quite an effect on the mind. You can
get lost in it to the extent that all your normal patterns of thought
along with all your problems can get superseded. It can leave you on
a high for days. It can be rather like a Release point or going Clear.
The person in question shouldn't have been allowed to attest to Clear.
Unless they had the Clear cognition, of course "I am mocking up my own
reactive mind".
More on this music thing -- before I had got into Scientology, I had
read the Dianetics book. Without knowing anything about past lives
and such-like, reading the book triggered very strange imagery as
well as sound in my mind. I saw images so clearly and they were so
bright and sharp that even though I was awake and the light in the
room was full on the images were so bright that I could barely see
anything in the room. One of the things I "remembered" was my first
moments of awareness. I had been created to listen to a sort of
sub-space rock concert along the lines of Tangerine Dream except,
space itself was part of the special effects. It was those early
experiences as well as the later "exteriorisation with full
perception" that kept me in the Co$ for 5 years or so. It was only
the Xenu story, once confirmed, that got me out. I then realised
that the whole thing was nonsense.
Roland
AndroidCat
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Documented Membership??
Message-ID: <02019922...@treatee.com>
Lines: 4
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 07:29:11 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.64.141.15
X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
X-Trace: news.rdc1.on.home.com 915348551 24.64.141.15 (Sat, 02 Jan 1999
23:29:11 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 23:29:11 PDT
Organization: @Home Network Canada
Path:
news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!news4.his.com!nntp.frontiernet.net!eu
ropa.clark.net!195.27.83.146!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.c
om!news.rdc1.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:529612
Gee, spam from shaw.ca. That's local to Toronto, I think. (Northish) (The
remains of Shaw Cable--bought by Rogers, I believe.) And if it's a cable
modem connection, then someone knows the exact address of the culprit.
Looks like Co$ is now willing to sacrifice a few pawns for their spam storm.
(Oh, sorry! Didn't they explain that "sacrifice" part to you? Oops!)
Hey Andy Hill, that isn't you is it?
/\< of that ilk.
Shy David
It appears to be a gateway run off of a cable modem--- indeed, sending PINGs
to the site shows that it is almost always active and that it is running a
gateway program. Why home.com allows this to continue is anyone's guess.
>/\< of that ilk.
---
The Truth About "Psychics:" http://holysmoke.org/keene.sht
The Truth About Scientology: http://www.airspeed.com/~shydavid/cos.htm
The Truth About Creationism: http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm
"When you break the silence you break the terror." -- Jesse Prince
Hartley Patterson
> bloody pulp" Bradbury (sonn...@flash.net) wrote:
>
> >Butt fucking is probably legal where you live.
>
> Explain to us once more just exactly how this is supposed to work,
Scottie:
>
> _You_ introduce the subject of "butt fucking", and yet it's someone
_else_
> who is supposed to be the sexual deviant?
>
> Can you say "cognitive dissonance", boys and girls?
>
> >The fags are taking over state by state.
>
> Do tell, Scottie: which US states have been 'taken over' by fags?
>
> JGB
Simple question - give simple answer - yes or no:
Does your mother know you're a homosexual?
> =====================================================================
> Jeffrey G. Brown jeff_...@bigfoot.com
> "What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'
Jeaux
news:368bfedd...@news.idt.net...
>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:45:27 GMT, "Field Marshal D.J."
>><gr.j...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Somebody's been messing with my head
>
>That's what Quasimodo kept saying.
>
>It was the "bells, the bells".
>
>In his ca se, it's probably the bats banging around in the
empty
>belfry.
>he shares a lot with ultrabagel.
>
>But then all they are is a right winger.
>=========================================================
>
>I also do speak 6 languages, I am A CEO, I've achieved a
Net Worth
>in the 8+MM bracket, I have two degrees...as will be sworn
and
>verified by your attorney when we get to interrogatories
>And the strange part is I look down upon you like some kind
of insect
>or bacterium not fit to clean my boots. Your simply scum
Roselle.
>UltraZ
Yeah RIGHT!! and im John Wayne
Tommy
<19990101212015...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
><<Subject: Phillips to Keren on those evil Nazis
>From: "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Fri, Jan 1, 1999 5:18 PM
>Message-id: <76js65$i4a$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>At this moment I find no less than 35 postings of yours, all on the subject
>of the horrible things the Nazis did to the jews.
>
>CF:>>>That's a capitol "J" asshole.
>
>Now I should like to ask you two questions:
>
>(1) Just how are we expected to react to this?
>
>CF:>>>We? Who is we? Normal people react to atrocities with horror, pity
for
>the victims, hatred for the perpetrators, and maybe curiosity as to how
such
>terrible things could be done by one human being to another
>phillips et all, just don't react at all, they don't get it.
>
>(2) Just why should we react in that particular way?
>
>CF:>>>We are speaking of *normal people here, that let's phillips et al.
out.
>
>Tha dim bulb crowd.
>
>Chuck Ferree
>
>Please visit these web sites:
>http://remember.org/index.html
>http://www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
>Holocaust denial is not about history, but bigotry.
>Historical facts won't help when it comes to the deniers of the world.
===============================================================
Phillips
I direct your attention to the following excerpt from a New Year's greeting
from Bob Alpert:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We involved in the Zionist Occupational Government (a division of the
International Jewish Conspiracy) would like to take this opportunity to
wish our comrades, associates, collaborators, and yes, even miserable
ary*n pig-dogs (whose cowardice, stupidity, and overall inferiority
make our job so much easier) a happy New Year!
This is an exciting time. As we head inexorably towards the 21st
century, our long labors against the filthy, depraved, ape-descended
ary*n race are reaching fruition. The last superpower on earth (United
States) is firmly in our grasp, and our program of interbreeding ary*ns
out of existence and achieving a non-white majority here is proceeding
apace. In fact, all is proceeding according to the prophesies laid
down in the Sacred Talmud Scrolls so long ago.
Now a few special holiday notes for ary*ns and their lackeys:
As we have seen time and time again, ary*ns are inherently lazy and
stupid little animals who are incapable of competing against their
betters (Jews, Blacks, Orientals, and just about anyone else). Being
born weaklings and cowards, you are, for all your wind and bluster,
utterly powerless to stop us. Your best efforts to do so were in the
long run such an utter failure that today many of you pathetic ary*n
slobs try to save face by claiming the attempt was never made!
This is why you ary*n poltroons will never win. You are little more
than frightened rodents. You craven cowards do not have the will,
ability, or stomach to defeat the Eternal Jew. We have been successful
for thousands of years. Collectively we own or control virtually
everything worth having. You bear our Mark, pay our tribute, and do
our bidding, frequently without even realizing it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In view of that, the only problemI have with the Nazis killing Jews is that
they didn't kill enough.
No doubt you, and perhaps others, will tell me what an "idiot" I am for not
"realizing" that Alpert's posts are a spoof.
No sale. I have no reason to believe anything other than that Alpert means
exactly waht he says and, indeed, when we look around us, that is the
situation that prevails.
===========================
>
>
>
roger gonnet
Roland wrote:
>
> Mike de Wolf wrote:
> >
> > On 31 Dec 1998 22:45:55 -0600, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William
> > Barwell) wrote:
> >
> > >They used to give a running total of Clears,
> > >at one point a little over 50,000 Clears since 1953 when Scientology
> > >started 'producing' Clears. In the last few years, though, if you add up
> > >their own figures, it is clear (pun intended) that it will take almost 800
> > >years to make that second 50,000 Clears.
> >
> > Most of those 50,000 clears were "produced" during a period in the
> > late 1970s when all you needed to be crowned clear was to hold the
> > cans and say "I'm Clear!" with a floating needle.
I'll give many new figures about this soon. Quite
astonishing ones, from Source and The Auditor.
roger
AndroidCat
Jim O wrote:
> Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
>
> > In <+6XTuJAf...@ayrshireviking.demon.co.uk> Thor 88!
> > <Thor88!@ayrshireviking.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > >You cant Feel a Tapeworm. You just miss your food. You get weaker and
> > >weaker and finally die, as the worm sucks up all the nourishment.
> > >
> > >This is precisely what an overdose of jews does to a Nation.
> >
> > Spain expelled us in 1492. In less than a century the Spanish
> > government was bankrupt.
>
> Yes, expelled after several centuries of purchasing from the king the
> power to assess and collect taxes from the exploited christian masses.
Not true, but it was amusing.
> > England let us back in in 1655. In the next
> > two centuries, it went from an unimportant little island at the edge
> > of civilization to the most powerful country on Earth and created the
> > industrial revolution.
>
> Could be. Kings often found jews eager and proficient tax collectors
Not in the slightest. This would have been a lucrative job
that would have been kept *from* Jews, as were most
proffesions.
> who
> would aid them in surpressing the common man. A role that earn jewes
> the enmity of the masses.
Especially those that can't spell, I see.
Susan
Curtis R. Anderson
> > Can the church of Scientology actually document their membership? Do
> > soul who walks into the org and provides a name and address as a
> > member?
> > When the chips are down the buffalo move on.
>
> There's really no point in asking this question. Here is why:
>
> A critic asks the question. The church publishes the figures. The critics say
> do that. The critics keep nagging. The church doesn't publish any
> quietly keeps growing more and more.
Growing? Where? Not in Buffalo, I can say that.
A look inside the org on New Year's Eve, naturally one of their biggest
nights, revealed a lot of lights on on two of the three floors of the
buildings, but no people moving around in it. Wonderful growth you have
in Buffalo there, "Davis___S".
I'll post more on the org in a different post.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX
http://www.servtech.com/~cra/ | Western New York: as Canadian
ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ | as you can get in the States
mailto:gle...@intelligencia.com | UTM: PS 7036 7315, zone 17
Curtis R. Anderson
>
> Beep beep beep beep ... and my wimp detector just blew another fuse!
>
> this to the school board and get you disqualified as an element endangering
> the sanity of kids.
What does that uncalled-for crack have to do with how the number of
members in IAS are counted?
Getting back onto the topic properly, unlike certain Co$ shills around
here, wouldn't the IAS be making a big membership push now as they need
the money to defend the poor helpless persecuted "Church" against the
evil Lisa McPherson estate and the FACTNET litigation?
> Your argumentation contains just too many innuendo and probabilities to be
> taken serious by any sane person.
"Sane" by your definition must be anyone who swallows LRH's drivel
without blinking.
> Michael Wallace ---
Are you related to "Vera" by any chance? And you can't say that's off
topic, because "Vera" used to hang out on a.r.s. earlier making all
sorts of snide remarks about folks, including one nasty, heartless one
about Bob Penny.
Jeaux
Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> > Dr D E Michael <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> the lyinh nazi gabblkes:
>
Dear me, your spelling is getting bad. Spluttering away there! Take it more slowly.
>
>
> > Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
>
> > > > Dr D E Michael <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> the lying nazi:
>
> > > > Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Dr D E Michael <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
> > > > > > In a further attempt to stop revisionists from posting here, the
> > > > > > 'respectable' anti-revisionist 'historians' have now started sending
> > > > > > hate mail. This morning I received this one:
> > > > > > Unable to debate, these 'respectable anti-revisionist historians' smear
> > > > > > and lie. And when that does not work they try to intimidate. And in so
> > > > > > doing, they discredit their own cause.
>
> > > > > Another lie from a lying nazi.
>
> > > > No, another lot of nonsense from Mr Yale 'the dictionary is incorrect' Edeiken.
>
> > > As was conclusively proved in this case.
>
> `
> > Oh yes? With half of your colleagues accusing you of lying? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuur
>
> Please name such a colleague.
>
With pleasure. The classic reference that proves beyond any doubt that Mr Edeiken is SUCH a liar
that even his fellow anti-revisionists condemn his behaviour is
<Pine.SOL.3.96.98081...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
dated 13 August 1998. This comes from Dr Laura Finsten, an anti-revisionist and no friend of mind.
Here she is arguing with McClelland and myself about consistency of condemnations:
<begin quote>
> >> > >you are in effect doing exactly what I suggested Cuddles was doing -
> >> > >tarring all of the "Nizlot" (or whatever label you prefer, Mr. F.G.) with
> >> > >the same brush.
> >> > As many do the non-nizlot; you know, those you lump together as
> >> > "deniers".
> >> As you have just conceded that I do not, Mr. McClelland, I fail to see the
> >> relevance of your remark. The point is that Cuddles tarred all the
> >> "Nizklot" with the same brush
> I conceded that you do not call them all Nazis, no more.
You also conceded that to your knowledge I do not have a penchant to
search out the addresses of anonymous posters. And I note that Mr. F.G.
has repeated this lie in another post.
> >Ooff! You do like misrepresenting people, Ms F. I observed the marked
> >lack of condemnation of Mr Edeiken's disgraceful dishonesty from his
> >Nizkor-aligned fellow posters.
Then I gather you did not observe _my_ condemnation of Yale's deception?
Or have you chosen to lump me with Yale despite what I wrote on that
subject?
<end quote>
Further on in the same post:
<begin quote>
You have ignored the fact that it
was John Morris who brought the evidence of Yale's deception to a.r., and
that another member of the "Nizlot" condemned Yale for this when the
evidence was presented. And still you talk about "the exterminationist
lobby" as a single entity.
<end quote>
Splattered again, Edeiken? Shame.
David