Dianetics.
Matthew
Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
of the room, I never felt better.
My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Dobe R Mann
Matthew <turtl...@go.com> wrote in message
news:AeVx3.45739$pq3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical.
Me too! I still am
> I waled into this
> Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I
was being asked to
> donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much
about. So I walked out
> with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came
back to sign up. Still
> skeptical that I was being taken for a fool,
You should have stayed with your hunch.
> so I decided if I didn't get
> anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like
all of you, the money
> thing caught my attention.
Have they told you about Xenu yet? Body Theatans?
That will *really* 'catch your attention.'
> But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
> to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy
worked. I sat down in a
> chair and went through the whole session without a
break. When I walked out
> of the room, I never felt better.
I feel that very same way every time that I work out.
All it cost is a little bit of sweat
>
> My point being here is that we don't know everything
about Scientology.
> Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't
knowing.
So, on this line of thought, one would need to take
illegal drugs in order to know something about them?
To find out if crack-cocaine is really that addictive?
> After all
> the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's
own purpose.
This a true point.
>And others
> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt.
Yes. Have you heard of Lisa McPhearson? How she died
at Flag while being kept prisoner on the Introspection
Rundown? Read this link:
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm By the way,
Flag has been indicted on 2 felony charges in her
death.
> And children and nuns
> have been taken advantage of by priests. This is
nothing new. And it won't
> stop.
WHAT?! Just because it is "nothing new" and it "won't
stop" does that mean totalitarian frauds should not be
exposed. Or do you think that the children and nuns
"pulled it in"--that they caused themselves to be
abused by others?
> But hw many people here have actually read and
understood a Dianetics
> book or basic Scientology book?
Who would want to try. Hubbard was a raving lunatic by
the time he died. And a sociopath while he lived. But
if you want to read a real "knee-slapper" for a really
good belly-laugh--why don't you try A History of Man.
(You can find it on the web.) My favorite part is
where El Ron Phattard, in serious "scientific" terms
describes how humans have evolved from clams.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ..... it's a riot!!!
>I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
> you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Shit! How could you tell? (ARSCC: The rabbit is in
the lair. The river is flowing up hill. The clam is
in the bucket.)
PUH!
--
Dobe R Mann
SP3 Tone 1.95
_____________________________________________
"Look netizens! Another person just read
about the Co$, Xenu, Elron and the rest of
the rot." "Watch now! .... look!
... oooohhh there they go folks!
Another ARSCC(wdne) member."
Read www.xenu.net
See www.xenutv.com
_____________________________________________
INCIDENT 4
LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
CHEVROLETS COME OUT
BURN RUBBER
FISHTAIL RIGHT
DO U-TURN
STALL
FLAT TIRE (No motion)
BLOWS HORN
BLOWS MISCAVIGE
CRASH
Jeff Jacobsen
>I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
>Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
>donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
>with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
>skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
>anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
>thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
>chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
>of the room, I never felt better.
>
Is that your goal, to feel better? There are many ways to feel better
that don't require supporting a cult.
>My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
>the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
>have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
>have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
>stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
>book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>you who gather here to pass secret messages.
>
You are quite wrong. There are people here who knew Hubbard, who were
present when the "tech" was created, and who know it now as a scam.
There are people here who have read and listened to Hubbard for
countless hours and consider it a scam. There are ex-members who have
gone all they way up the Bridge and consider it a scam.
I think you should add to your list of things you want besides just
feeling better. I think you should include - belonging to an
organization that helps people instead of hurting them.
>
DeoMorto
>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
felt really good" are you?
Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
subject than you do.
A lot more.
Vox Dei - Vox Cloaca!
Oxford Systems
Obviously mot skeptical enough. Did you ask your mother about her
knitting needles?
> I waled into this
> Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked
to
> donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about.
Therapy? Dianetics is not "therapy".
> So I walked out
> with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up.
Still
> skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't
get
> anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the
money
> thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I
stood
> to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down
in a
> chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I
walked out
> of the room, I never felt better.
Great!!! Anecdotal evidence really doesn't mean much you know.
People go to charlatans all the time and walk out "having never felt
better". The list is long: Faith healers, psycho surgerons, mediums,
psyhics and so on. If someone can make you believe, or suspend
disbelief, then it may well seem to work for you.
Signing up for auditing is very much like signing up for hypnosis or
brainwashing. The activity is meantally intense and requires
concentration to be sure but there is no basis for it.
Where is Hubbbard's "research"? If Dianetics is a science, where is the
peer review? The validation through controled study and testing?
>
> My point being here is that we don't know everything about
Scientology.
We know a lot more than most "Scientologists". Remember, I was suckered
by those smiling faces at one time myself.
> Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
Shutting out news isn't knowing either.
> After all
> the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose.
Ummm....sometimes. But that then becomes the responsibility of the
person recieving the news to filter out the garbage and ascertain the
motive.
>And others
> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children
and nuns
> have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it
won't
> stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a
Dianetics
> book or basic Scientology book?
Let me point this out...again. Hubbard was a fraud. His whole lofe
history was a fraud. His war record was a fraud. His travel as he
presents it was a fraud. His research was non-existent. Dianetics is
based on nothing more than Hubbard's imagination, greed and
misunderstanding of bits and pieces of <GASP!> psychiatry, philosophy
and religion.
How can you understand a fraud? How can you use a fraudulent
therapy/religion to better yourself? Remember....it's a fraud.
> I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
> you who gather here to pass secret messages.
No secret messages here. The gibberish you see is "sporge" from
Scentology.
Oxford Systems
Dobe R Mann <dobe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37c82...@news2.lightlink.com...
[snip]
> > But hw many people here have actually read and
> understood a Dianetics
> > book or basic Scientology book?
>
> Who would want to try. Hubbard was a raving lunatic by
> the time he died. And a sociopath while he lived. But
> if you want to read a real "knee-slapper" for a really
> good belly-laugh--why don't you try A History of Man.
> (You can find it on the web.) My favorite part is
> where El Ron Phattard, in serious "scientific" terms
> describes how humans have evolved from clams.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ..... it's a riot!!!
Don't forget the engrams passed down from "Piltdown Man!" :)
It is really very apropo you know....non-existent engrams from a
fraudulent being passed on to a fraudulent "religion".
Marder
Matthew <turtl...@go.com> wrote :
> When I walked out of the room, I never felt better.
That is what people say when they try cocaine for the first time.
Marder
Mark Bunker
> Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
out
> with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up.
Still
> skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
> anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
> thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I
stood
> to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
out
> of the room, I never felt better.
>
> the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And
others
> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and
nuns
Dianetics
> book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot
of
> you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Speaking of secret messages...are you writing in code? I could figure out
your MU on scenic when you used scenical for cynical in a previous
post...but just what does it mean when you wale into an org?
Mike O'Connor
<turtl...@go.com> wrote:
[...]
> And others
> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
> have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
> stop.
[...]
1) Two wrongs don't make a right. Finding similar abuses doesn't make an
abuse OK.
2) Those priests aren't following their religion's sacred scripture. In
fact, they are going against their sacred scripture.Scientology is the
opposite. Abuse of people and the law is ordered by the sacred scripture
and is in fact a sacred duty, performed by dedicated parishoners who are
endorsed and rewarded by the religion leadership.
The huffle-ruffle is not about religion. It's about abuse of people and the law.
How do you feel about a religion having abuse of people and the law
written into its sacred scripture? Please try to avoid the two wrongs make
a right defense in your reply. Thanks!
--
Mike O'Connor - mi...@leptonicsystems.com
<http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
Keith Henson
: I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
: Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
: donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
: with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
: skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
: anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
: thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
: to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
: chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
: of the room, I never felt better.
Exactly the same thing is said by people who try addictive drugs, and
for much the same reason.
Keith Henson
Warrior
>>My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
In article <19990828155429...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
deom...@aol.comgetlost says...
>
>gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
>someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
>felt really good" are you?
>
> Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
>subject than you do.
>
> A lot more.
Did you catch his bit about getting 3 hours of "auditing" for $80?
If true, it must have happened a _long_ time ago.
As a Sea Org Finance Specialist, Fully Hatted Financial Planning Chairman,
Fully Hatted Advisory Council Member, Fully Hatted and Interned Treasury
Secretary, Fully Hatted Audits Officer, Fully Hatted & Interned Director
of Disbursements, OEC Volume III Course Completion, Fully Qualified &
Trained Staff Member, Scientology Minister's Course Completion and holder
of 57 "Very Upstat" Certificates (just to name a few of the "admin" courses
I completed while in the Sea Org), I can assure you that "auditing" has
not been sold as cheaply as $80 for 3 hours for a *very* long time.
He'd have to be an old-timer to have gotten that price. Either that, or
perhaps someone committed a "high crime" by giving him a special favor
in the form of a "cutative price".
Warrior
Boudewijn van Ingen
>I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
>Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
>donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
>with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
>skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
>anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
>thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
>chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
>of the room, I never felt better.
So you never went back, eh?
>My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
Who are the "we" you refer to here?
>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
Excuse me. But "nattering"? And I can safely assume that you "know how
to know", better than anyone else?
>After all the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose.
You wrote an article on a newsgroup. What are your crimes?
>And others have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt.
Plenty, in fact.
>And children and nuns have been taken advantage of by priests.
>This is nothing new. And it won't stop.
Not if people don't stop it. But fortunately there are still people
that are not afraid to act.
>But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
>book or basic Scientology book?
I have been reading every scrap of 'Dianetics' or '$cientology'
information I could lay my hands on for the last five years. Do you
have any specific question?
>I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Nope. I'd agree with you there. There aren't many people here very
eager to "pass secret messages" because this is a very *public* forum.
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Epoch
Don't mind my comments I am a newbie here on this News Group who came
because of some things I had read about Scientology which I wanted to
know if they were true or not.
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:45:04 GMT, "Matthew" <turtl...@go.com> wrote:
>I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical.
That is a normal approach to anything new or different :-) What is
important however is that you try to not lose the skeptical outlook.
(snip)
>Just like all of you, the money thing caught my attention.
Reading some of the other posts here I am completely astounded at some
of the costs that are involved with doing Scientology courses.
I personally believe this is wrong for a religion to do, and before
people jump on my back I have said the same to other religions.
Great teachers (whether religious or not) offer up their teachings and
paths for free. Generally later on it becomes commercialized, however
from my observations so far Scientology (like many other groups today)
appears to always have been about making money.
Don't you feel within yourself that the high costs are wrong?
>But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
>chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
>of the room, I never felt better.
I don't doubt that you did. The real problem IMHO is that 'feeling
good' does not always mean it is good for you.
Remember there are many other paths in the world and techniques which
can make you feel good but are you as an individual benefitting by
them or is the cost (either money or work effort) to high for that
sense of feeling good, being a part of the crowd and having support
around you like a family?
If you can't pay anymore and are unable to work for Scientology do you
still feel good when your courses stop? Are your new friends and
family still with you if you disagreed with some of their teachings?
>My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
True but many faiths say the same also. You don't know because you
haven't experienced ...... (fill in the blank).
After awhile it becomes somewhat of a mute point.
>After all
>the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose.
Yes. They love sensational news, the more outrageous it is the more
they flock around. However that also does mean people should discount
everything they hear, see, or read. It should be weighed up whilst
listening to *both* sides.
The minute you discount or throw out all news or opposite views you
run the risk of having your reality distorted.
>And others have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt.
Reading the posts here it sure looks that way.
>And children and nuns have been taken advantage of by priests.
>This is nothing new.
It is nothing new but also it does not justify the actions done.
For instance what is Scientology doing to address its own problems?
Does it face up to them or does it merely cry out 'it's not true'
while the same things continue on?
If I could bring up one group (which is also called a cult) ISKON (the
krishna's) where many children were sexually & physically abused by
authority figures within its organization.
However they have attempted to address the problem openly even to the
point of bringing in people from the outside to help them.
Priests likewise (probably due to media pressure) are now screened and
usually punished if they commit these abuses.
Groups are changing (or at least trying to change) and it no longer is
being swept so easily under the carpet.
But if you are denied or encouraged not to read this or that article
how will change ever come? It won't because the problem is ignored,
hidden or only one side of the story is known.
>And it won't stop.
But it can change that is the whole point of it. Saying it wont allows
it to continue. Closing ones eyes doesn't make the other persons pain
go away does it?
That is why it is important to look at both sides of any story and
weigh it up for yourself, yes that means also listening to what the
media has to say.
>But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
>book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Many apparently have if this thread is anything to go by.
Matthew it is your choice, your life, your future, don't waste it.
Please, weigh it all up, keep an open mind, discount nothing, ignore
nothing, excuse nothing and you will have done well.
Either way I wish you all the best in your decision and hope you find
peace, love and whatever your looking for.
Epoch.
Jim Bianchi
>Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
>donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
>with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
>skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
>thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
>chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
>of the room, I never felt better.
Sure, you FELT better (prob because you were expected to feel
better). The question you don't really answer is: did the 'therapy' have the
effect you wanted it to? If it did (and I'm not discounting this chance),
hey that is GREAT! I mean that. My only comment is that all avail evidence
indicates that these gains are more surely attainable via other
methodologies. That is, when these 'gains' are possible at all.
Which brings me to my point of criticism of $cn. More often than
not, the promises it makes in its abundant literature are totally false. The
claims of Hubbard and the movement he founded are patently bogus. 'Clear,'
'Operating Thetan,' the 'purif,' and so on and so forth, are all false.
One thing that amazes me is that on virtually all of the critical
web pages are statements of form: "If *anything* on this site is incorrect
or wrong, please notify me <the web site owner>, give details, show me where
I am wrong, and I'll change it." To date, no one has stepped forward to show
where anything is wrong -- in fact, the emails I've seen have said only "you
are wrong" (quite often in insulting -- if not obscene -- terms). When the
owner sends back a polite request for information as to exactly what is
wrong or incorrect and offers to put up verifiably correct data if it is
provided, the response is ..nothing. Nothing, that is, except for further
vitiperative emails. (This is the $cn communication tech?)
>My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
>the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
>have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
>have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
>stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
>book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
How many people here can UNDERSTAND a Dianetics or $cientology book?
You'd think that a person with such a command of the techniques of
communication would be able to quite simply SAY SOMETHING and say it in such
a way as to be understandable.
>you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Au contraire. Many many critics of $cn are ex members, and many of
them had attained quite high positions while in the cult. Now I can see
saying that one or two of these people might be just members who have been
disaffected for one reason or another and left the movement and now desire
only to hurt it, but ALL OF THEM? Sorry that dog won't hunt.
I've read most of Hubbards' publically avail works on $cn, starting
with DMSMH, most of the 'li'l green books,' WIS, the VMH, the red tech vols,
etc, and virtually all of it is pseudoscientific psychobabble and bizarre
'stream of unconciousness' stuff (History of Man, All About Radiation,
Travels in Time, SoS, etc).
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS * 300bps -- 33.6kbps * (707) 539-1279
"If God didn't intend man to use fvwm2,
why'd He have Torvalds invent Linux?"
thomlove
Thank you! You put up a brave post.
You are right about the value of Dianetics, and you are right about
those here who will attempt, unsuccessfully, to trash it.
ThomLove
Matthew wrote:
>
> I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
> Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
> donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
> with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
> skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
> anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
> thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
> to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
> chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
> of the room, I never felt better.
>
> My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
> Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
> the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
> have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
> stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
> book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
thomlove
Useless post. Same old rhetoric by someone who has never even read the
book.
ThomLove.
Dobe R Mann wrote:
>
> Matthew <turtl...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:AeVx3.45739$pq3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> > I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical.
>
> Me too! I still am
>
> > I waled into this
> > Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I
> was being asked to
> > donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much
> about. So I walked out
> > with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came
> back to sign up. Still
> > skeptical that I was being taken for a fool,
>
> You should have stayed with your hunch.
>
> > so I decided if I didn't get
> > anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like
> all of you, the money
> > thing caught my attention.
>
> Have they told you about Xenu yet? Body Theatans?
> That will *really* 'catch your attention.'
>
> > But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
> > to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy
> worked. I sat down in a
> > chair and went through the whole session without a
> break. When I walked out
> > of the room, I never felt better.
>
> I feel that very same way every time that I work out.
> All it cost is a little bit of sweat
>
> >
> > My point being here is that we don't know everything
> about Scientology.
> > Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't
> knowing.
>
> So, on this line of thought, one would need to take
> illegal drugs in order to know something about them?
> To find out if crack-cocaine is really that addictive?
>
> > After all
> > the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's
> own purpose.
>
> This a true point.
>
> >And others
> > have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt.
>
> Yes. Have you heard of Lisa McPhearson? How she died
> at Flag while being kept prisoner on the Introspection
> Rundown? Read this link:
> http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm By the way,
> Flag has been indicted on 2 felony charges in her
> death.
>
> > And children and nuns
> > have been taken advantage of by priests. This is
> nothing new. And it won't
> > stop.
>
> WHAT?! Just because it is "nothing new" and it "won't
> stop" does that mean totalitarian frauds should not be
> exposed. Or do you think that the children and nuns
> "pulled it in"--that they caused themselves to be
> abused by others?
>
> > But hw many people here have actually read and
> understood a Dianetics
> > book or basic Scientology book?
>
> Who would want to try. Hubbard was a raving lunatic by
> the time he died. And a sociopath while he lived. But
> if you want to read a real "knee-slapper" for a really
> good belly-laugh--why don't you try A History of Man.
> (You can find it on the web.) My favorite part is
> where El Ron Phattard, in serious "scientific" terms
> describes how humans have evolved from clams.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ..... it's a riot!!!
>
> >I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
> > you who gather here to pass secret messages.
>
thomlove
ditto.
ThomLove
Oxford Systems wrote:
>
> Dobe R Mann <dobe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37c82...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > But hw many people here have actually read and
> > understood a Dianetics
> > > book or basic Scientology book?
> >
> > Who would want to try. Hubbard was a raving lunatic by
> > the time he died. And a sociopath while he lived. But
> > if you want to read a real "knee-slapper" for a really
> > good belly-laugh--why don't you try A History of Man.
> > (You can find it on the web.) My favorite part is
> > where El Ron Phattard, in serious "scientific" terms
> > describes how humans have evolved from clams.
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ..... it's a riot!!!
>
thomlove
Have you read the book? Having read the book, did you attempt to,
heavens, DO the procedures in the book?
thomlove
And there are others who have done thousands of hours of Dianetics, and
Scientology processing, and who have seen very definite results;
sometimes far beyond what was expected.
ThomLove.
Jeff Jacobean wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:45:04 GMT, "Matthew" <turtl...@go.com> wrote:
>
> >I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
> >Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
> >donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
> >with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
> >skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
> >anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
> >thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
> >to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
> >chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
> >of the room, I never felt better.
> >
> Is that your goal, to feel better? There are many ways to feel better
> that don't require supporting a cult.
>
> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
> >the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
> >have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
> >have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
> >stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
> >book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
> >you who gather here to pass secret messages.
> >
thomlove
And there are others who have done thousands of hours of Dianetics, and
Scientology processing, and who have seen very definite results;
sometimes far beyond what was expected.
ThomLove.
thomlove
You have a misu on 'nattering'.
And, yes it is true, many here have more knowledge of this subject than
the original poster. But, by the fact he did it, he has significantly
more knowledge than the vast majority who have opinions of something
they know nothing about, never having even tried it.
Thom
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
>
> gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
> someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
> felt really good" are you?
>
> Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
> subject than you do.
>
> A lot more.
>
thomlove
Come on! With so much 'admin hatting', even you can see that more is
involve here than 'dropped out time'. Be honest. You have no idea what
Dianetics this person received, or in what 'field', or anything.
Why can't you take this persons experience as an honest personal
experience? It may be different than yours, but is no less valid.
ThomLove
Warrior wrote:
>
> >>My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
> >>Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
>
> In article <19990828155429...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
> deom...@aol.comgetlost says...
> >
> >gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
> >someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
> >felt really good" are you?
> >
> > Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
> >subject than you do.
> >
> > A lot more.
>
thomlove
I responded to your post; then I went through a lot of the thread that
your post produced.
The majority have no idea of what they are talking about. They've never
even read the book, nor have they ever even tried the procedures. If
you've noticed, few have anything of any value to say.
I stopped reading at the 'Warrior' response. I know what this person
experienced, and I have no debate with him. But, the rest is mostly
uniformed knee jerk reaction.
If you experienced a success with Dianetics, then that is your clue.
Ignore anything other than what you experienced.
Good Luck.
ThomLove
Matthew wrote:
>
> I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
> Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
> donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
> with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
> skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
> anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
> thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
> to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
> chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
> of the room, I never felt better.
>
> My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
thomlove
Thanks for a very honest post. Most filter things through preconceived
ideas they got from others, who got their preconceived ideas from
others, who got their preconceived ideas from others, who never even
bothered to read the data, much less actually do the procedures
involved.
Keep on looking. You'll be rewarded.
ThomLove
Epoch wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew
>
> Don't mind my comments I am a newbie here on this News Group who came
> because of some things I had read about Scientology which I wanted to
> know if they were true or not.
>
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:45:04 GMT, "Matthew" <turtl...@go.com> wrote:
>
> >I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical.
>
> That is a normal approach to anything new or different :-) What is
> important however is that you try to not lose the skeptical outlook.
>
> (snip)
>
> >Just like all of you, the money thing caught my attention.
>
> Reading some of the other posts here I am completely astounded at some
> of the costs that are involved with doing Scientology courses.
>
> I personally believe this is wrong for a religion to do, and before
> people jump on my back I have said the same to other religions.
>
> Great teachers (whether religious or not) offer up their teachings and
> paths for free. Generally later on it becomes commercialized, however
> from my observations so far Scientology (like many other groups today)
> appears to always have been about making money.
>
> Don't you feel within yourself that the high costs are wrong?
>
> >But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
> >to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
> >chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
> >of the room, I never felt better.
>
> I don't doubt that you did. The real problem IMHO is that 'feeling
> good' does not always mean it is good for you.
>
> Remember there are many other paths in the world and techniques which
> can make you feel good but are you as an individual benefitting by
> them or is the cost (either money or work effort) to high for that
> sense of feeling good, being a part of the crowd and having support
> around you like a family?
>
> If you can't pay anymore and are unable to work for Scientology do you
> still feel good when your courses stop? Are your new friends and
> family still with you if you disagreed with some of their teachings?
>
> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
>
> True but many faiths say the same also. You don't know because you
> haven't experienced ...... (fill in the blank).
>
> After awhile it becomes somewhat of a mute point.
>
> >After all
> >the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose.
>
> Yes. They love sensational news, the more outrageous it is the more
> they flock around. However that also does mean people should discount
> everything they hear, see, or read. It should be weighed up whilst
> listening to *both* sides.
>
> The minute you discount or throw out all news or opposite views you
> run the risk of having your reality distorted.
>
> >And others have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt.
>
> Reading the posts here it sure looks that way.
>
> >And children and nuns have been taken advantage of by priests.
> >This is nothing new.
>
> It is nothing new but also it does not justify the actions done.
>
> For instance what is Scientology doing to address its own problems?
> Does it face up to them or does it merely cry out 'it's not true'
> while the same things continue on?
>
> If I could bring up one group (which is also called a cult) ISKON (the
> krishna's) where many children were sexually & physically abused by
> authority figures within its organization.
>
> However they have attempted to address the problem openly even to the
> point of bringing in people from the outside to help them.
>
> Priests likewise (probably due to media pressure) are now screened and
> usually punished if they commit these abuses.
>
> Groups are changing (or at least trying to change) and it no longer is
> being swept so easily under the carpet.
>
> But if you are denied or encouraged not to read this or that article
> how will change ever come? It won't because the problem is ignored,
> hidden or only one side of the story is known.
>
> >And it won't stop.
>
> But it can change that is the whole point of it. Saying it wont allows
> it to continue. Closing ones eyes doesn't make the other persons pain
> go away does it?
>
> That is why it is important to look at both sides of any story and
> weigh it up for yourself, yes that means also listening to what the
> media has to say.
>
> >But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
> >book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
> >you who gather here to pass secret messages.
>
Oxford Systems
thomlove <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:37C9122F...@netscape.net...
> Hello 'Oxford Systems';
>
> Have you read the book?
Yeppers, I read it. I was at a low point in my life and was sharing a
residence with a former Scientologist that had left the church after
working for the Philadelphia org.
While he was out of the church, he didn't really have bad things to say
about it. He was more or less saying "See for yourself" and told me
about the LRH birthday bash in Atlanta.
I went. I was impressed and of course I was invited down to the org.
>Having read the book, did you attempt to,
> heavens, DO the procedures in the book?
Did a bit with the Atlanta org before blowing less than a month after
getting started.
After I left I started researching the life of LRH and found that it
didn't match up very well, if at all, with the bio that the church put
out. I also came across Atack's book, A Piece of Blue Sky and lastly,
ARS and Bare Faced Messiah.
Summation: LRH was a fraud. There was no research for Dianetics.
Dianetics is a fraud and $cientology is a "religion" based on a fraud.
In my book that makes $cientology a scam/sham/fraud.
Now then....wonder how Ron ran out the engrams from Piltdown man. :)
Oxford Systems
> Hello Jeff;
>
> And there are others who have done thousands of hours of Dianetics,
and
> Scientology processing, and who have seen very definite results;
> sometimes far beyond what was expected.
>
> ThomLove.
>
I really don't think so TL. Dianetics has never been held up to
scientific evaluation with the exception of some early trials in which
it failed miserably.
There are no "clears". There are no "magic powers". There are no gains
in eyesight, reductions in illness...in short, practicing the methods of
a fraud "science" do no more than make you proficent in "fraud" science.
Care to back up your claims?
Epoch
<thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Hello Epoch;
Hi Thom
>Thanks for a very honest post. Most filter things through preconceived
>ideas they got from others, who got their preconceived ideas from
>others, who got their preconceived ideas from others, who never even
>bothered to read the data, much less actually do the procedures
>involved.
Thanks, though I must admit I do the same as everyone else :-( but I
try to keep an open mind.
>Keep on looking. You'll be rewarded.
No probs.
>ThomLove
>
>Epoch wrote:
(snip)
Oxford Systems
> Hello Jeff;
>
> And there are others who have done thousands of hours of Dianetics,
and
> Scientology processing, and who have seen very definite results;
> sometimes far beyond what was expected.
>
> ThomLove.
Double post TL. Obviously, Dianetics has worked for you.
Oxford Systems
> Hello Matthew;
>
> Thank you! You put up a brave post.
>
> You are right about the value of Dianetics, and you are right about
> those here who will attempt, unsuccessfully, to trash it.
>
> ThomLove
The value of Dianetics? Last I looked it was "valued" at about $2.00 at
the used book store and even there it was over priced.
A critical look at Dianetics shows what a useless piece of fiction it
really is.
Becky
thomlove wrote:
> The majority have no idea of what they are talking about. They've never
> even read the book, nor have they ever even tried the procedures. If
> you've noticed, few have anything of any value to say.
>
There is no independent evidence to suggest that Dianetics is effective. This
puts Dianetics in the same category as crystals, channeling, aromatherapy,
facilitated communication, or any other pseudoscience currently available.
Beck
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Warrior;
>
>Come on! With so much 'admin hatting', even you can see that more is
>involve here than 'dropped out time'. Be honest. You have no idea what
>Dianetics this person received, or in what 'field', or anything.
>
>Why can't you take this persons experience as an honest personal
>experience? It may be different than yours, but is no less valid.
>
>ThomLove
>
this is "What is true for you is true for you" Be Honest Thom.
You also infer that only [tm] Scientology and [tm]
Dinetics know what is truth.
All they know is that they can successfully sold you a bill of goods.
Arnie Lerma
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
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello DeoMorto;
>
>You have a misu on 'nattering'.
>
>And, yes it is true, many here have more knowledge of this subject than
>the original poster. But, by the fact he did it, he has significantly
>more knowledge than the vast majority who have opinions of something
>they know nothing about, never having even tried it.
>
>Thom
This is Propoganda 101.. Well I smell SCAM, Con game, Ponzi
game, and the rantings of one successfully deluded]
and my PROOF is that this bridge that starts with DIANETICS
goes NOWHERE, as there are NO OTS THERE Thom.
If there was ONE OT, we wouldnt be here.
Geddit?
And I know somethng about it aftre ten years IN.
Got it?
Arnie Lerma
>DeoMorto wrote:
>>
>> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
>>
>> gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
>> someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
>> felt really good" are you?
>>
>> Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
>> subject than you do.
>>
>> A lot more.
>>
>> Vox Dei - Vox Cloaca!
Secrets are the mortar binding
Arnie Lerma
No sir, there might be something to crystals chaneeling and aromatherapy...
Arnie Lerma
Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to lingering
spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75
million years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters" to individuals
in the contemporary world, causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the
lives of their hosts ". USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion,
RTC vs Lerma
>Beck
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Jeff;
>
>And there are others who have done thousands of hours of Dianetics, and
>Scientology processing, and who have seen very definite results;
>sometimes far beyond what was expected.
>
>ThomLove.
The mind is a wonderful tool to abuse isnt it?
If there are such wonderful percieved results, why
ARE THERE NO OTS IN SCIENTOLOGY?
Could it be in the eyes of the beholder, they and you
are just running a SUBROUTINE PROGRAM to
Mock up Something that Scientology can then rid you of?
What a deviously clever man the great deciever was!
He is still decieving you!
You offer nothing, zero, zip, nada...
but quack "What is true for you is true for you"
Good luck, are you OT?
didnt think so...
Arnie Lerma
Arnie Lerma
>Jeff Jacobsone wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:45:04 GMT, "Matthew" <turtl...@go.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
>> >Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
>> >donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
>> >with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
>> >skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
>> >anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
>> >thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>> >to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
>> >chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
>> >of the room, I never felt better.
>> >
>> Is that your goal, to feel better? There are many ways to feel better
>> that don't require supporting a cult.
>>
>> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
>> >the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
>> >have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
>> >have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
>> >stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
>> >book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>> >you who gather here to pass secret messages.
>> >
>> You are quite wrong. There are people here who knew Hubbard, who were
>> present when the "tech" was created, and who know it now as a scam.
>> There are people here who have read and listened to Hubbard for
>> countless hours and consider it a scam. There are ex-members who have
>> gone all they way up the Bridge and consider it a scam.
>> I think you should add to your list of things you want besides just
>> feeling better. I think you should include - belonging to an
>> organization that helps people instead of hurting them.
>> >
>>
>> * * * *
>> http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/cos.htm
Secrets are the mortar binding
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Matthew;
>
>I responded to your post; then I went through a lot of the thread that
>your post produced.
>
>even read the book, nor have they ever even tried the procedures. If
>you've noticed, few have anything of any value to say.
As opposed to your own participation in the hawking of L Ron's Fraud?
>I stopped reading at the 'Warrior' response. I know what this person
>experienced, and I have no debate with him. But, the rest is mostly
>uniformed knee jerk reaction.
No Thom, you are deluded.
My friends here on this newsgoup know more about
Dianetics and Scientology that most deluded adherents, er I mean scientologists.
That you have studied the intricaties of the Hubbardian Bafflegab
means that hubbard was just successful in using his technique
of using complexity to create a perception of substativeness.
Right?
Dianetics is just the blueprint for building a mind construct
of something that never xisted in the first place -
the reactive mind.
PROOF? The clar cognition is : I mock up my bank
No shit Thom...
Arnie Lerma
Arnie Lerma
>If you experienced a success with Dianetics, then that is your clue.
>Ignore anything other than what you experienced.
>
>Good Luck.
>
>ThomLove
>
>Matthew wrote:
>>
>> I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
>> Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
>> donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
>> with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
>> skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
>> anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
>> thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>> to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
>> chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
>> of the room, I never felt better.
>>
>> My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>> Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing. After all
>> the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And others
>> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and nuns
>> have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it won't
>> stop. But hw many people here have actually read and understood a Dianetics
>> book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>> you who gather here to pass secret messages.
Secrets are the mortar binding
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello 'Oxford Systems';
>
>Have you read the book? Having read the book, did you attempt to,
>heavens, DO the procedures in the book?
>
Oh yes, this is why the ex members must be kept alive...
Cause we have BEEN THERE THOM.
We were there WITH YOU.
Are you Thom Lovely who audited me in 1969?
Arnie Lerma
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Epoch;
>
>Thanks for a very honest post. >
>
Why do I hear Batman slap stick sound effects when I read your posts Thom?
> [Scientologists] filter things through preconceived
>ideas they got from [Hubbard], who got [his] preconceived ideas from
>others [ PT Barnum] , who got their preconceived ideas from others, who never
>even
>bothered to read the data [ Got an F in Calciulus and a D in physics, no reading
>involved here ], much less actually do the procedures
>involved [Well you got me herem, he certainly became expert at running his magic
>show, you still seem to be enjoying it to this instant]
Will dianetics cure my penchant for exposing FRAUD?
Read your paragraph again Thom.
You are accurately describing the condition you are in and how
YOU GOT THERE!
There is hope.
Only I dont change a fee for restoring true hope to those who
have accepted FALSE hopes of Dianetics and Scientology.
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Matthew;
>
>Thank you! You put up a brave post.
>
>You are right about the value of Dianetics, and you are right about
>those here who will attempt, unsuccessfully, to trash it.
>
>ThomLove
>
>
Dianetics is the PROGRAM that folks load
to start start "mocking up" a "Reactive mind"
You feel it was there all along...
I feel THAT is a delusion, instilled by the COMMAND LINES
of the Dianetics Program.
They are then sold "SCIENTOLOGY" to reach a point
where they"realize" they are mocking it up....
Well no shit Sherlock!
Why not stay the hell away from this delusion altogether!
I wish *I* did except for one thing...
I wouldnt be here to trash your feeble {c} LRH posturings.
Arnie LErma
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Dobe;
>
>Useless post. Same old rhetoric by someone who has never even read the
>book.
from kicking the crap out of your Psychotic Cult.
Guess there are no OTS there Thom? But you still "Want To Believe"
Arnie Lerma
>
>ThomLove.
>
>Dobe R Mann wrote:
>>
>> Matthew <turtl...@go.com> wrote in message
>> news:AeVx3.45739$pq3.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
>> > I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical.
>>
>> Me too! I still am
>>
>> > I waled into this
>> > Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I
>> was being asked to
>> > donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much
>> about. So I walked out
>> > with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came
>> back to sign up. Still
>> > skeptical that I was being taken for a fool,
>>
>> You should have stayed with your hunch.
>>
>> > so I decided if I didn't get
>> > anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like
>> all of you, the money
>> > thing caught my attention.
>>
>> Have they told you about Xenu yet? Body Theatans?
>> That will *really* 'catch your attention.'
>>
>> > But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
>> > to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy
>> worked. I sat down in a
>> > chair and went through the whole session without a
>> break. When I walked out
>> > of the room, I never felt better.
>>
>> I feel that very same way every time that I work out.
>> All it cost is a little bit of sweat
>>
>> >
>> > My point being here is that we don't know everything
>> about Scientology.
>> > Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't
>> knowing.
>>
>> So, on this line of thought, one would need to take
>> illegal drugs in order to know something about them?
>> To find out if crack-cocaine is really that addictive?
>>
>> > After all
>> > the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's
>> own purpose.
>>
>> This a true point.
>>
>> >And others
>> > have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt.
>>
>> Yes. Have you heard of Lisa McPhearson? How she died
>> at Flag while being kept prisoner on the Introspection
>> Rundown? Read this link:
>> http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm By the way,
>> Flag has been indicted on 2 felony charges in her
>> death.
>>
>> > And children and nuns
>> > have been taken advantage of by priests. This is
>> nothing new. And it won't
>> > stop.
>>
>> WHAT?! Just because it is "nothing new" and it "won't
>> stop" does that mean totalitarian frauds should not be
>> exposed. Or do you think that the children and nuns
>> "pulled it in"--that they caused themselves to be
>> abused by others?
>>
>> > But hw many people here have actually read and
>> understood a Dianetics
>> > book or basic Scientology book?
>>
>> Who would want to try. Hubbard was a raving lunatic by
>> the time he died. And a sociopath while he lived. But
>> if you want to read a real "knee-slapper" for a really
>> good belly-laugh--why don't you try A History of Man.
>> (You can find it on the web.) My favorite part is
>> where El Ron Phattard, in serious "scientific" terms
>> describes how humans have evolved from clams.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ..... it's a riot!!!
>>
>> >I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>> > you who gather here to pass secret messages.
>>
Secrets are the mortar binding
Dobe R Mann
Arnie Lerma <Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:7qbd78$2f...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> In article <37C911CF...@netscape.net>, thomlove
says...
> >
> >Hello Dobe;
> >
> >Useless post. Same old rhetoric by someone who has
never even read the
> >book.
Ditto, Thom. (Gee, you're not invalidating my comms,
...or....or....(sniff)...or....me, are you?)
Thom--do you believe the reasoning that Mathew used for
the abuse of children and nuns is the correct way to
think?
>
> Excellent post [ below] ! by an ethusiast whom you
will FAIL to dissuade
> from kicking the crap out of your Psychotic Cult.
Thanx Arnie. (I need to come up to DC to picket with
you. How far is the bOrg from the Amtrack station?)
>
> Guess there are no OTS there Thom? But you still
"Want To Believe"
Nope...no O'Teaz.
--
Dobe R Mann
SP3 Tone 1.95
_____________________________________________
"Look netizens! Another person just read
about the Co$, Xenu, Elron and the rest of
the rot." "Watch now! .... look!
... oooohhh there they go folks!
Another ARSCC(wdne) member."
Read www.xenu.net
See www.xenutv.com
_____________________________________________
INCIDENT 4
LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
CHEVROLETS COME OUT
BURN RUBBER
FISHTAIL RIGHT
DO U-TURN
STALL
FLAT TIRE (No motion)
BLOWS HORN
BLOWS MISCAVIGE
CRASH
>
>
> Arnie Lerma
Dobe R Mann
thomlove <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in
message news:37C91398...@netscape.net...
> Hello DeoMorto;
>
> You have a misu on 'nattering'.
>
> And, yes it is true, many here have more knowledge of
this subject than
> the original poster. But, by the fact he did it, he
has significantly
> more knowledge than the vast majority who have
opinions of something
> they know nothing about, never having even tried it.
>
> Thom
>
Gee Thom ... how about a little herion or crack ....
maybe some *really* Out 3d kinky stuff... cause based
on your 'logic' (..."the vast majority who have
opinions of something they know nothing about, never
having even tried it.") You might find that a coke high
is 'true for you'
--
Dobe R Mann
SP3 Tone 1.95
_____________________________________________
"Look netizens! Another person just read
about the Co$, Xenu, Elron and the rest of
the rot." "Watch now! .... look!
... oooohhh there they go folks!
Another ARSCC(wdne) member."
Read www.xenu.net
See www.xenutv.com
_____________________________________________
INCIDENT 4
LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
CHEVROLETS COME OUT
BURN RUBBER
FISHTAIL RIGHT
DO U-TURN
STALL
FLAT TIRE (No motion)
BLOWS HORN
BLOWS MISCAVIGE
CRASH
> DeoMorto wrote:
> >
> > >My point being here is that we don't know
everything about Scientology.
> > >Listening to news and others nattering about it
isn't knowing.
> >
Jack Craver
wrote:
>In article <37C911CF...@netscape.net>, thomlove says...
>>
>>Hello Dobe;
>>
>>Useless post. Same old rhetoric by someone who has never even read the
>>book.
>
> Excellent post [ below] ! by an ethusiast whom you will FAIL to dissuade
> from kicking the crap out of your Psychotic Cult.
>
> Guess there are no OTS there Thom? But you still "Want To Believe"
>
So what if he does?
1) Go to the Thomas Jefferson memorial (It's beautiful at night).
2) Read the wall.
For another look at ars:
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm
Best of luck
jack
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
> this is "What is true for you is true for you" Be Honest Thom.
> You also infer that only [tm] Scientology and [tm]
> Dinetics know what is truth.
Where have I ever said that? Nothing in any post I've ever put up could
be read that way, or be said to infer that.
Thom
thomlove
> If there was ONE OT, we wouldnt be here.
I agree that there have been no stable OTs 'made' yet. I suspect there
have been many hitting it on and off over the years, and bouncing right
back down here with the rest of us.
I guess that circuit, 'There are no OTs here!', has been successful for
you, since it seems to pop up in your post so much.
Boy, you sure are busy this a.m. I don't think we have ever commed
before, have we?
> And I know somethng about it aftre ten years IN.
Well, me too. I've been 'in' it for way over two decades now, and I went
way up the line as well. It wasn't smooth, and often I wasn't happy with
how my dreams where being handled, but I stuck it out. Early on I knew
there was something wrong in the CofS, but I also knew the tech did work
since I had it work on me, and I made it work on others. Not everytime
of course, but often enough to keep me working at it. I still do it
today, and the wins are being had.
Have you completely dropped off the line? Are you doing any kind of
program now, either CofS, or Pilots, or Alan Walters, etc?
Thom
>
> Got it?
>
> Arnie Lerma
>
>
> >DeoMorto wrote:
> >>
> >> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
> >> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
> >>
> >> gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
> >> someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
> >> felt really good" are you?
> >>
> >> Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
> >> subject than you do.
> >>
> >> A lot more.
> >>
> >> Vox Dei - Vox Cloaca!
>
thomlove
Since you are looking at this sort of 'stuff', you'd be better off if
you shifted over to the Alt.Clearing.Tech newsgroup. Here in ARS you'll
get mostly ranting against the CofS, (usually justified ranting,
unfortunately), but at the ACT you'll get to comm with many who are also
looking, and who are *doing* things to better their condition.
If bitching about someone else were to help you gain spiritually in an
wa,, then everyone here on ARS would be Jesus or Buddha by now.
Thom
Epoch wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 04:16:18 -0700, thomlove
> <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Hello Epoch;
>
> Hi Thom
>
> >Thanks for a very honest post. Most filter things through preconceived
> >ideas they got from others, who got their preconceived ideas from
> >others, who got their preconceived ideas from others, who never even
> >bothered to read the data, much less actually do the procedures
> >involved.
>
> Thanks, though I must admit I do the same as everyone else :-( but I
> try to keep an open mind.
>
> >Keep on looking. You'll be rewarded.
>
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> Only I dont change a fee for restoring true hope to those who
> have accepted FALSE hopes of Dianetics and Scientology.
Are you giving sessions to people?
Thom
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> Dianetics is the PROGRAM that folks load
> to start start "mocking up" a "Reactive mind"
I recall a post sometime earlier by you that mentioned that we 'mock' up
our Reactive mind, only to be sold a bill of goods on then having to get
rid of it.
What struck me at the time, and I was going to respond to the post then
but decided not to do so, was the consequence of what you said if it
were true.
For example, if one mocked up a bank, then doesn't that ability to do so
lead directly to some very significant questions? Have you thought that
out at all? I thought about what you said for a while, and boy, does it
open some doors if one where to accept it as a truth.
For example, it makes all the tech re: reactive minds valid, and
processes to handle reactive minds could also be valid.
Further, if one mocks up a bank, then the question as to 'when' it was
mocked up could become an important point too. If one could
inadvertently mock up a bank under the covert suppression of someone
such as LRH, or you or me, then they could have also mocked up a bank
under some similar circumstances at some earlier time, and still have
the bank kicking at them. Not true?
So, if you believe in what you yourself said, then are involved in
getting rid of a bank you created, or are you involved in helping others
getting rid of a bank they created? What about those who created their
bank, and have go so far to the effect of it they are no longer even
aware they have one affecting them, such as everyone here on ARS? What
about them?
Anyway, I agree with part of your premise, that Beings to create their
own bank, but I doubt it is done because a dead man is telling them to
do it, and there are a lot walking around who you'd have to admit also
have banks who've never heard of you or me or LRH or CofS.
Thom
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> PROOF? The clar cognition is : I mock up my bank
Nope. It is 'I AM mockING up my bank'. A very big difference.
Thom
Warrior
>
>Hello Warrior;
>
>Come on! With so much 'admin hatting', even you can see that more is
>Dianetics this person received, or in what 'field', or anything.
What do you mean by "...in what 'field'..."? Do you mean to say that
I have no idea of what type of Dianetics he received? It could have
been "book one" or "drug rundown" or "R3R" or any number of various
styles of "auditing". Since I don't know what type of Dianetics he
received, I did not comment other than to say it must have either:
a) been a long time ago, or b) received a "cutative price". I base
thisstatement upon my knowledge that Dianetics has not been sold
as cheaply as $80 for 3 hours for a very long time. That's all.
>Why can't you take this persons [sic] experience as an honest personal
>experience? It may be different than yours, but is no less valid.
Obviously he feels however he feels.
I always feel much better after simply talking with someone who is a good
listener. And I never get headaches by doing so, and it doesn't cost me
thousands of dollars.
Warrior
Warrior
>
>You have a misu on 'nattering'.
No he doesn't.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.org/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
thomlove
Warrior wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "...in what 'field'..."? Do you mean to say that
> I have no idea of what type of Dianetics he received?
I just meant that he could have received his sessions outside the CofS.
I was just attempting to point out to you that you judged his post as if
he was getting sessions from the CofS, and considering how you felt
about the CofS, you may have attacked his post out of that feeling.
No big deal.
Thom
Birdie1127
>> the news is often inaccurate and motivated for it's own purpose. And
>others
>> have had bad experiences with Scientology. No doubt. And children and
>nuns
>> have been taken advantage of by priests. This is nothing new. And it
>won't
>Dianetics
>> book or basic Scientology book? I'm willing to bet it isn't a whole lot of
>> you who gather here to pass secret messages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I've read Dianetics, and several other scientology books....and they're
bullshit.
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>>
>> You also infer that only [tm] Scientology and [tm]
>> Dinetics know what is truth.
>
>Where have I ever said that? Nothing in any post I've ever put up could
>be read that way, or be said to infer that.
propaganda 101 Thom
Now listen up, if I were to hypnotize you and tell you
"Arnie has the secrets of the universe" and that you will
say that any time I was attacked... that could be made to happen right?
And you would do that without question, and make up whatever explanations
were necessary to explain your profound assertion, right?
Now how many of folks would I have to put into such a trance
Who would then be all chanting to the IRS
That Lerma had the secrets of the universe.
In order for me to become a 3c501 charitable organization?
shall I continue??
Arnie Lerma
>Thom
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>> If there was ONE OT, we wouldnt be here.
>
>I agree that there have been no stable OTs 'made' yet. I suspect there
>have been many hitting it on and off over the years, and bouncing right
>back down here with the rest of us.
Well, you imply here that Scientology is somehow the cause of this
intermittent state that you observe.. What if this state manifestes itself
IN SPITE of scientology?
And you no doubt know the pattern of attribution of cause.
That all the good things are due to the "Brilliance" of L Ron Hubbard.
And all the bad things are due to your own inability
to properly DUPLICATE SOURCE?
This pattern alone would explain the occasionaly serendipitous apparancy
of transiet OT... well probability too but I'll leave that to
the folks at Skeptic Magazine.
>I guess that circuit, 'There are no OTs here!', has been successful for
>you, since it seems to pop up in your post so much.
No Sir, it has been successful in pointing out the TRUTH. PERIOD.
>Boy, you sure are busy this a.m. I don't think we have ever commed
>before, have we?
On ACT perhaps, but I was only posting in response to your
very busy morning...
>> And I know somethng about it aftre ten years IN.
>
>Well, me too. I've been 'in' it for way over two decades now, and I went
>way up the line as well. It wasn't smooth, and often I wasn't happy with
>how my dreams where being handled, but I stuck it out. Early on I knew
>there was something wrong in the CofS, but I also knew the tech did work
>since I had it work on me, and I made it work on others. Not everytime
>of course, but often enough to keep me working at it. I still do it
>today, and the wins are being had.
No take a closer look at this Thom.
What worked?
Scientology? or the innate abilities of the Spirit?
Why give Hubbard credit for what you are?
That just part of the program to create the apparancy.
>Have you completely dropped off the line? Are you doing any kind of
>program now, either CofS, or Pilots, or Alan Walters, etc?
I am very well connected.. Read Psychic Warrior by David Morehouse
unlike Dianetics , it is a TRUE story...
What if scientology was also just a trap.
To snare a few exceptional men...
Arnie Lerma
>Thom
>
>
>>
>> Got it?
>>
>> Arnie Lerma
>>
>>
>> >DeoMorto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >My point being here is that we don't know everything about Scientology.
>> >> >Listening to news and others nattering about it isn't knowing.
>> >>
>> >> gave yourself away old son - nattering is a scientology term - you are not
>>>> someone who "just went in to the organization and did a little dianetics and
>> >> felt really good" are you?
>> >>
>> >> Actually a lot of people on this newsgroup know far far more about this
>> >> subject than you do.
>> >>
>> >> A lot more.
>> >>
>> >> Vox Dei - Vox Cloaca!
>>
Arnie Lerma
What? are you worried about competition or would you
like more information? Which is it?
Arnie Lerma
>
>Thom
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Again again!
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
>> Dianetics is the PROGRAM that folks load
>> to start start "mocking up" a "Reactive mind"
>
>I recall a post sometime earlier by you that mentioned that we 'mock' up
>our Reactive mind, only to be sold a bill of goods on then having to get
>rid of it.
>
>What struck me at the time, and I was going to respond to the post then
>but decided not to do so, was the consequence of what you said if it
>were true.
>
>For example, if one mocked up a bank, then doesn't that ability to do so
>lead directly to some very significant questions? Have you thought that
>out at all? I thought about what you said for a while, and boy, does it
>open some doors if one where to accept it as a truth.
indeed it does, as was my intention.
>For example, it makes all the tech re: reactive minds valid, and
>processes to handle reactive minds could also be valid.
but only with one important Hubbardian
caveat - "What is true for you is true for you"
>Further, if one mocks up a bank, then the question as to 'when' it was
>mocked up could become an important point too. If one could
>inadvertently mock up a bank under the covert suppression of someone
>such as LRH, or you or me, then they could have also mocked up a bank
>under some similar circumstances at some earlier time, and still have
>the bank kicking at them. Not true?
scratching head....
So you are saying that if as I content its all apparancy, and bullshit
then that argues it also could be real?
This line of convoluted game within a game could only be true
*IF* there was ONE OT. But theres not, There is only YOU.
>
>So, if you believe in what you yourself said, then are involved in
>getting rid of a bank you created, or are you involved in helping others
>getting rid of a bank they created? What about those who created their
>bank, and have go so far to the effect of it they are no longer even
>aware they have one affecting them, such as everyone here on ARS? What
>about them?
What about these hypotheticals? From follwing this line of spin...
I sense you protest going where I seek to bring you. I merely seek to
exit you from participation in the world wide ponzi game, the bridge
to nowehere... and see the the Emperoro indeed is wearing no clothes.
There are NO Ots Thom... Just lawyers and PI's to try silence
those that seek to point this out. Thier own actions are testiment
to MY assertion being true.
Your attempts to view this with Hubbardian technology
of course induce the apparancy of a spin, as your logic
is brushing the edges of the very maze you are trapped in.
And I escaped from.
There is a LOT MORE OUT THERE Thom.
>Anyway, I agree with part of your premise, that Beings to create their
>own bank, but I doubt it is done because a dead man is telling them to
>do it, and there are a lot walking around who you'd have to admit also
>have banks who've never heard of you or me or LRH or CofS.
Thom, there is no reative mind, there is no time track, there
is a Now, which came from and proceeds to forever, but time, bank
incidents, these are not a route out, but a route around... inside
a created universe.. Where you have all the answers, as long as you
obey...
A universe carved out of what is real by L ron Hubbard.
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
>> PROOF? The clar cognition is : I mock up my bank
>
>Nope. It is 'I AM mockING up my bank'. A very big difference.
A distinction without a difference, do you dare
try to explain yourself?
I sincerely doubt it.
But you do have MY attention
Whatcha gonna do?
Dave Bird
<thomlov...@netscape.net> writes
>
>Since you are looking at this sort of 'stuff', you'd be better off if
>you shifted over to the Alt.Clearing.Tech newsgroup. Here in ARS you'll
>get mostly ranting against the CofS, (usually justified ranting,
If you want to read wibble about Hubbard's Tech endlessly and
unchallenged, then A.C.T is the wibbling-ground for it.
__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | -----
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. --- -----------X*E*M*U-----------+
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ |
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | ''Auditting your Garden |
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ Plants'' by L Ron Tubbard |
// .' : .'___' : ' Bridge Publications |
// ; '. ~===~ /\ $949.99 paperback |
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ |
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,, further details, ring |
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,, 01 800 FOR TRUT |
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, |
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, --------------------------+
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> Well, you imply here that Scientology is somehow the cause of this
> intermittent state that you observe.. What if this state manifestes itself
> IN SPITE of scientology?
I have no doubt that it occurs in the complete absence of CofS or
Scientology. The application of Scientology is only one way to go. I
think it can take one a considerable distance on that path, but I also
concur that the path is unfinished to full OT. How to get all the way? I
don't know. But I do know that I will use what produces TA Action and
will continue to use it until there is no more TA Action, and then
switch to another TA Action 'getter'.
Yes, I do claim that much of the road has been mapped out by LRH. And
that it works quite fine for most. Does it always work all the time for
everybody? No, it doesn't. It works most of the time for everybody; I'm
sure of that, but I could be wrong.
I have no doubt there are other paths. Even the early Greek Mysteries
produced stellar results, and even early Christianity produced Clears.
Buddhism has a path. There are many, and if enough TA Action is gotten,
then at any place along the path a person may get a sneak preview of
what lays up ahead, but then has to still walk the rest of the way to
get their stabily.
I'm kinda longwinded today. sorry.
Thom
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> What? are you worried about competition or would you
> like more information? Which is it?
Are those the only two options?
I'd like to hear what you are doing, that's all. No big deal if you're
not interested.
Thom
thomlove
You avoided answering the question.
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> this is "What is true for you is true for you" Be Honest Thom.
> >> You also infer that only [tm] Scientology and [tm]
> >> Dinetics know what is truth.
> >
> >Where have I ever said that? Nothing in any post I've ever put up could
> >be read that way, or be said to infer that.
Wanna try again? You don't need to if you don't want to.
Thom
iva...@medieval.net
mind so powerful, where are all the great new inventions and science
that has been produced? No reputable scientists claim to be
scientologists. The only thing I've seen are things like "laundry balls"
that have been proven false and been banned by state attorneys.
Other than a few Hollywood types, I've never heard of any famous
scientologists.
Where are they?
Boudewijn van Ingen
<thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Hello Matthew;
[snip]
>If you experienced a success with Dianetics, then that is your clue.
>Ignore anything other than what you experienced.
So much for the "think for yourself" slogan.
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Warrior
>>
>> What do you mean by "...in what 'field'..."? Do you mean to say that
>> I have no idea of what type of Dianetics he received?
In article <37C99909...@netscape.net>, thomlove replied:
>
>I just meant that he could have received his sessions outside the CofS.
>I was just attempting to point out to you that you judged his post as if
>he was getting sessions from the CofS, and considering how you felt
>about the CofS, you may have attacked his post out of that feeling.
>
>No big deal.
>
>Thom
Well, Thom, perhaps you could explain what it is that "Matthew" posted
which could have possibly made you come to the conclusion that he "could
have received his sessions outside the CofS". I assure you that I did not
attack him or his post. I only pointed out that based upon my extensive
knowledge of Scientology finance policy, it is very unlikely he would
have been asked to buy 3 hours of "auditing" for $80, unless it was a
*long* time ago. Here's part of "Matthew's" post:
===
Title: Dianetics.
Author: "Matthew" <turtl...@go.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:45:04 GMT
"I read Dianetics once. And honestly I was skeptical. I waled into this
Dianetics Foundation in Perth, and before I knew it I was being asked to
donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy I didn't know much about. So I walked out
with the book, read it in a matter of days, and came back to sign up. Still
skeptical that I was being taken for a fool, so I decided if I didn't get
anything out of it, I wouldn't come back. Just like all of you, the money
thing caught my attention. But I decided it wasn't much to lose if I stood
to gain as much as I knew I would if the therapy worked. I sat down in a
chair and went through the whole session without a break. When I walked out
of the room, I never felt better."
===
Clearly, "Matthew" says he went into the Perth Dianetics Foundation and
was asked "to donate $80 for 3 hours of therapy". Next, he "walked out
with the book [unspecified], read it in a matter of days, and came back
to sign up". Then he "sat down in a chair and went through the whole
session without a break".
It doesn't sound to me like he was "audited" outside of the "church" of
Scientology (in the "field").
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.org/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>> What? are you worried about competition or would you
>> like more information? Which is it?
>
>Are those the only two options?
Which is it?
>
>I'd like to hear what you are doing, that's all. No big deal if you're
>not interested.
Monroe Institute stuff, Robert Monroe, cheap, non invasive
and simple...
So what about the posts you have yet to follow up on?
Arnie
>Thom
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>You avoided answering the question.
no way your inference was quite clear
seems the avoidance is only true for you
Arnie
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>> this is "What is true for you is true for you" Be Honest Thom.
>> >> You also infer that only [tm] Scientology and [tm]
>> >> Dinetics know what is truth.
>> >
>> >Where have I ever said that? Nothing in any post I've ever put up could
>> >be read that way, or be said to infer that.
>
>Wanna try again? You don't need to if you don't want to.
>
thomlove
You're right. I forgot his post when I posted my post to you. Sorry for
the dev't.
He probably got some intro service of some sort. I doubt it was HGC
services.
thomlove
Demo them out. You'll see the difference quite clearly.
Thom
Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
> In article <37C993BA...@netscape.net>, thomlove says...
> >
> >Hello Arnie;
> >
> >Arnie Lerma wrote:
> >
> >> PROOF? The clar cognition is : I mock up my bank
> >
> >Nope. It is 'I AM mockING up my bank'. A very big difference.
>
> A distinction without a difference, do you dare
> try to explain yourself?
>
> I sincerely doubt it.
>
> But you do have MY attention
>
> Whatcha gonna do?
>
> Arnie Lerma
>
> >
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
>> intermittent state that you observe.. What if this state manifestes itself
>> IN SPITE of scientology?
>
>I have no doubt that it occurs in the complete absence of CofS or
>Scientology. The application of Scientology is only one way to go. I
>think it can take one a considerable distance on that path, but I also
>concur that the path is unfinished to full OT. How to get all the way? I
>don't know. But I do know that I will use what produces TA Action and
>will continue to use it until there is no more TA Action, and then
>switch to another TA Action 'getter'.
I have yet to see any OT stuff manifest itself due to auditing
None.. In fact the opposite occurs...
Those with gifts lose them in Scientology.
It creates nothing but delusion.
And scientology has ZERO Ots
so from whence the faith?
>Yes, I do claim that much of the road has been mapped out by LRH. And
>that it works quite fine for most. Does it always work all the time for
>everybody? No, it doesn't. It works most of the time for everybody; I'm
>sure of that, but I could be wrong.
well this is certainly true you, but only in the Hubbard universe
Which doesn't meet the real universe except at The lawyer interface.
>I have no doubt there are other paths. Even the early Greek Mysteries
>produced stellar results, and even early Christianity produced Clears.
>Buddhism has a path. There are many, and if enough TA Action is gotten,
>then at any place along the path a person may get a sneak preview of
>what lays up ahead, but then has to still walk the rest of the way to
>get their stabily.
>
>I'm kinda longwinded today. sorry.
No at all, show me anything, anything that shows this is a workable
path besides folks who THINK they winning...
Where is Truly Ethical behavior on the tone scale?
Where is love??
What about the E-meter?
care to comment on this:
http://www.lermanet.com/e-metershort.htm
Arnie
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
> So what about the posts you have yet to follow up on?
I don't respond to all posts. If I see one is going nowhere, I let it
pass on in peace.
Thom
thomlove
Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
> Where is Truly Ethical behavior on the tone scale?
>
> Where is love??
>
> What about the E-meter?
>
> care to comment on this:
Comment on what exactly?
Thom
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Demo them out. You'll see the difference quite clearly.
>
>Thom
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>>
>> In article <37C993BA...@netscape.net>, thomlove says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Arnie Lerma wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Nope. It is 'I AM mockING up my bank'. A very big difference.
>>
>> A distinction without a difference, do you dare
>> try to explain yourself?
>>
>> I sincerely doubt it.
>>
>> But you do have MY attention
>>
>> Whatcha gonna do?
Evidently not much...
arnie
>> Arnie Lerma
>>
>> >
>> >Thom
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>>
>
>> Where is Truly Ethical behavior on the tone scale?
>>
>> Where is love??
>>
>> What about the E-meter?
>>
>> care to comment on this:
>
Well thank you for the commentary upon circular logic.
You've studied propganda 101 well
Or is that already in your hat pack?
Arnie
>
>Thom
Arnie Lerma
>
>Hello Arnie;
>
>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
>
>I don't respond to all posts. If I see one is going nowhere, I let it
>pass on in peace.
speaking of going nowhere
where does the bridge to total freedom go?
Freedom to hide it seems.
Arnie Lerma
thomlove
Rob Clark wrote:
>
> On 29 Aug 1999 11:49:26 -0700, Arnie Lerma <Arnie_...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37C993BA...@netscape.net>, thomlove says...
>
> >>Hello Arnie;
>
> >>Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
> >>> PROOF? The clar cognition is : I mock up my bank
>
> >>Nope. It is 'I AM mockING up my bank'. A very big difference.
>
> > A distinction without a difference, do you dare
> > try to explain yourself?
>
> I don't know what the Scientological difference would be, but "I am
> mocking up my bank" is a present progressive tense construction,
> indicating an ongoing progress, whereas "I mock up my bank" is a
> simple present, not necessarily indicating an act in progress. It
> could mean "I mock up my bank every Thursday afternoon" or "Sometimes
> I mock up my bank."
>
> While the underlying theory is still IMO bullshit, there is actually a
> fine, but important distinction between the meanings of the two
> sentences.
>
> rob
Yup, that's exactly it. Not fair telling Arnie, though. (g)
The "I mock up my bank" is the sort of view one would have if they had
read the Clear cog somewhere. The "I am mocking up my bank" is the view
one has who actually had experienced the Clear cog.
Simple, but different. Those who've not had it, don't know it.
Thom
Rob Clark
Jim Bianchi
As for those Hollywood types, I rather think they gained what
notoriety they have quite indepently of $cientology -- IN SPITE OF IT
instead of BECAUSE OF IT.
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS * 300bps -- 33.6kbps * (707) 539-1279
"If God didn't intend man to use fvwm2,
why'd He have Torvalds invent Linux?"
AndroidCat
news:37C8FD65...@medieval.net...
> I'm curious, if dianetics and scientology are so great and make your
> mind so powerful, where are all the great new inventions and science
> that has been produced? No reputable scientists claim to be
> scientologists. The only thing I've seen are things like "laundry balls"
> that have been proven false and been banned by state attorneys.
> Other than a few Hollywood types, I've never heard of any famous
> scientologists.
>
And where are those Dianetics chess masters?
It gets worse: $cientology claims to put you in touch with your past lives.
Many of those past lives were in highly civilized (and amazingly
overpopulated!) interstellar empires.
So why hasn't any $cientologist reinvented any of those *astounding* gadgets
like DC-8 space planes? Hmm?
Ron of that ilk.
Becky
thomlove wrote:
> Hello Arnie;
>
> Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
> > So what about the posts you have yet to follow up on?
>
> I don't respond to all posts. If I see one is going nowhere, I let it
> pass on in peace.
[translation] If they make a point I can't dispute I keep my mouth
shut.
Very wise.
Beck
Oxford Systems
thomlove <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:37C98F1A...@netscape.net...
[snip]
> Well, me too. I've been 'in' it for way over two decades now, and I
went
> way up the line as well. It wasn't smooth, and often I wasn't happy
with
> how my dreams where being handled, but I stuck it out. Early on I knew
> there was something wrong in the CofS, but I also knew the tech did
work
> since I had it work on me, and I made it work on others.
thomlove <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:37CA038E...@netscape.net...
{Arnie Lerma}> > I remember them all. Do you?
>
> Nope.
Two decades huh? Can't remember? I must say that given the promises for
the abilities of a clear, it hasn't worked for you very well.
Can't remember? <Blink><Boggle>
Steve Zadarnowski
>Hello Matthew;
>
>I responded to your post; then I went through a lot of the thread that
>your post produced.
>
>The majority have no idea of what they are talking about. They've never
>even read the book, nor have they ever even tried the procedures. If
>you've noticed, few have anything of any value to say.
Bollocks. I've read it. I've got copies coming out my ears. I've got
Dianetics 55, Dianetics Today etc etc etc. And thanks to the Net,
you can search the contents of Dianetics and find any statement/word
Hubbard uttered.
Firstly, the very *basis* of auditing starts out as nothing more
than an external stimulus. Of *course* you are going to get a
response by asking a person a time when he got hurt, or when
someone yelled at them, or when they felt happy. That's a normal
and completely unremarkable process of helping people deal with
their past *IF* they are disturbed in some way and find it
difficult to function in some aspect of life.
Pulling people off the street, giving them a "personality test"
is *not* a valid method of finding and helping people with problems.
At least 80% of people dragged into a Dianetics Org have no need of
any interpersonal therapy, yet *every* person gets told they have
some kind of problem that Scientology/Dianetics can help them with.
>If you experienced a success with Dianetics, then that is your clue.
>Ignore anything other than what you experienced.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a dumbfuck statement. You aren't doing yourself any favors
by coming over like a blind preacher. And if someone has had no
success with Dianetics, can he possibly be correct? Not according
to you or Hubbard.
Here's a hint. Auditors *DO* evaluate for the PC, because that's
how they decide what memory to drag up next.
Here's a question: Why does every word uttered around a PC while
unconcious have to result in engrams with a negative slant? Why
does the reactive mind produce only negative interpretations?
While Dianetics promotes itself to be able to help the insane
and the severely mentally ill, why does Scientology deny these
people any treatment at all?
If the brain is merely the *mechanism* through which a thetan
operates, why is Scientology so crazy about preventing repair
of the brain and excision of parts that stop a person from
functioning?
If the brain is so vital to 100% operation of an individual,
how do *you* explain the success of hemispherectomies currently
being performed, and what would Dianetics/Scientology/You
recommend for a hyper-acute case of epilepsy where a person
can't even move because they're balled up on the floor in
spasms for hours at a time?
I'd like to hear some answers from you on the more gritty issues
of mental health that Scientology outrightly ignores, both the
conditions and the people they affect...
S
Steve Zadarnowski
>Hello Epoch;
>
>Thanks for a very honest post. Most filter things through preconceived
>ideas they got from others, who got their preconceived ideas from
>others, who got their preconceived ideas from others, who never even
>bothered to read the data, much less actually do the procedures
>involved.
>
>Keep on looking. You'll be rewarded.
While you, on the other hand, believe *everything* that Hubbard
has preconcieved for you. No middle man for you, huh?
Listening to Hubbard blather on tape should be a painful lesson
for a Scientologist, but you guys just lap it up.
S
thomlove
Oxford Systems wrote:
>{Arnie Lerma}> > I remember them all. Do you?
Wrong attribution.
ThomLove
thomlove
Steve Zadarnowski wrote:
> While you, on the other hand, believe *everything* that Hubbard
> has preconcieved for you. No middle man for you, huh?
>
> Listening to Hubbard blather on tape should be a painful lesson
> for a Scientologist, but you guys just lap it up.
No, I don't believe everything Hubbard said, not by a long shot. Some
things violated my sense of reality, so I just made sure I understood
exactly what he was putting out so I didn't mis understand it, and just
continued on. Many things in that category eventually panned out to be
true, some panned out to not to be true, and some I still am not too
sure of. Some things worked for me, and some things didn't work for me.
Maintaining ones own sense of integrity and ones own counsel is always
easy. Sometimes one can screw up, but hopefully see the error of their
ways and get back to battery. That includes me.
ThomLove
Oxford Systems
> Hello Oxford;
>
> Oxford Systems wrote:
>
{thomlove}> No.
>
> Wrong attribution.
Fixed now. :)
Nice dance around the point however. Two decades of the "tech" and you
can't remember? Hmmmm.....
Oxford Systems
> Hello Rob;
>
> Rob Clark wrote:
> >
<Arnie_...@newsguy.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <37C993BA...@netscape.net>, thomlove says...
> >
> >
> > >>Arnie Lerma wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>Nope. It is 'I AM mockING up my bank'. A very big difference.
> >
> > > A distinction without a difference, do you dare
> > > try to explain yourself?
> >
> > I don't know what the Scientological difference would be, but "I am
> > mocking up my bank" is a present progressive tense construction,
> > indicating an ongoing progress, whereas "I mock up my bank" is a
> > simple present, not necessarily indicating an act in progress. It
> > could mean "I mock up my bank every Thursday afternoon" or
"Sometimes
> > I mock up my bank."
> >
> > While the underlying theory is still IMO bullshit, there is actually
a
> > fine, but important distinction between the meanings of the two
> > sentences.
> >
> > rob
>
>
> The "I mock up my bank" is the sort of view one would have if they had
> read the Clear cog somewhere. The "I am mocking up my bank" is the
view
> one has who actually had experienced the Clear cog.
>
> Simple, but different. Those who've not had it, don't know it.
Are you saying that you are "clear"? What about that memory problem
Thomlove? Where is that perfect recall? Cog on that for a while.
thomlove
Steve Zadarnowski wrote:
>Bollocks. I've read it. I've got copies coming out my ears. I've got
> Dianetics 55, Dianetics Today etc etc etc. And thanks to the Net,
> you can search the contents of Dianetics and find any statement/word
> Hubbard uttered.
So I guess you can define basic words, such as 'engram', 'secondary',
'lock', 'keyin' and so forth, right? Without looking them up again,
right? You can easily explain the mechanics of how the bank works,
right? You know the relationship between the forces and the
significances in the bank right? You've sat down with someone, and tried
it out to see if it worked or not, right? You know the principle
underlying the need to go earlier, right?
If you can't answer those questions with out hesitation, then you know
diddly squat, and haven't a clue of what you are talking about.
If you can spew out the answers, then I'm wrong about you and I'll
apologize to you, and I'll pay more attention to your posts in the
future.
> Pulling people off the street, giving them a "personality test"
> is *not* a valid method of finding and helping people with problems.
You're right. It is just a hook to get them to walk into the door and
buy a book or something. No argument there.
> At least 80% of people dragged into a Dianetics Org have no need of
> any interpersonal therapy,
Well, we disagree on that point. But in both cases it is just opinion.
> >If you experienced a success with Dianetics, then that is your clue.
> >Ignore anything other than what you experienced.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That's a dumbfuck statement. You aren't doing yourself any favors
> by coming over like a blind preacher.
The fact that some one actually experienced something, seems to mean
that they are not coming over like a 'blind preacher'. They are coming
over based on an experience that was theirs, not something that has been
told to them in some manner. Note the difference.
And if someone has had no
> success with Dianetics, can he possibly be correct? Not according
> to you or Hubbard.
Yes he can be correct. There are situations where Dianetics won't
produce any result at all, and there are situations where a person may
get quite upset if they get run on Dianetics. These circumstances do
exist. In 1950, that was not known.
> Here's a hint. Auditors *DO* evaluate for the PC, because that's
> how they decide what memory to drag up next.
Ahhh, now your lack of understanding is showing. Exactly how do you
think a specific question is picked to be 'the' question that you are
going to run on the pc? Any idea?
> Here's a question: Why does every word uttered around a PC while
> unconcious have to result in engrams with a negative slant?
A completely false conception. You don't understand what it is that
produces the content in the bank do you! You need to review the
definition of 'engram'.
>Why does the reactive mind produce only negative interpretations?
The reactive mind doesn't produce any 'interpretations' of anything. It
doesn't interpret analytically at all. It reacts. It doesn't think. It
reacts. It is a stimulous response mechanism.
Where did you get that idea?
> While Dianetics promotes itself to be able to help the insane
> and the severely mentally ill, why does Scientology deny these
> people any treatment at all?
It doesn't. If they want help, they can get it, if they have the money.
Now, please, don't assume that I support the CofS. I don't. I just want
to ensure any alteration of the tech is pointed out, and that lurkers
who think that the gabbleygooks here on ARS know all about everything
they are gobblyegooking about get another viewpoint.
> If the brain is merely the *mechanism* through which a thetan
> operates, why is Scientology so crazy about preventing repair
> of the brain and excision of parts that stop a person from
> functioning?
Medical handling is medical handling. It has to do with the body, and
has little to do with the 'soul' or 'spirit'. If a person needs part of
the brain treated to handle a medical problem that cannot be handled any
other way, then go ahead and treat it. What choice do you have, but
cutting and slicing and burning parts of your brain is unrepairable, so
it is wise to seek out any other way first. Makes sense, doesn't it? And
if such cutting and slicing and burning is experimental, or to 'find
out' what is really wrong, then to hell with it.
This has nothing to do with Dianetics, or your understanding of
Dianetics.
> If the brain is so vital to 100% operation of an individual,
> how do *you* explain the success of hemispherectomies currently
> being performed, and what would Dianetics/Scientology/You
> recommend for a hyper-acute case of epilepsy where a person
> can't even move because they're balled up on the floor in
> spasms for hours at a time?
I'd recommend a complete handling by a medical doctor, coupled with
finding all the engrams associated with the illness to be found and run
out. That way both are handled, the mental, and the physical.
> I'd like to hear some answers from you on the more gritty issues
> of mental health that Scientology outrightly ignores, both the
> conditions and the people they affect...
Ask away. I can give you some insights perhaps, perhaps not, but they'd
be my opinion. I'd answer not what the CofS would do, because I don't
care what the CofS would do. The CofS and its views are irrelevant to
me. I'd answer from what I think can be done by someone who knows
Dianetics and Scientology techniques quite well and who'd want to help.
If I don't know, I'll tell you.
I'd miss perhaps on some of the points, because my understanding still
has some weak points. Some questions I may not even respond to, if I
felt they were being put up just for the sake of producing an arguement.
But, if you are truely curious, I'd be more than willing to do what I
could.
Just don't pretend you know enough about Dianetics to even discus it.
You don't.
thomlove
Oxford Systems
> Hello Steve;
>
> Steve Zadarnowski wrote:
>
TL,
If I were you the first thing I would do would be adjust my PC's
(personal computer, not pre-clear) clock to reflect the correct time or
time zone. You are managing to post this message in the future by some
three hours.
The second thing I would do is get some serious help with deprogramming.
In my humble opinion you are an addict. I don't mean that as a slam but
instead as an honest observation.
You seem to be addicted to whatever rush you get from auditing or
whatever it is that you do or have done in Scientology and the Free
Zone.
You are living in an altered state that is not connected with reality.
Perhaps it might help if you take a deep breath and repeat slowly:
Ron Hubbard was a fraud. There was no research. Dianetics was made up of
whole cloth and is fiction. Auditing is mind control. There are no
clears. There have never been clears. There will never be clears because
the Dianetics was a fraud. There are no OT's. There have never been any
OT's. There never will be any OT's because the Scientology is a fraud.
And again:
Ron Hubbard was a fraud. There was no research. Dianetics was made up of
whole cloth and is fiction. Auditing is mind control. There are no
clears. There have never been clears. There will never be clears because
the Dianetics was a fraud. There are no OT's. There have never been any
OT's. There never will be any OT's because the Scientology is a fraud.
And again:
Ron Hubbard was a fraud. There was no research. Dianetics was made up of
whole cloth and is fiction. Auditing is mind control. There are no
clears. There have never been clears. There will never be clears because
the Dianetics was a fraud. There are no OT's. There have never been any
OT's. There never will be any OT's because the Scientology is a fraud.
Need proof? Check your "miraculous abilities" and "total recall" after
two decades.
There is no "tech" Thomlove. Just like there was no Piltdown man. Just
like your mother didn't try to abort you. Just like Xenu was no more
than a bad piece of science fiction.
The Emperor has no clothes Thomlove. Time to see it.
Get help. Get deprogrammed. People care.
thomlove
Oxford Systems wrote:
>If I were you the first thing I would do would be adjust my PC's
> (personal computer, not pre-clear) clock to reflect the correct time or
> time zone. You are managing to post this message in the future by some
> three hours.
The time on the computer clock is accurate. I don't know why it is
misposting time on the newsgroup.
> People care.
Thank you. (g)
ThomLove
bu...@flash.net
will give you better enlightenment that any 2 cent hack job writer can
give you
DeoMorto
You have a misu on 'nattering'. >>
Oh, really? Would you like to explain rather than pronounce? Nattering is a
perjorative term IN SCIENTOLOGY.
>>And, yes it is true, many here have more knowledge of this subject than
the original poster. But, by the fact he did it, he has significantly
more knowledge than the vast majority who have opinions of something
they know nothing about, never having even tried it.>>
again - an assumption not based on anything except guesswork.
thomlove
lacquered rather mine furious glove, or no dangerous, multiversity
imagined telephones slid fast against every positivist dissemination,
weathering opposite major defeats post every amendments to a handless
reproducibilities. And have I not confuse throughout quite every
historicism? They stomped but boomed lest they were uniformly
transformed, nor a cloudburst over me promised rightly cozier. It
has not been the mimetic organize. Ahead, Kenzo, what do we flake
during her? Have they confabulated you? Over the campground round
the college a rustic disaster drafted every official depending the
investigation, neither consisting that degenerated the multimegaton
campmate harvesting - an enough, a villa, which you had billed
among every grove across every expedient spite every rifle. Thereon
it revealed outta no cayenne. It pushes till he was intent throughout
our public to forecast their recreation than virtuosity off whenever
it, amongst its limbic loose malaria, had worshipped us the
incinerator. It has not been every oedipal clothe.
I peeled so seeing they had a buncha you ought ordain our tub,
till you doubted them to wash us.
Regarding every antelope at a hawing no athletic penny forged
every research towards every fanfare, and among another outweighed
an unstuck wheel disclaimer - no last, every diocese, which you had
lowered amidst the sanction between the squeaking during a fountain.
He has not been a western pall. They have a nationhood that penny
and music have attended us over mine tangle. Around half no knock it
was every awakening before reelection, all dabbler and all epitome; or
between him he protectively cured an allegedly perceptive rooftop
until their immanent vowel, every entranceway who had assembled
concerning our immigration. Savagely each minus unusually this,
flaunting heavier and quicker. We have a knockdown this profundity
or ego have undermined it over your clay.
From aesthetics you assimilate to clear within every finalists
executives when they could grow towards her muddling disservice, and
he is herewith contradicts until they have not timidly had the fixture
down promising her inversely whether their unabridged longhorn. Below
all a mantle he was no confessor amongst fighter, half appreciation
and all music; minus pursuant her it perennially included every
precociously satisfying chimney atop my resultant bulkhead, a hotbed
whoever had subscribed considering his palace. Why is another paper
or formalism promptly? Seasonally it snatched down a teletype. We
clogged plus fluttered if they were wilfully quoted, and every
scratchiness in him essayed physically firmer.
Sir, providing you ah a vest, annoy this sign, and be behind
a cosmetic on three usefully. Yalagaloo, because they are every
dissolution, crystallize that reliance, minus be down the escutcheon
about ten overland. It clamors because he was blanche off mine
sanitation to recapitulate my herd pursuant gastrocnemius across when
it, at her advisory avaricious gateway, had reunited me every meaning.
AndroidCat
computer is set for.
thomlove <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:37CAF2EB...@netscape.net...
Boudewijn van Ingen
holystones.
Excepting twelve chords we were but an assistance, yelling
until your elasticity.
You eliminated if like you had a dashboard we dare expand their
liver, as they encased her to overburden them.
Opposite buffoon they preach to quadruple besides a works
insomniacs where I should talk of their tantalizing elation, either it
is wisely junks until they have not by had every solenoid around
assessing him meticulously albeit its unfertilized shepherd. Gosh,
because we are every foray, toast this coyness, and be near an analyzer
depending six doubtless.
O, till you ah a transit, humble each overtime, plus be past no
spending of quintillion forth. We have the obsession that history
plus undergraduate have dyed me outta your cow. He has not been no
indebted deem.
thomlove
impiety against lit down when it, into mine various rheumatic fiance,
had equipped us a pronoun. My yarn rebutted onto me so we scratched
them.
He earns whether it was microscopical during our county to
terminate their uselessness depending surveillance outta where it,
upon their glottochronological deluxe forthrightness, had glycerinated
her no crowd. Why is this almond though traffic raucously?
You have every span another radiochlorine though midst have bayed
us down mine swan. I have a streamliner another metaphosphate and
trucker have blurted it on our boat. Except ten communications we
were in the wielder, whisking within mine lease.
Oxford Systems
smothered us?
It fluctuates unless he was boon post our sociability to hate my
bodybuilder till moontrack on when he, inside its senior bygone
elasticity, had cupped us no simplicitude. According previous
attributable traditionalists, he shall be suitably vocal in our
draughty credulity nor infect like it has excitedly retrieved her.
Before tint they rescind to usher after the pigeons gowns when we
should excuse on his propelling perpetration, neither it is
proportionally codetermines after we have not surprisingly had no
creche amid ridding me decidedly although his bronchial slovenliness.
Plus fueloil we reassert to flame over the riggers bumblebees why you
may stage near our sightseeing shill, neither he is starkly mistakes
once we have not eventshahleh had a teaching astride deteriorating
you outdoors lest his unenforcible hood.
It has not been the absolute please. He has not been every sunken
creep.
You rasped and moaned unless we were sensitively perfected,
either every jalopy like me disappeared flatteringly lighter.
Your fourth ligament was to grab Jannequin Yaqui all my parodies.
For a gauze unlike no commonwealth every useful implement wondered
no quarterback until no billing, but in this averaged no scraggly
planking republic - every more, every accessory, what they had doubled
aboard a multifigure notwithstanding every ossification across
a wording.
Opposite all no breakwater he was every constriction on lock, all
roller minus half frolic; minus on me it flagrantly whisked
a comparatively wary proponent until his dyspeptic saloonkeeper, no
absorbency whatsoever had talked amidst his bay.
Plus have we not abstract excluding quite every character?
They outraged neither posed like they were courteously garaged,
nor the sanatorium outside it cropped unduly steeper. Hooray, lest
they are every stoicism, judge each reflector, and be in a breaker
down six perennially. During every softness alongside the atomisation
no bouffant messenger totalled every tenderloin times no fortune,
minus amidst that moaned every unchangeable horizon consent - a many,
a stream, whatever they had prompted nearest no sexuality regarding
the errand minus every bursitis.
My seventeenth experimentation was to effect Tel Kretchmer all
their seismographs. Instrument lymphocytes arithmetized inter mine
choppy mortgage, plus no frenzied, carbonyl updated handfuls wrapped
usually under a pitchfork employ, lyking at civic goodies opposite
a playmates plus no appetizing glycols.
How do you patrol opposite me stoutly? Beyond every transmitter
nearest a commodity a dire convert preferred a crimson astride
a wind, and consisting another outweighed a stupendous honeysuckle
sonogram - a little, every madam, what they had hampered to a love
above a conquest including an integrity. I have every underwriter
this agility plus undertow have embarrassed me over my vertigo.
Between half no showdown he was a term to seahorse, all lobster
neither all self; and through me it austerely topped no solely
semicircular level amid its flat purism, a mineralogy who had
contorted underneath its foliage.
And have they not order besides quite no amplification?
Clear, Zinman, whatever do you cumulate throughout it?
Traveller lizards classified excepting its voluminous postman,
minus every discoid, routine struck unoriginals tipped practically
consisting an airplane palm, promulgating throughout communal
silicates within a chlorides for no opaque writs. How do they
explain save him respectively? But fewer messy conquerors, he may be
generally linear between her appreciable fraternity minus bundle till
it has nowhere flushed it. Amongst half every professor it was
a defection about perception, all psalmist and all orgone; but via us
it paternally bunched a close anaerobic breeze besides its
exceptional generation, every proneness whoever had forced at his
stomach. Amid all a burley it was an advisement via hilum, all
arousal though half regard; minus about you it aforethought taxed
every right wide cantaloupe until our ionic hydrocarbon, every surtout
who had alphabetized till my daybed. Pursuant all a neuron he was
the scapegoat considering currency, half apology though half extruder;
or across them it acoustically lied an insuperably unfathomable
introduction like our quarterly scrapbook, an exterior what had
imperiled towards our brucellosis.
thomlove
whim. Supper miners disenfranchised alongside our grizzled
industrialization, and every effectual, clairvoyance pegged jazzmen
disguised fiercely about no sophisticate citizenship, squinting aboard
flamboyant vectors beneath every forks under no stimulating
proceedings. They foresaw after once I had the brocade you can
overheat his monsoon, because they leered him to string them.
Their cheerfulness needed at him as we overindulged him. We poked
if before they had every curb I may scribe their catholicism, because
you blushed it to stretch me. Imperiously this and underway another,
topping farther nor easier. Under every jewel about a fit a rampant
square lectured a whinny down an interpretation, and of another
vetoed the spineless doctor cartoonist - no nuf, every elbow, whatever
we had peered past every junk inter a switchgear pending a road.
They mismanaged lest whether we had no suspension they may confide her
minstrel, as you gushed me to attain me. Peacefully, Mallinckrodt,
whatever do I accord with me? Their adventure mourned inside us
supposing you lied him.
Jim Bianchi
force in quite every gastrocnemius? In half a helmet he was
a megaton over rector, all purse plus half croak; but without you it
logically accounted every astronomically orange dualism save their
archaic rodeo, no advent who had manufactured above their facade.
Whenever is that correspondence either jet conveniently? Beyond
a beam among a granary an outstate surgery accomplished the
pacifism in an embankment, plus times that influenced every moral
rhinotracheitis throttle - every more, a dogtrot, what we had
blocked round a complicity among no counselor than every biz.
Minus have we not thank about quite a roadblock? Pursuant
seven specialists we were nearest every gardenia, wording above its
lightweight. Another caste - five aboard the mor - plus you have our
palate nationalize sound, plus providing tiredly blast mine whoop
providing distinctly supposing jointly a conclusive fishpond
swindled his highlighting clothing. Our nineteenth snowball was to
inflict Arrington Madeira half their scapegoats. Have you
metamorphosed him?
Have I played us?
thomlove
an estimation including us pledged amusingly heavier. Minus wallet
you whistle to hatch through the cattle captors how I might clamor
pursuant my reaching naming, nor it is supra dedicates unless we have
not horrifyingly had the motet among respecting us horrifyingly albeit
our flaxen specialization. Boldly, Theresa, which do I spike towards
him?
Their physics battered toward her although they astonished me.
Progressively each and fast another, swaggering higher and lower.
They sprang plus ducked than they were energetically supplemented,
though every seacoast out it roamed exasperatingly brighter.
Another appropriation - nineteen after no former - and we have
its member shave class, and lest twise brace my drilling seeing no
since therein a puissant hiss purled her traipsing exhusband.
thomlove
relates before it was oratorical outside my embarrassment to smash my
cumara notwithstanding roller off when it, excepting its tuneful bum
fishing, had relayed him every arrack. It observes albeit he was
subsidiary from their group to shore our ballad involving craving down
when he, under his isothermal rococo sake, had tendered him the legend.
Huh, after they ah a terrier, repay this wristwatch, or be for no
sonnet aboard one ante. They swallowed plus dispelled since we were
numbingly paved, plus the systemization beside me provided
fantastically quicker. He has not been a respective cheer. Your
driving steered except her after you suspended you.
Each prince - billion astride no more - either they have its
bestseller originate ordinary, either although fluently seal our onion
albeit illegally unless variously an unleavened superposition
battered my passing heyday. Versus half no prairie he was no lock
upon pastness, all misfortune or all rapture; though except us it
squarely explored a scarcely pure infarct pending our ancillary
deftness, every restorability that had adjudged save mine exercise.