date correction for DM's big revelation
Dave Touretzky
A recently blown OSA member in Europe, who has now gone public, has
supplied a correction to the dates posted previously for DM's big
revelations. I'm of course talking about Hubbard's books (including
Book One) being extensively rewritten, and Scn's decision to remove
any mention of LRH from materials intended for wogs.
The correct dates for the Clearwater clamfest are June 29 to July 4.
The July 5-8 dates are when the videos will be sent out to inform the
rest of the planet of DM's brilliant plan.
Dianetics is the founding text of the Scientology "religion": that's
why they call it "Book One". For a group to abridge and extensively
rewrite its founding text because the original was deemed unreadable
is really quite remarkable. As others have noted, the Freezoners are
going to reap a propaganda bonanaza from this.
And what will religious scholars say?
-- Dave Touretzky: "Thou shalt not take the name of ElRon in vain."
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
R. Hill
Church of Scientology's representative Bob Keenan in England, commenting
on the Freezone issue, is on the record stating that changing "something
that works in the first place and calling it Scientology is wrong"
(paraphrased)
Segment 7 in "talkSPORT" at the Wog Blog:
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/talksport/
Ray.
--
"I started thinking, and I got carried away"
- Dan Garvin, former scientologist
"We simply do as [L. Ron Hubbard] says"
- Dennis Clarke, scientologist
Eldon
> A recently blown OSA member in Europe, who has now gone public, has
> supplied a correction to the dates posted previously for DM's big
> revelations. I'm of course talking about Hubbard's books (including
> Book One) being extensively rewritten, and Scn's decision to remove
> any mention of LRH from materials intended for wogs.
>
> The correct dates for the Clearwater clamfest are June 29 to July 4.
> The July 5-8 dates are when the videos will be sent out to inform the
> rest of the planet of DM's brilliant plan.
Oh, it's imminent!
Can't wait for the fallout on this one. Thanks again, Dave, for
keeping us up to date.
How many chartered planes will be flying into Clearwater... oops,
well, Tampa or Orlando or wherever? It's gonna take major transport
power to land 250,000 troops there.
Stefano MacGregor
> How many chartered planes will be flying into Clearwater... oops,
> well, Tampa or Orlando or wherever? It's gonna take major transport
> power to land 250,000 troops there.
They may have to reuse those space planes that Xenu used to get us all
to this planet in the first place.
--
Stefano
"A balanced diet is essential: too many cheeseburgers and not enought
french fries will KILL YOU DEAD!"
Woggle
Certainly would not want bad weather to interfere with this huge
event.
Or DM getting struck by lightning for *squirreling* The Tech.
LordXenuCruise
When is the picket ?
Piltdown Man
Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote...
> A recently blown OSA member in Europe, who has now gone public, has
> supplied a correction to the dates posted previously for DM's big
> revelations. I'm of course talking about Hubbard's books (including
> Book One) being extensively rewritten, and Scn's decision to remove
> any mention of LRH from materials intended for wogs.
>
> The correct dates for the Clearwater clamfest are June 29 to July 4.
> The July 5-8 dates are when the videos will be sent out to inform the
> rest of the planet of DM's brilliant plan.
Just so I'm on record on this one (and I would love to be proven wrong), I
don't believe that any extensively rewritten versions of Hubbard books will
materialise. It will be another damp squib in the long line of damp squibs
Scientology has been producing since its inception, always preceded by
breathless announcements of unprecented fireworks. They will just be the
umpteenth reeditions of the same old stuff, with redesigned covers and more
extensive silly "word-clearing" glossaries and footnotes added. Perhaps
some minor changes to the text here and there, of the kind they've been
doing for decades already, removing the occasional offensive or outdated
word, adding more paragraph breaks, that kind of thing. Of course, all
current members will be expected to buy these new editions and throw out
the old ones.
If he really were to go for a massive attempt to replace the current body
of basic Hubbard books with his own drastically rewritten versions, turning
himself into Source Jr., or a Brigham Young to Hubbard's Joseph Smith, or a
Paul to Hubbard's Jesus, or a Stalin to Hubbard's Lenin, it would be a
fantastically interesting development in the history of Scientology. But I
don't think he has got either the imagination, the guts, or, more
practically, the possibility of doing so. He's been running the show for 25
years now (if we count from that infamous Mission Holder's Conference),
without ever changing anything significantly, why would he suddenly change
into a revolutionary reformer now? To reuse my analogy, I think he's still
firmly stuck in in the mode of desperately trying to sell the same bunch of
Hubbard's stale old turds to an increasingly aware public that doesn't have
much of an appetite for turds. He's trying to make the turds more
marketable by giving them bright new paintjobs, or packaging them in lovely
boxes that no longer explicitly say "TURD" on the outside. But he is
incapable of moving beyond the turd-selling business. It's all he's ever
known.
If there really is going to be an attempt to sell "management tech" or
"study tech" while removing every mention of Hubbard, assuming that nobody
will notice, he's stuck with one rather fundamental problem: that
all that "tech" is total, obvious crap, with or without any mention of the
sainted LRH. Just what does he think he's got to sell in the first place?
The second problem is of course that whatever beard company he sets up to
do this, the people he's trying to sell to will be capable of putting that
name into google, and will find out within seconds it's really Scientology.
If this aspect is true, it goes to show just how disconnected from wog
reality the man really is.
<snip>
> And what will religious scholars say?
Very little, I would think. On the one hand, there are preciously few
"religious scholars" properly speaking -- that's usually just a code word
for theologians of one religion or another, and their scholarship extends
only to their own religion. On the other hand, those people that are
genuinely interested in studying religion usually don't focus on tiny
little cultic groups like Scientology.