Assessment of who is what here
RDucharme
disavow scientology. I believe that to be incorrect.
Here is the assessment I came up with as I perceive it. Feel free to add or
correct.
Robert
Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
of line and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):
Sarah
Robert
LR
Les
Zero (Tommy)
Ralph
Heidrun
Thom Love
Mega Squirrel?
Antony Phillips
Owen Roe
Lyn Keller
Pat Krenik
Beth Guest
Pierre
ID32
Safe
Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a scientologist"):
Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
practitioners. Ambiguous.
Ted: Ditto
Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer scientology.
Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer scientology.
Homer: Possibly non-committal
Roland
Lightnin'
Never was a scientologist:
Sten-Arne: And wouldn't ever want to be. Resisting hard. :-)
CB Willis
F. Rice: May one day become one. Seems open minded.
God knows what. (I believe these are dabblers who never really got into it):
Konchok
PScott
Arnie Lerma
Not sure if even an Earthling :-):
Albert
(Sorry Albert. That was cruel and at your expense, but I didn't have the
self control to pass it up.) R.D.
Birdie1127
>From: Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme)
>Date: Tue, 27 July 1999 07:47 PM EDT
>Message-id: <B0000...@cheetah.ctinet.net>
>Lightnin'
This is where you need to include me:
Birdie (ex-scientologist fighting the good fight from the "inside")>Never was a
Ted Crammer
>Recently some statements were made about how "most" on this news group
>disavow scientology. I believe that to be incorrect.
>
>Here is the assessment I came up with as I perceive it. Feel free to
>add or
>correct.
>
>Robert
>
>
Interesting set of perceptions. I would not have listed as you did and
there should be a list of people who have served "hard time." They have
the floor when it comes to getting my attention on any Scn. related
discussion whether they be pro or con.
>Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a
>scientologist"):
>
>Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>practitioners. Ambiguous.
>Ted: Ditto
Yes. Please don't refer to me as being a Scientologist. I am a BC grad
and proud of it, I have produced the products of Scn. on self and
others and I have had wins and gains on every grade chart action as
well as running and participating in groups. I was active full-time for
16 years. There was nothing wrong with my vision of Scn. and the
benefits of participation. I do not care to be involved in some other's
visions of Scientology in or out of the church and I can easily resent
what the subject has become in practice. This is where you pick up the
ambiguity as well as some occasional heat blowing your way. For myself
at this juncture I find being a Scientologist a despicable item.
>PScott
Got lots of auditing at Flag including and L or more and did most of
the BC. Hardly a dabbler if you consider the cash outlay to do the L's
and while you don't like his communications he has some valid points
worthy of attention and consideration.
>Arnie Lerma
10 years in the SO (if I am correct). You call that dabbling?
Your perceptions are rather narrow.
As for you, I perceive you as a loose canon of a Book 1 auditor gone
turbo, lone wolf. Not a group participant. No reality on the pressures
of having and running a group so your opinions in the area are nearly
worthless.
--
Ted
Homer Wilson Smith
>Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a scientologist"):
I am an Ex(panded) Scientologist.
Scientology as a subject has little to do with Hubbard, much as
physics as a subject has little to do with Gallileo Newton or
Einstein.
Homer
RDucharme
I agree on completely on this. I believe those with charge on the word are
simply doing a Q and A with the environment. Furthermore, I believe the
word is only a surface symbol for deeper unhandled bitterness.
Robert
Christine
>Recently some statements were made about how "most" on this news group
>disavow scientology. I believe that to be incorrect.
>
>Here is the assessment I came up with as I perceive it. Feel free to add or
>correct.
>
>Robert
>
scientology.
You left Brian off your *true spirit* list.
Sarah is questionable, you'll have to ask her.
>
>Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
>of line and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):
>
>Sarah
>Robert
>LR
>Les
>Zero (Tommy)
>Ralph
>Heidrun
>Thom Love
>Mega Squirrel?
>Antony Phillips
>Owen Roe
>Lyn Keller
>Pat Krenik
>Beth Guest
>Pierre
>ID32
>Safe
>
>
>
>Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a scientologist"):
>
>Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>practitioners. Ambiguous.
Not ambiguous. Acey also subscribes to "basics".
>Ted: Ditto
>Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>scientology.
>Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>scientology.
>Homer: Possibly non-committal
>Roland
>Lightnin'
>
The *purportedly* is an innuendo that they would offer scientology services
if they could. I doubt this is true.
>Never was a scientologist:
>
>Sten-Arne: And wouldn't ever want to be. Resisting hard. :-)
>CB Willis
>F. Rice: May one day become one. Seems open minded.
>
I couldn't think if a better insult. Thank you.
Christine
>At 7:47 PM -0400 7/27/99, RDucharme wrote:
>>Recently some statements were made about how "most" on this news group
>>disavow scientology. I believe that to be incorrect.
>>
>>Here is the assessment I came up with as I perceive it. Feel free to
>>add or
>>correct.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>
>
>there should be a list of people who have served "hard time." They have
>the floor when it comes to getting my attention on any Scn. related
>discussion whether they be pro or con.
>
>
>>scientologist"):
>>
>>Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>>practitioners. Ambiguous.
>
>
>Yes. Please don't refer to me as being a Scientologist. I am a BC grad
>and proud of it, I have produced the products of Scn. on self and
>others and I have had wins and gains on every grade chart action as
>well as running and participating in groups. I was active full-time for
>16 years. There was nothing wrong with my vision of Scn. and the
>benefits of participation. I do not care to be involved in some other's
>visions of Scientology in or out of the church and I can easily resent
>what the subject has become in practice. This is where you pick up the
>ambiguity as well as some occasional heat blowing your way. For myself
>at this juncture I find being a Scientologist a despicable item.
>
>
>>PScott
>
>
>Got lots of auditing at Flag including and L or more and did most of
>the BC. Hardly a dabbler if you consider the cash outlay to do the L's
>and while you don't like his communications he has some valid points
>worthy of attention and consideration.
>
Bingo.
>>Arnie Lerma
>
>
>10 years in the SO (if I am correct). You call that dabbling?
>
Clear 35XX or thereabouts.
>Your perceptions are rather narrow.
>
>As for you, I perceive you as a loose canon of a Book 1 auditor gone
>turbo, lone wolf. Not a group participant. No reality on the pressures
>of having and running a group so your opinions in the area are nearly
>worthless.
>
>Never was a scientologist:
>
>Sten-Arne: And wouldn't ever want to be. Resisting hard. :-)
>CB Willis
>F. Rice: May one day become one. Seems open minded.
>
>
Sten-Arne is waaaay more spiritual than Robert or any of the folks who roll
over in order to be "green zone" rather than speak the truth.
Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod Keller :)
Ditto Jonathan Good.
LR1...@aol.com
We have read recent analysis of earthblarts on the act transmission page. We
wish to say have established the Albert is definitely an earthblart. There
are some others listed we have not certaintys on, however.
IMO
Tweeple
END TRANSMISSION
Alexander
> Sten-Arne is waaaay more spiritual than Robert or any of the folks who roll
> over in order to be "green zone" rather than speak the truth.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most spiritual/green zone/truthspeaking of
them all?
> Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod Keller :)
> Ditto Jonathan Good.
It's not too late for any of them! It's still present time!
For the next five minutes I'm going to mock myself up as, and be, a Scientologist.
The fact that I've had no church training or processing actually assists me to be
the most fanatic true-believer Scientologist ever to set thetapod on this planet,
because I'm swallowing the whole thing as a belief system, hook, line and sinker.
Don't reply for at least five minutes, it's coming on now and I don't want you
disturbing my cognitions.
Calvin the Scientologist.
RDucharme
>At 07:47 PM 7/27/99 -0400, RDucharme wrote:
>Not true of Pierre and Beth. Ask them. Ralph has gone considerably beyond
>scientology.
Okay. Let's wait for their response if they so decide.
>
>You left Brian off your *true spirit* list.
You're right. Will include him. Same goes for Lakis.
>Sarah is questionable, you'll have to ask her.
>
Same as with Pierre and Beth.
>>Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a scientologist"):
>>
>>Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>>practitioners. Ambiguous.
>
>Not ambiguous. Acey also subscribes to "basics".
>
I meant ambiguous in that you denounce the term while upholding its basics.
Don't know how Acey got into this.
>>Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>>scientology.
>>Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>>scientology.
>The *purportedly* is an innuendo that they would offer scientology services
>if they could. I doubt this is true.
>
Actually, I included that word because it's only hearsay to me at this time,
though they haven't denied it. It's hard to tell what they would do if they
were not bound by a legal document. I know some practitioners who offer the
whole bridge - both sides of it - completely legally and without harrassment.
Robert
Christine
>
>
>I agree on completely on this. I believe those with charge on the word are
>simply doing a Q and A with the environment. Furthermore, I believe the
>word is only a surface symbol for deeper unhandled bitterness.
>
>Robert
And believe you're stuck on the last thing you ever succeeded at and can't
move on and that you are deeply invested in trapping others in that
paradigm in order to exist as a social entity at all.
So much for beliefs and worthless opinions, eh?
Jonathan Good
RDucharme wrote:
>
> >Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod Keller :)
> >Ditto Jonathan Good.
>
> Maybe they will care to respond.
>
> Robert
Actually I think Lyn did spend some time in the Orgs.
I took the comm course and the study course and had a strong intent to become clear
but they kept being so cult -like that I saw they had no interest in clearing or
delivering what they purported to, they just wanted to own bodies and souls so I
left, never to return.
I found an independent clearing practitioner who took me through Jack Horner's
Eductivism material from beginning to end and then was trained to deliver
processing in another Eductivism derivative clearing tech.
I have done one course with the Knowledgism Group and plan to do smore when I can.
Essentially I am freezone born and raised and have no interest in being associated
with the word Scientology in any way whatsoever. I maintain an interest in the Scn
tech that floats across my screen as I find it interesting to see the differences
and similarities to the tech that I have been involved with.
Chalk me up as a clearing tech oriented nonscientologist.
Jonathan
LR1...@aol.com
Christine who is founder of glorious church we are wishing to join when
landed, said this
<< Agreed. Robert hit him and it was uncalled for. Albert isn't evil, he's
just stupid.
We hope she is not implying that aliens to Earth are evil! Oh no no. Evil
is consideration and not exact. Like truth. We also have consideration
that most earthblarts are stupid. Have been giving many considerations
lately to saving this mudball, as recently reported. Forthcomings of new
mission orders for resistance to XenuFoo and like blarts. Howevers, we DO
find humors in even postings of the Robert one. We are alien but take no
offenses at such remarkings. Also we are possessing files of formerly
whereabouts of listed earthblarts and see ALL are aliens to earth from some
times. Even revered Xine.
Tweeple
END TRANSMISSION
Christine
>
>>>Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a
>scientologist"):
>>>
>>>Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>>>practitioners. Ambiguous.
>>
>>Not ambiguous. Acey also subscribes to "basics".
>>
>
>I meant ambiguous in that you denounce the term while upholding its basics.
>Don't know how Acey got into this.
>
gave you the impression that I am pro-Scn. The common language that you
spoke of.
>
>>The *purportedly* is an innuendo that they would offer scientology services
>>if they could. I doubt this is true.
>>
>
>Actually, I included that word because it's only hearsay to me at this time,
>though they haven't denied it. It's hard to tell what they would do if they
>were not bound by a legal document. I know some practitioners who offer the
>whole bridge - both sides of it - completely legally and without
harrassment.
>
They have both said that they wouldn't. Do you need a notarized affadvit?
RDucharme
If you're referring to P/GPM Clearing, nothing could be further from the
truth. Today I happened to have 4 clients. One client today was on the ARC
S/W part of the grades. A second is getting recalls. A third and fourth
did get P/GPM Clearing, but they requested it because they'd already had the
whole bridge including NOTs completion and other OT actions. The result?
They were totally both blown away by the sessions. But of course, you'll
have to take my word for that. All done by phone of course. :-)
By the way, the third one reaffirmed today that he'd been having lucid
dreams since his session in March.
Sorry if you feel that's entrapment. I believe he and the others would beg
to differ with you.
Robert
Christine
>
>For the next five minutes I'm going to mock myself up as, and be, a
>Scientologist.
>The fact that I've had no church training or processing actually assists me
>to be
>the most fanatic true-believer Scientologist ever to set thetapod on this
>planet,
>because I'm swallowing the whole thing as a belief system, hook, line and
>sinker.
>Don't reply for at least five minutes, it's coming on now and I don't want you
>disturbing my cognitions.
>
>Calvin the Scientologist.
>
Cool. I love a good bloodbath every summer.
Christine
Founder, Church of Chaos
RDucharme
>At 08:22 PM 7/27/99 -0400, Ted Crammer wrote:
>>At 7:47 PM -0400 7/27/99, RDucharme wrote:
>>Yes. Please don't refer to me as being a Scientologist. I am a BC grad
>>and proud of it, I have produced the products of Scn. on self and
>>others and I have had wins and gains on every grade chart action as
>>well as running and participating in groups. I was active full-time for
>>16 years. There was nothing wrong with my vision of Scn. and the
>>benefits of participation. I do not care to be involved in some other's
>>visions of Scientology in or out of the church and I can easily resent
>>what the subject has become in practice. This is where you pick up the
>>ambiguity as well as some occasional heat blowing your way. For myself
>>at this juncture I find being a Scientologist a despicable item.
>>
>Gawd I love you, Ted.
>
You all need to rent a motel room. Make that a threesome with Sten.
>>
>>>PScott
>>
>>
>>Got lots of auditing at Flag including and L or more and did most of
>>the BC. Hardly a dabbler if you consider the cash outlay to do the L's
>>and while you don't like his communications he has some valid points
>>worthy of attention and consideration.
>>
>Bingo.
>
Sure, as long as he talks about food, business management, and motorcycles.
>
>>>Arnie Lerma
>>
>>
>>10 years in the SO (if I am correct). You call that dabbling?
>>
>Clear 35XX or thereabouts.
Cleared cannibal, evidently. He doesn't seem to think all that helped him
at all. Or he may have glibbed his way up. Personally I think he just
invalidated his wins for some reason or other.
>>
>>Never was a scientologist:
>>
>>Sten-Arne: And wouldn't ever want to be. Resisting hard. :-)
>>CB Willis
>>F. Rice: May one day become one. Seems open minded.
>>
>>
>Sten-Arne is waaaay more spiritual than Robert or any of the folks who roll
>over in order to be "green zone" rather than speak the truth.
I see we're comparing halos now.
Well I got something else you can compare.
Christine
>
>Well I got something else you can compare.
>
MegaSquirrel
I am one of the most orthodox Scientologists here. I would go back to
the org for more services if they reduced their prices to reasonable
levels (and stop trying to recruit me into Sea Org).
I've only got my feet wet, so to speak, with regard to the Freezone.
And I would not be here if it weren't for the Pilot's writings. So
maybe we need another category, "Orthodox Scientologists who are in
agreement with the Pilot."
On 27 Jul 1999 19:47:19 -0400, Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme) wrote:
>Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
>of line and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):
>
>Sarah
>Robert
>LR
>Les
>Zero (Tommy)
>Ralph
>Heidrun
>Thom Love
>Mega Squirrel?
[snip]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
To reply via email, send it to: giliad at excite dot com
Heidrun Beer
<B0000...@cheetah.ctinet.net>:
>Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
>of line and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):
>
>Sarah
>Robert
>LR
>Les
>Zero (Tommy)
>Ralph
>Heidrun
I'm not in this group. Too narrow borders - doesn't consider
the "before", the "after" and the "beside".
SCN is one tree in a forest. Not only the forest as a whole
has to be duplicated, but maybe even more the ground in which
all these trees are rooted.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
albert
Albert
(Sorry Albert. That was cruel and at your expense, but I didn't have the
self control to pass it up.) R.D.
LOL Thank you for the decent ack. It's about damn time someone
noticed.
http://pages.hotbot.com/und/albertdixon/
albert
well at least we all agree that i'm not human. been around so many
bodies for so long and it's nice to know that there are real spirits out
there. :)
Lyn Keller
Christine wrote:
>
>
> Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod Keller :)
> Ditto Jonathan Good.
Hmmm..... where did you get the idea I was never a Scn? Although most
of what I know I learned as an Independent rather than in the Church.
I don't have any "impressive" stats from the Church but I was in and then
I dabbled for 10 years. In the S.O. long enough to know what enough
was (but a short time compared to many others). Was dumb enough
to pay off the freeloaders debt.
I wrote about this at one time, but I guess you missed it.
Lyn
Owen Roe
Scientologists who are in agreement with the Pilot." "
That would be CyberScientologists.
'Cyber' from the Greek word meaning 'pilot'.
albert
Lyn posted her entire scn story to formerscio when the list first got
started.
She was in the Sea Org and on staff at the Celebrity Center in
Hollywood.
http://pages.hotbot.com/und/albertdixon/
Lyn Keller
Alexander wrote:
> Christine wrote:
>
> > Sten-Arne is waaaay more spiritual than Robert or any of the folks who roll
> > over in order to be "green zone" rather than speak the truth.
>
> Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most spiritual/green zone/truthspeaking of
> them all?
>
> > Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod Keller :)
> > Ditto Jonathan Good.
>
> It's not too late for any of them! It's still present time!
>
> For the next five minutes I'm going to mock myself up as, and be, a Scientologist.
> The fact that I've had no church training or processing actually assists me to be
> the most fanatic true-believer Scientologist ever to set thetapod on this planet,
> because I'm swallowing the whole thing as a belief system, hook, line and sinker.
> Don't reply for at least five minutes, it's coming on now and I don't want you
> disturbing my cognitions.
>
> Calvin the Scientologist.
The only thing you need to do is read Keeping Scientology Working.
Read it about 10 times, Word clear method 6, clay demo until you fully get it
and then you will be a true Scientologist. After that the rest is a piece of cake.
Once you are in full agreement with that you can then be labelled a fanatic.
Until then, you don't qualify.
Lyn
Christine
>
>
>Christine wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod
>Keller :)
>> Ditto Jonathan Good.
>
>of what I know I learned as an Independent rather than in the Church.
>
>I don't have any "impressive" stats from the Church but I was in and then
>I dabbled for 10 years. In the S.O. long enough to know what enough
>was (but a short time compared to many others). Was dumb enough
>to pay off the freeloaders debt.
>
>I wrote about this at one time, but I guess you missed it.
>
C
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <B0000...@cheetah.ctinet.net>
Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme).
From: [clear-l] Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway V2.6.
Wrote on the subject: Assessment of who is what here:
>Recently some statements were made about how "most" on this news group
>disavow scientology. I believe that to be incorrect.
>
>Here is the assessment I came up with as I perceive it. Feel free to add or
>correct.
>
>Robert
>
>
>
>Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
>of line and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):
>
>Sarah
>Robert
>LR
>Les
>Zero (Tommy)
>Ralph
>Heidrun
>Thom Love
>Mega Squirrel?
>Antony Phillips
>Owen Roe
>Lyn Keller
>Pat Krenik
>Beth Guest
>Pierre
>ID32
>Safe
>
>
>
>Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a scientologist"):
>
>Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>practitioners. Ambiguous.
>Ted: Ditto
>Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer scientology.
>Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer scientology.
>Homer: Possibly non-committal
>Roland
>Lightnin'
>
>
>Never was a scientologist:
>
>Sten-Arne: And wouldn't ever want to be. Resisting hard. :-)
Get your facts straight. I was a scientologist for 14 days man. Heck I
did the comm-course and some auditing. That makes me an ex-scn dammit.
That was long enought to let me see that crap as crap.
:-) or :-( or EEG= _-_-_-_-_-_._._._.__________________________________
>CB Willis
>F. Rice: May one day become one. Seems open minded.
>
>
>God knows what. (I believe these are dabblers who never really got into it):
>
>Konchok
>PScott
>Arnie Lerma
>
>Not sure if even an Earthling :-):
>
>Albert
>
>(Sorry Albert. That was cruel and at your expense, but I didn't have the
>self control to pass it up.) R.D.
>
>
>
Sten-Arne
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way of viewing usenet, is to pretty much see every author as a
channel (TV/Radio). If you don't like the content of a channel, you do
not listen/view that channel. To complain to the authorities, and ask
them to remove a channel, is really pretty stupid. The remote control, is
your killfilter in that situation. Use your killfilter on usenet, in the
same way as you are using your remote control with your TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts about Scientology: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
Multimedia about Scientology: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ladyv
> Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a scientologist"):
>
> Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
> practitioners. Ambiguous.
> Ted: Ditto
> Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
> scientology.
As far as I know this is untrue.
> Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
> scientology.
Amazing. This really slants the truth. I didn't want to offer
Scio. I like Dynamism better.
You make it sound as if I would if I could.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
MegaSquirrel
I guess I *did* get an incompleet ejucashun.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:59:07 -0700 (PDT), Ram...@webtv.net (Owen Roe)
wrote:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
RDucharme
>On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, RDucharme wrote:
>
>> Ex- (no longer) scientologist ("Please don't refer to me as a
scientologist"):
>>
>> Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
>> practitioners. Ambiguous.
>> Ted: Ditto
>> Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>> scientology.
>
> As far as I know this is untrue.
He hasn't denied it yet.
>> Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>> scientology.
>
> Amazing. This really slants the truth. I didn't want to offer
>Scio. I like Dynamism better.
>
> You make it sound as if I would if I could.
>
I added that statement only to show that legally you may not have any choice
about not offering Scientology services, thereby making it a moot point. No
other implication was intended nor should be construed.
Robert
ID32
I guess so. Hmmmm...
"..and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):"
Far from it: hope to someday!
(And Albert; aliens welcome! Hehehehhe!!!!)
ID32
ID32
services if they could. I doubt this is true."
In reference to Alan, I find it hard to believe that you consider that
he is not offering Scientology, irregardless of what he calls it. Just
changing a few labels doesn't make it something else.
ID32
Christine
ID32 <ID...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7230-379...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
"regardless".
2. Your comments about Alan have the same level of accuracy.
Raymond J. Krenik, Jr.
the half hour. If one helps another being, that is good enough for me. Ray
Krenik
rkr...@hotmail.com
>From: ID...@webtv.net (ID32)
>Reply-To: ID...@webtv.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cle...@lightlink.com>
>Subject: Re: Assessment of who is what here
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:21:23 -0400 (EDT)
>
>"The *purportedly* is an innuendo that they would offer scientology
>services if they could. I doubt this is true."
>
>In reference to Alan, I find it hard to believe that you consider that
>he is not offering Scientology, irregardless of what he calls it. Just
>changing a few labels doesn't make it something else.
>
>ID32
>
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Raymond J. Krenik, Jr.
"irregardless" (of what you think) is "archaic" but nontheless a word.
Ray Krenik
rkr...@hotmail.com
>From: "Christine" <xi...@altavista.net>
>Reply-To: xi...@altavista.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cle...@lightlink.com>
>Subject: Re: Assessment of who is what here
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
>
>ID32 <ID...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:7230-379...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > "The *purportedly* is an innuendo that they would offer scientology
> > services if they could. I doubt this is true."
> >
> > In reference to Alan, I find it hard to believe that you consider that
> > he is not offering Scientology, irregardless of what he calls it. Just
> > changing a few labels doesn't make it something else.
> >
> > ID32
> >
>1. There's no such word as "irregardless" -- it's "irrespective" or
>"regardless".
>
>2. Your comments about Alan have the same level of accuracy.
>
>
>
RDucharme
>
>ID32 <ID...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:7230-379...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> "The *purportedly* is an innuendo that they would offer scientology
>> services if they could. I doubt this is true."
>>
>> In reference to Alan, I find it hard to believe that you consider that
>> he is not offering Scientology, irregardless of what he calls it. Just
>> changing a few labels doesn't make it something else.
>>
>> ID32
>>
>1. There's no such word as "irregardless" -- it's "irrespective" or
>"regardless".
Irrelevant.
>2. Your comments about Alan have the same level of accuracy.
Unsubstantiated opinion.
I think ID32 makes a valid point. Does changing the label change the
substance? I know Acey once called me a squirrel. Squirrel relative to
what?
Similarly, Ted called me a loose cannon. Loose cannon relative to what?
I believe what we're dealing with here is closet scientologists - people who
are ashamed of their own backgrounds. But that's okay, "scientologist"
doesn't have to be a limiting term. It doesn't negate pursuits of areas
outside of or beyond its bounds - if such is possible, given the definition
of the term.
Robert
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
<jon1...@cruzers.com> wrote in thread "Re: Assessment of who is what
here", on Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:41:36 -0700, :
RDucharme wrote:
>> >Lyn Keller is not a scn, never was as far as I know. (Neither was Rod
Keller :)
>> >Ditto Jonathan Good.
>>
>> Maybe they will care to respond.
>>
>> Robert
Jonathan replies:
>Actually I think Lyn did spend some time in the Orgs.
>
>I took the comm course and the study course and had a strong intent to
become clear
>but they kept being so cult -like that I saw they had no interest in
clearing or
>delivering what they purported to, they just wanted to own bodies and
souls so I
>left, never to return.
>
>I found an independent clearing practitioner who took me through Jack
Horner's
>Eductivism material from beginning to end and then was trained to deliver
>processing in another Eductivism derivative clearing tech.
>
>I have done one course with the Knowledgism Group and plan to do smore
when I can.
>
>Essentially I am freezone born and raised and have no interest in being
associated
>with the word Scientology in any way whatsoever. I maintain an interest
in the Scn
>tech that floats across my screen as I find it interesting to see the
differences
>and similarities to the tech that I have been involved with.
>
>Chalk me up as a clearing tech oriented nonscientologist.
>
>Jonathan
Dear Jonathan:
Thank you for writing.
Your interest in Differences and Similarites makes me think you would
quickly see the enormous utility of UCP.
Best Wishes,
Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok...@net-prophet.net>
FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Jonathan Good
anon...@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
> Dear Jonathan:
>
> Thank you for writing.
>
> Your interest in Differences and Similarites makes me think you would
> quickly see the enormous utility of UCP.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Konchok Penday
Thank you.
Were it not for the fact that I'm making gains unheard of in my recent
history at this time working with some very powerful processes that are
creating exactly what I want, I may be tempted to utilize UCP. I have scanned
your material and it is not the utility indicated for me.
I can imagine those for whom it might be just the thing.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Jonathan Good
LR1...@aol.com wrote:
> Funk 'n Wagnalls: irregardless - adv. regardless: a nonstandard or humorous
> useage
>
> LR
Especially humorous when used in earnest.
J
LR1...@aol.com
Raymond J. Krenik, Jr.
Ray Krenik
rkr...@hotmail.com
>From: LR1...@aol.com
>Reply-To: LR1...@aol.com
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cle...@lightlink.com>
ID32
or on the half hour. If one helps another being, that is good enough for
me. Ray Krenik"
I have no problem with that, Ray.
Irregardless, I stand by my statement, which was not intended as an
attack.
ID32
Beth Guest
<Vo...@ctinet.net> writes
>
>Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
>
>Sarah
>Robert
>LR
>Les
>Zero (Tommy)
>Ralph
>Heidrun
>Thom Love
>Mega Squirrel?
>Antony Phillips
>Owen Roe
>Lyn Keller
>Pat Krenik
>Beth Guest
Just came back from a trip to Europe and saw Amsterdam Org.
It is a big building and did not seem very busy. At night I saw a large
poster in one of the rooms with the words "Saint Hill Size" written on
it, couldn't see the rest.
Mostly this made me sad - low pay, high hours, big (but impossible)
dreams. Unless I am much mistaken I don't think they are going to boom
and it is sad they are still running the same games.
But C of S is still much much bigger than the FZ in terms of
organisations and public profile.
What a waste. Imagine if it HADN'T gone off the rails and that the
organisation was as light as - say - the Quakers are about membership
and rules etc. Could it have survived? I would hope so.
Well "What Ifs" are no good to anyone.
OK onwards..
Me?
These days I am more into Knowledgism than Scn. but have vowed when
leaving the C of S not to sign on with any one group again so would not
call myself a "Knowledgist" as such.
When I first left C of S I couldn't bear for anyone to even call me
"teacher" or "mother" for a while.
The truth is I have found Kn pretty good but part of me worries sick
about putting eggs in **any** one basket again.
I think I have a weakness for groups. I like being in them and am a good
group member. I know that being in any group means some compromises have
to be made. I am scared that in *any* group, family, school,
Knowledgism, any, I will end up making the wrong sort of compromises
just like I did in the C of S. So I am still feeling my way.
But I digress.. (again)
To be incredibly boring Robert, yet again I would rather abstain from
your list. Not out of principle but mainly because I am not sure these
days what a Scientologist really is. I am also still working my way
through ideas still about Scn.
This list has been very good for that.
Thanks,
Beth
--
Beth
Christine
>
>>> Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>>> scientology.
>>
>> Amazing. This really slants the truth. I didn't want to offer
>>Scio. I like Dynamism better.
>>
>> You make it sound as if I would if I could.
>>
>I added that statement only to show that legally you may not have any choice
>about not offering Scientology services, thereby making it a moot point. No
>other implication was intended nor should be construed.
>
>Robert
>
Lightnin80
>
>>Free zone scientologist (people who probably consider the church to be out
>>of line and themselves to represint the true spirit of scientology):
>>
So what is the true Spirit of Scientology Robert ?
Lightnin
RDucharme
Words don't suffice, but I'll try however I can.
In a nutshell, freedom and responsibility.
I think it's all those things that Hubbard talked about in his lectures and
books that basically said that there were no barriers for us that could not
be overcome in one way or another, and that we could reach for the highest
goals and have a hope of succeeding.
It's about total spiritual freedom, but also with the freedom and ability
to play games of our choosing. In Scientology, things aren't good or bad,
beautiful or ugly, they just are. It's left up to us to do what we will
with what we have, to make them into what we want, and to recapture our
powers to mould our universes into what we want them to be.
It's about understanding the mechanics of existence to where, if we don't
have things the way we want, we at least understand that that is all part
and parcel to existence on a games level.
It's about spiritual growth, while maintaining freedom from superstition and
other arbitraries.
It's about knowledge of the part personal ethics plays in freedom.
It's about learning and understanding of existence along all the various
dynamics.
It's about whatever one wants to make of LRH's works without the need to
accept any of it, but especially to help spark us to arrive at our own truths.
At least that's how I see it.
Robert
RDucharme
Rumor monger.
ladyv
Right, sophistry will get Robert everywhere...chuckle.
waterl...@my-deja.com
Christine <xi...@altavista.net> wrote:
> At 12:22 AM 7/28/99 -0400, Alexander wrote:
> >
> >For the next five minutes I'm going to mock myself up as, and be, a
> >Scientologist.
> >The fact that I've had no church training or processing actually
assists me
> >to be
> >the most fanatic true-believer Scientologist ever to set thetapod on
this
> >planet,
> >because I'm swallowing the whole thing as a belief system, hook,
line and
> >sinker.
> >Don't reply for at least five minutes, it's coming on now and I
don't want you
> >disturbing my cognitions.
> >
> >Calvin the Scientologist.
> >
>
>
> Christine
> Founder, Church of Chaos
>
> Calvin that was great! Don't forget to unmock it...:)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
RDucharme
>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Christine wrote:
>
>> At 05:35 PM 7/28/99 -0400, RDucharme wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>> >>> scientology.
>> >>
>> >> Amazing. This really slants the truth. I didn't want to offer
>> >>Scio. I like Dynamism better.
>> >>
>> >> You make it sound as if I would if I could.
>> >>
>> >I added that statement only to show that legally you may not have any choice
>> >about not offering Scientology services, thereby making it a moot point. No
>> >other implication was intended nor should be construed.
>> >
>> >Robert
>> >
>> Weasle.
>
> Right, sophistry will get Robert everywhere...chuckle.
>
> Love,
>
> Enid
Enid, I know you can read intention better than that. You're evidently
allowing yourself to be influenced by a rumor monger who twists my words,
and who has a history of doing such, and accept that as truth. I thought
you were better than that.
I stand firmly by what I said, miffed at being falsely accused by someone I
would have thought would have been above that sort of thing. I don't find a
false indication by a trusted terminal to be a laughing matter.
Robert
Christine
>At 11:20 PM 29/07/99 -0400, ladyv wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Christine wrote:
>>
>>> At 05:35 PM 7/28/99 -0400, RDucharme wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer
>>> >>> scientology.
>>> >>
>>> >> Amazing. This really slants the truth. I didn't want to offer
>>> >>Scio. I like Dynamism better.
>>> >>
>>> >> You make it sound as if I would if I could.
>>> >>
>>> >I added that statement only to show that legally you may not have any
>choice
>>> >about not offering Scientology services, thereby making it a moot point.
> No
>>> >other implication was intended nor should be construed.
>>> >
>>> >Robert
>>> >
>>> Weasle.
>>
>> Right, sophistry will get Robert everywhere...chuckle.
>>
>> Love,
>>
>> Enid
>
>
>Enid, I know you can read intention better than that. You're evidently
>allowing yourself to be influenced by a rumor monger who twists my words,
>and who has a history of doing such, and accept that as truth. I thought
>you were better than that.
>
me and sticks to you."
>I stand firmly by what I said, miffed at being falsely accused by someone I
>would have thought would have been above that sort of thing. I don't find a
>false indication by a trusted terminal to be a laughing matter.
>
Find the new beginning of the incident, broham.
Heidrun Beer
<bgn8MqAt...@guests3.freeserve.co.uk>:
>These days I am more into Knowledgism than Scn. but have vowed when
>leaving the C of S not to sign on with any one group again so would not
>call myself a "Knowledgist" as such.
>When I first left C of S I couldn't bear for anyone to even call me
>"teacher" or "mother" for a while.
>
>The truth is I have found Kn pretty good but part of me worries sick
>about putting eggs in **any** one basket again.
I think this is a very good principle. No group should ever own you,
even if you benefit a lot from it, to the point of keeping you from
expanding and participating in MANY organizations that you feel
interesting and valuable.
There is this old dream of "being the higher dynamics". Any group
that keeps your from expanding across the dynamics, IMO is a
suppressive group.
There IS another side to this, which is having a focus. Mastering
one thing before dealing with a second, third or fourth one is
a key to competence and professionalism.
Life is a puzzle. You concentrate on placing one piece at a time,
but you never forget to see the big picture.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Ted Crammer
>Enid, I know you can read intention better than that. You're evidently
>allowing yourself to be influenced by a rumor monger who twists my words,
>and who has a history of doing such, and accept that as truth. I thought
>you were better than that.
>
>someone I
>would have thought would have been above that sort of thing. I don't
>find a
>false indication by a trusted terminal to be a laughing matter.
You stand firm (righteous) and feeling miffed (victim) and you are an
idiot (several times over) for even bringing the subject of the thread
up. The impulse to spew was most likely a product of your mental
masturbation in which you seem to take so much pride.
You toss out a ridiculous statement about people and then sit back and
take it as "must be fact" when someone doesn't answer up to refute your
claim.
Wake up! Snap out of it! Get a life!
--
Ted
RDucharme
Christine, have you been running UCP on this guy?
He's sounding more and more like Konchok, but without the capital letters.
My reaction is similar too - "Shaddap!"
:-)
Robert
Lightnin80
writes:
>>
>>So what is the true Spirit of Scientology Robert ?
>>
>>Lightnin
>
>Words don't suffice, but I'll try however I can.
>
>In a nutshell, freedom and responsibility.
OK, that was a good answer Robert.
Maybe it's just me but it was'nt very inspiring, I mean all the words were
there but it just did'nt seem to connect on a gut level.
Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer
Lightnin
Ted Crammer
>Christine, have you been running UCP on this guy?
Truth be told, Robert, we originally got together for the purpose of
running your GPM process and giving it a fair evaluation but when we
got down to the wire it flatly didn't indicate to either of us. So we
set forth on applying all we know of tech and policy and came up with a
very workable system for us. "Audit the pc in front of you" takes on a
new meaning when it is accomplished moment by moment and when you have
the entirety of the Scn. procedures as well as Knowledgism, Chakras,
etc., and one's own perception of the truth to work from.
>
>He's sounding more and more like Konchok, but without the capital letters.
This is truly a comment grounded in "A=A" but I will allow for the
possible attempt at some humor.
>
>My reaction is similar too - "Shaddap!"
>
>:-)
Look, if you want to go see Enid and get some real case handling I'll
drive you to the airport and pick you up on your return and I assure
you that the pleasure would be mine.
--
Ted
RDucharme
>Look, if you want to go see Enid and get some real case handling I'll
>drive you to the airport and pick you up on your return and I assure
>you that the pleasure would be mine.
>
>--
>Ted
What's so fascinating - and telling too - is how obsessed you are with
wanting to see change in ME. Leads one to wondering what it is you're
unwilling to confront.
Robert
RDucharme
Seems we each have our own goals and likes and dislikes. Who can account
for taste? Nothing wrong with diversity.
Robert
Ted Crammer
>What's so fascinating - and telling too - is how obsessed you are with
>wanting to see change in ME.
I can also wear the reg and DofP hats. There are times when it would be
appropriate for you to think of me as the embodiment of your worst
nightmare. In that scene I am the Three Horsemen: Communication,
Control, and Havingness.
Your saying stupid things is something I often choose to ignore. When
you make sweeping statements based on your potshot evaluations then
there is a good chance I will jump into the fray or create one if none
exists. By now you shouldn't be surprised. Enid is capable of taking
care of herself -- but she shouldn't have to. You know damn well that
Dynamism is not Scn. and she does not care to deliver Scn. or be
positioned with it.
>Leads one to wondering what it is you're
>unwilling to confront.
Wonder all you damn well please but first find out who you are and then
find out who I am and then ask me in a civil manner. Then and only then
do you have any chance of satisfying your wonderment on that issue.
--
Ted
Christine
>
>My reaction is ...
>
Exactly!
Christine
>At 10:09 AM 30/07/99 -0400, Ted Crammer wrote:
>
>
>>Look, if you want to go see Enid and get some real case handling I'll
>>drive you to the airport and pick you up on your return and I assure
>>you that the pleasure would be mine.
>>
>>--
>>Ted
>
>unwilling to confront.
>
I know. I'm trying to handle that with him. I already know you're never
going to change.
Christine
>At 10:44 AM -0400 7/30/99, RDucharme wrote:
>>wanting to see change in ME.
>
>
>
>appropriate for you to think of me as the embodiment of your worst
>nightmare. In that scene I am the Three Horsemen: Communication,
>Control, and Havingness.
>
>Your saying stupid things is something I often choose to ignore. When
>you make sweeping statements based on your potshot evaluations then
>there is a good chance I will jump into the fray or create one if none
>exists. By now you shouldn't be surprised. Enid is capable of taking
>care of herself -- but she shouldn't have to. You know damn well that
>Dynamism is not Scn. and she does not care to deliver Scn. or be
>positioned with it.
>
implementation of Scientology. I don't think he could have done more for
the Church's cause if he were trying to.
Pilot came on the net and rallied around reform. All that's needed now is
for him to sell us on that reform having occurrerd and lead us back to the
fold. Couldn't be better set up if it were a program.
Me, I'm not going. I don't like cockroaches chewing on my body, and I
don't like being thrown overboard.
Christine
RDucharme
>At 10:44 AM 7/30/99 -0400, RDucharme wrote:
>>At 10:09 AM 30/07/99 -0400, Ted Crammer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Look, if you want to go see Enid and get some real case handling I'll
>>>drive you to the airport and pick you up on your return and I assure
>>>you that the pleasure would be mine.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ted
>>
>>unwilling to confront.
>>
>I know. I'm trying to handle that with him.
I thank you for that acknowledgement
> I already know you're never going to change.
I'll let that remark slide by unanswered.
Robert
Ted Crammer
>To which I add: Pilot said yesterday that Alan's lifeswork is just an
>implementation of Scientology.
LRH attempted to throw a net over everything that is perceived as
workable by labeling it "Scientology."
>I don't think he could have done more for
>the Church's cause if he were trying to.
>
>Pilot came on the net and rallied around reform. All that's needed now is
>for him to sell us on that reform having occurrerd and lead us back to the
>fold. Couldn't be better set up if it were a program.
Great amends project.
>
>Me, I'm not going. I don't like cockroaches chewing on my body, and I
>don't like being thrown overboard.
That is your short list, huh?
--
Ted
RDucharme
Are we through with this opterm exchange yet?
Or are you only capable of bi-polar exchanges?
Robert
Christine
>>Me, I'm not going. I don't like cockroaches chewing on my body, and I
>>don't like being thrown overboard.
>
>
>That is your short list, huh?
>
Yeah, pretty much!
RDucharme
>At 10:44 AM -0400 7/30/99, RDucharme wrote:
>>wanting to see change in ME.
>
>
>
Pardon me, but I thought we were in the free world, and not in a Scientology
org where the execs dictate the fate of the members. Are you attempting to
apply the rules of a past time to present time events?
>There are times when it would be
>appropriate for you to think of me as the embodiment of your worst
>nightmare. In that scene I am the Three Horsemen: Communication,
>Control, and Havingness.
When I want your services, I'll be sure to pay you in advance so you'll know
when to begin. Don't expect the first payment any time soon.
>Your saying stupid things is something I often choose to ignore. When
>you make sweeping statements based on your potshot evaluations then
>there is a good chance I will jump into the fray or create one if none
>exists. By now you shouldn't be surprised. Enid is capable of taking
>care of herself -- but she shouldn't have to. You know damn well that
>Dynamism is not Scn. and she does not care to deliver Scn. or be
>positioned with it.
>
I thought that point had already been settled. Please refer to my earlier
statements about that.
>
>>Leads one to wondering what it is you're
>>unwilling to confront.
>
>
>Wonder all you damn well please but first find out who you are and then
>find out who I am and then ask me in a civil manner.
Civil manners go both ways.
>Then and only then
>do you have any chance of satisfying your wonderment on that issue.
That was just a rhetorical question.
Robert
RDucharme
>To which I add: Pilot said yesterday that Alan's lifeswork is just an
>implementation of Scientology. I don't think he could have done more for
>the Church's cause if he were trying to.
I think the Church is irrelevant compared to the ideas set forth by LRH.
It's a defanged, declawed entity that once was more threatening than it now
is.
>Pilot came on the net and rallied around reform. All that's needed now is
>for him to sell us on that reform having occurrerd and lead us back to the
>fold. Couldn't be better set up if it were a program.
I think his heart is in the right place, but I don't see a total reform
happening - at least to where the church and the free zone are unified. I
see more a scenario where the CoS and the free zone are similar to the Roman
Catholic Church compared to the various Christian sects in the sense of
leading a peaceful but separate coexistence. In fact, I would be very leery
about all the power being in the hands of one entity again. I believe the
schism of 1982 was the best thing to happen to the scientology movement.
Robert
>
>Me, I'm not going. I don't like cockroaches chewing on my body, and I
>don't like being thrown overboard.
>
>Christine
>
>
RDucharme
>
>How could you add to this to make it unique to Scn?
An exact science and technology to get one there.
>
>- CBW
>
Paul Smith
I've just started reading this thread. Robert many of your
categories are uncomfortable to read. You imply secret
agreements between Enid, Alan and The Cof$. Can you point me
to the source material on these?
I was not pleased to read your make less of Albert. It was
somewhere beyond mean and cruel inspite of the smiley face.
Paul.
>Robert wrote:
>Not sure if even an Earthling :-):
>
>Albert
>
>(Sorry Albert. That was cruel and at your expense, but I didn't have the
>self control to pass it up.) R.D.
>
>
>Robert.
Christine
>At 12:32 PM 30/07/99 -0400, Christine wrote:
>
>>To which I add: Pilot said yesterday that Alan's lifeswork is just an
>>implementation of Scientology. I don't think he could have done more for
>>the Church's cause if he were trying to.
>
>
>I think the Church is irrelevant compared to the ideas set forth by LRH.
>It's a defanged, declawed entity that once was more threatening than it now
>is.
>
I'm sure that's the way it's supposed to appear. It's not. It never was.
It's vicious and it's ruthless and the end justifies any means in that
worldview.
Just like the man, actually.
RDucharme
>
>
> I've just started reading this thread. Robert many of your
>categories are uncomfortable to read. You imply secret
>agreements between Enid, Alan and The Cof$. Can you point me
>to the source material on these?
Neither has denied it yet. From the information I'd gotten long ago it was
an legal arrangement similar to what David Mayo signed. I have no problem
whatsoever with that. I just wanted to add the mitigating factors as to
their position on scientology.
> I was not pleased to read your make less of Albert. It was
>somewhere beyond mean and cruel inspite of the smiley face.
>
>Paul.
>
>>Robert wrote:
>
>>Not sure if even an Earthling :-):
>>
>>Albert
>>
>>(Sorry Albert. That was cruel and at your expense, but I didn't have the
>>self control to pass it up.) R.D.
>>
>>
>>Robert.
Seems Albert took it in the spirit of levity in which it was intended. The
following was his response:
==========================================================
Not sure if even an Earthling :-):
Albert
(Sorry Albert. That was cruel and at your expense, but I didn't have the
self control to pass it up.) R.D.
LOL Thank you for the decent ack. It's about damn time someone
noticed.
http://pages.hotbot.com/und/albertdixon/
============================================================
This was followed by:
============================================================
um, someone said i was more stupid than evil?
well at least we all agree that i'm not human. been around so many
bodies for so long and it's nice to know that there are real spirits out
there. :)
=============================================================
Christine was the one who said he was more stupid than evil. Are you not
going to take her to task on that?
Robert
RDucharme
>
>Let's keep going on this?
>- CBW
The term "spiritual" was implied when I said "freedom and responsibility".
Robert
Ted Crammer
>Pardon me, but I thought we were in the free world, and not in a
>Scientology
>org where the execs dictate the fate of the members. Are you
>attempting to
>apply the rules of a past time to present time events?
No. Cause is motivated by the future.
>When I want your services, I'll be sure to pay you in advance so
>you'll know
>when to begin. Don't expect the first payment any time soon.
I was not interested in payment for the drive to the airport. That was
just a friendly jesture and bit of encouragement.
--
Ted
Christine
>At 02:01 PM 30/07/99 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've just started reading this thread. Robert many of your
>>categories are uncomfortable to read. You imply secret
>>agreements between Enid, Alan and The Cof$. Can you point me
>>to the source material on these?
>
>
>Neither has denied it yet.
People are not obligated to disprove your misconceptions and, bluntly,
*lies* about them.
>
>
>Christine was the one who said he was more stupid than evil. Are you not
>going to take her to task on that?
>
Christine wrote that to LR privately, who mistakenly posted it to clear-l.
I didn't hit Albert, you stupid piece of concrete. Ooops. I meant evil.
Now that's a hit.
Christine
LR1...@aol.com
<< Pilot said yesterday that Alan's lifeswork is just an implementation of
Scientology. I don't think he could have done more for the Church's cause if
he were trying to. Pilot came on the net and rallied around reform.
I don't see what that statement has to do with the next one:
<< All that's needed now is for him to sell us on that reform having
occurrerd and lead us back to the fold. Couldn't be better set up if it were
a program.
Ah, logic! How much better off we would all be without it!
<< Me, I'm not going.
Well hey, if I really thought that's what he was doin, which I don't, I
wouldn't go either. I got my Lemming RD. Couldn't have joined the Church of
Chaos without it.
LR
LR1...@aol.com
<< I was not pleased to read your make less of Albert. It was
somewhere beyond mean and cruel inspite of the smiley face.
Albert thot it was funny. So did Tweeple.
LR
LR1...@aol.com
<< Let's keep going on this? >>
If I was Robert, I wouldn't bother.
LR
LR1...@aol.com
<< You imply secret agreements between Enid, Alan and The Cof$. Can you point
me to the source material on these?
I think all this may be moot. If CoS had any agreement signed, it is more
than likely it included a lil statement that nobody could talk about it at
all. Mayo ain't talkin.
LR
RDucharme
>At 02:39 PM 7/30/99 -0400, RDucharme wrote:
>>At 02:01 PM 30/07/99 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I've just started reading this thread. Robert many of your
>>>agreements between Enid, Alan and The Cof$. Can you point me
>>>to the source material on these?
>>
>>
>
>People are not obligated to disprove your misconceptions and, bluntly,
>*lies* about them.
>
>>
>>
>>Christine was the one who said he was more stupid than evil. Are you not
>>going to take her to task on that?
>>
>Christine wrote that to LR privately, who mistakenly posted it to clear-l.
>I didn't hit Albert, you stupid piece of concrete. Ooops. I meant evil.
>
>Now that's a hit.
>
>Christine
Okay.
Shall we agree to end this thread now, or did you have anything further to
say on it before that?
Robert
RDucharme
>RDucharme (Vo...@ctinet.net) wrote:
>>>>>>>So what is the true Spirit of Scientology Robert ?
>>>>>
>>>>>>In a nutshell, freedom and responsibility.
>>>>>
>>>>>May be true, but not unique - doesn't distinguish it from others.
>>>>>How could you add to this to make it unique to Scn?
>>>
>>>>An exact science and technology to get one there.
>>>
>>>So far sounds like DNA, rocket science, and/or brain surgery.
>>>
>
>
>incomplete.
Their pursuit isn't about finding their spiritual origins, it's about
delving further into the physical universe in order to further be able to be
in control of it as bodies.
I don't see where science in general has been a big factor in man's
spiritual growth. In fact, a case could be made for quite the opposite, or
at least a dead end.
Robert
Lightnin80
>>
>>>>So what is the true Spirit of Scientology Robert ?
>>>>
>>>>Lightnin
>>>
>>>Words don't suffice, but I'll try however I can.
>>>
>>>In a nutshell, freedom and responsibility.
>>
>>OK, that was a good answer Robert.
>>
>>Maybe it's just me but it was'nt very inspiring, I mean all the words were
>>there but it just did'nt seem to connect on a gut level.
>>
>>Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer
>>
>>Lightnin
>
>
>Seems we each have our own goals and likes and dislikes.
It was'nt that I liked it or disliked it, like I said it just did'nt
connect at a gut level.
I need for things to connect in more than just the words and
concepts, in other words it's not enough that it's intelectually
sound or fundamentally correct.
In fact I don't even think it is spirit in essence until it passes beyond
that threshold.
Now I'm not saying you have to be inspiring Robert, that is an unecesary burden
to put on anybody.
I just think there is more in making a cake than just mixing the ingredients
properly and following the instructions, the underlying intent is to
nourish and pleasure.
As you said it is a difficult task...but I think you did a fine job
with the words, the real difference here is in the telepathic vs the
empathic.
But it's no secret I find Scientology to over emphacise the mental aspects
of living and livingness, the recent LRH quote about considerations is
a perfect example of that slant.
I don't even care for the term viewer as it tends toward slanting things
toward the mentals aspects and excluding things that when viewed rather
than experienced fully including those sort of gut level feelings leaves
the job half done and a sort of ungrounded condition sets up.
Who can account
>for taste?
true
Lightnin
>
>Robert
>
>
>
Lightnin80
<t...@magicnet.net> writes:
>
>LRH attempted to throw a net over everything that is perceived as
>workable by labeling it "Scientology."
>
>
>
Damn straight Ted !!! and many are still doing that same routine.
Was'nt there a Russian thing like that years back..you know
whatever it was they came up with it first.
Lightnin
Joe Walter
>In article <B0000...@cheetah.ctinet.net>, Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme)
>writes:
>
>>>
>>>So what is the true Spirit of Scientology Robert ?
>>>
>>>Lightnin
>>
>>Words don't suffice, but I'll try however I can.
>>
>>In a nutshell, freedom and responsibility.
>
>OK, that was a good answer Robert.
>
>Maybe it's just me but it was'nt very inspiring, I mean all the words were
>there but it just did'nt seem to connect on a gut level.
>
>Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer
>
>Lightnin
Well, you got a lurker to come out of hiding on this one 'cause I was
just thinking about the subject.
I was doing some positive recalls the other day and remembered being
at the Toronto, Ontario org at a time when I had or felt around me
what you might call 'the spirit of scientology'. (This was a 'long'
time ago).
To me, the true spirit of Scientology is EXCITEMENT - the ADVENTURE,
LEARNING, DISCOVERY about and RECOVERY of life itself. It's learning
what makes 'people' tick and for that matter what makes the universe
tick.
It's about knowing the 'secrets of the universe' and feeling superior
about it :)
It's the relentless search for and revelation of TRUTHs and the
UNDERSTANDING that results - oh WOW man, I just had a huge cog :)( -
when they are found.
Of course another element of that spirit is echoed in the army
recruiting slogan 'Be all that you can be'.
It's about helping yourself and others to gain or recover abilities.
A real sickningly sweet analogy about Auditor/PC relationships - It's
kind of like the good feeling you get when you teach a child how to
ride a bike. It can be rough going at first, the kid screws up
repeatedly, gets scared senseless and suffers some scrapes and
bruises, but eventually comes flying past you with a look of sheer joy
and exhiliration on his face when he finally gets the hang of it. It's
hard to tell who gets more benefit from the ordeal - the kid or the
teacher.
Joe Walter
mailto:ja...@mindspring.com
http://jaw1.home.mindspring.com
Lightnin80
<t...@magicnet.net> writes:
>. So we
>set forth on applying all we know of tech and policy and came up with a
>very workable system for us. "Audit the pc in front of you" takes on a
>new meaning when it is accomplished moment by moment and when you have
>the entirety of the Scn. procedures as well as Knowledgism, Chakras,
>etc., and one's own perception of the truth to work from.
A bit of thunderous applause from this neck of the woods ;)
Bravo !!!!
Now this moves me, this connects top to bottom to top.
Lightnin the freakin Chili Dharma of Chili Dogma
grinnin from ear to ear :) ;) ;)
Lightnin80
Willis) writes:
>
>Lightnin80 (light...@aol.com) wrote:
>>I need for things to connect in more than just the words and
>>concepts, in other words it's not enough that it's intelectually
>>sound or fundamentally correct.
>
>>In fact I don't even think it is spirit in essence until it passes beyond
>>that threshold.
>
>Ditto! :-)
Of course Carol ;) thats because all great minds think alike LOL
Lightnin
ladyv
> >> >> Amazing. This really slants the truth. I didn't want to offer
> >> >>Scio. I like Dynamism better.
> >> >>
> >> >> You make it sound as if I would if I could.
> >> >>
> >> >I added that statement only to show that legally you may not have any choice
> >> >about not offering Scientology services, thereby making it a moot point. No
> >> >other implication was intended nor should be construed.
> >
> > Right, sophistry will get Robert everywhere...chuckle.
> >
> Enid, I know you can read intention better than that. You're evidently
> allowing yourself to be influenced by a rumor monger who twists my words,
> and who has a history of doing such, and accept that as truth. I thought
> you were better than that.
Hardly. Has it ocurred to you that your remarks were offensive? I
think ONLY my awareness of your intention allowed me to joke rather than
nuke!
> I stand firmly by what I said, miffed at being falsely accused by someone I
> would have thought would have been above that sort of thing. I don't find a
> false indication by a trusted terminal to be a laughing matter.
Neither do I.
Please! Try and see HOW offensive your original remark was.
I felt falsely accused by a friend, ie: you.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
ladyv
> At 10:44 AM -0400 7/30/99, RDucharme wrote:
> >What's so fascinating - and telling too - is how obsessed you are with
> >wanting to see change in ME.
>
> Your saying stupid things is something I often choose to ignore. When
> you make sweeping statements based on your potshot evaluations then
> there is a good chance I will jump into the fray or create one if none
> exists. By now you shouldn't be surprised. Enid is capable of taking
> care of herself -- but she shouldn't have to. You know damn well that
> Dynamism is not Scn. and she does not care to deliver Scn. or be
> positioned with it.
>
Thank-you, Ted. Quite right!
The most distressing thing is that Robert does not perceive how
offensive that was/is, or how much of a wrong indication it is and how
deeply that sort of blind spot can alienate one's friends.
Roland
>
> RDucharme (Vo...@ctinet.net) wrote:
> >At 04:22 PM 30/07/99 -0400, CB Willis wrote:
> >>RDucharme (Vo...@ctinet.net) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>How could you add to this to make it unique to Scn?
> >>>>
> >>>>>An exact science and technology to get one there.
> >>>>
> >>>>So far sounds like DNA, rocket science, and/or brain surgery.
> >>>>
> >>>>Let's keep going on this?
> >>
> >>>The term "spiritual" was implied when I said "freedom and responsibility".
> >>
> >>I see. Scientists and politicians are spirits too...still feels
> >>incomplete.
>
> >Their pursuit isn't about finding their spiritual origins, it's about
> >delving further into the physical universe in order to further be able to be
> >in control of it as bodies.
>
> >I don't see where science in general has been a big factor in man's
> >spiritual growth. In fact, a case could be made for quite the opposite, or
> >at least a dead end.
>
> one's spiritual origins?
>
> - CBW
I would say it involves making outrageous claims about your achievements
and abilities and pretending that you have invented a way for other
people to do the same.
Roland
--
"I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and
is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other
day -- didn't look very uncivilized to me." - L. Ron Hubbard,
"Between Lives Implants" lecture, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Venusloc.ram
RDucharme
>In article <B0000...@cheetah.ctinet.net>, Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme)
>writes:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Words don't suffice, but I'll try however I can.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe it's just me but it was'nt very inspiring, I mean all the words were
>>>there but it just did'nt seem to connect on a gut level.
>>>
>>>Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer
>>>
>>>Lightnin
>>
>>
>
>It was'nt that I liked it or disliked it, like I said it just did'nt
>connect at a gut level.
>
>concepts, in other words it's not enough that it's intelectually
>sound or fundamentally correct.
>
>In fact I don't even think it is spirit in essence until it passes beyond
>that threshold.
>
>to put on anybody.
Were you looking to be inspired into accepting scientology as a belief
system? With your background in scio, I hardly think my words should make
any difference to you one way or the other. A veteran hardly needs a sales
pitch to get him going on something he's well familiar with.
>I just think there is more in making a cake than just mixing the ingredients
>properly and following the instructions, the underlying intent is to
>nourish and pleasure.
>
>As you said it is a difficult task...but I think you did a fine job
>with the words, the real difference here is in the telepathic vs the
>empathic.
>
>But it's no secret I find Scientology to over emphacise the mental aspects
>of living and livingness, the recent LRH quote about considerations is
>a perfect example of that slant.
>
>I don't even care for the term viewer as it tends toward slanting things
>toward the mentals aspects and excluding things that when viewed rather
>than experienced fully including those sort of gut level feelings leaves
>the job half done and a sort of ungrounded condition sets up.
So why don't you describe to me your idea of the ideal religion as you would
make it if you were a messiah?
Robert
Lightnin80
>
>So why don't you describe to me your idea of the ideal religion as you would
>make it if you were a messiah?
>
>Robert
>
>
Enid was right you really have no idea how insulting some of your
comments are Robert.
Lightnin
RDucharme
I'm being sincere about the question. For once I'm not being sarcastic. I
would really like to hear your ideas on how your model would differ from say
Buddhism, Scientology, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.
Robert
LR1...@aol.com
Roland said
<< I would say it involves making outrageous claims about your achievements
and abilities and pretending that you have invented a way for other people
to
do the same.
wisdom?
LR
RDucharme
My original statement in context was this:
=========================================
Non Scientologists:
Christine: But insists on scientology basics being applied by
practitioners. Ambiguous.
Ted: Ditto
Alan: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer scientology.
Enid: Purportedly signed an agreement with the church to not offer scientology.
Homer: Possibly non-committal
Roland
Lightnin'
============================================
I wrote "purportedly" because I couldn't verify the information with written
data. The word "reportedly" would have been more accurate.
I wrote the rest because it would give one a legal reason for the
non-scientologist label. It was simply to show mitigating circumstances
that COULD or MIGHT (but not necessarily WOULD) influence a person's
decision as to whether to refer to himself a scientologist or not. So, I
included that information to put the list in perspective, especially since
Christine repeatedly asserted that you and Alan rejected the label
"scientologist".
To put it simply, my point was basically "well, they don't have any choice
about it, so your examples are not a fair assessment of the situation". Any
perceived offensiveness was totally unintentional.
Hope that clarifies things somewhat.
Robert
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
wrote in thread "Re: Assessment of who is what here", on 30 Jul 1999
09:49:32 -0400, :
>At 08:55 AM 30/07/99 -0400, Ted Crammer wrote:
>>At 12:50 AM -0400 7/30/99, RDucharme wrote:
>>>Enid, I know you can read intention better than that. You're evidently
>>>allowing yourself to be influenced by a rumor monger who twists my words,
>>>and who has a history of doing such, and accept that as truth. I thought
>>>you were better than that.
>>>
>>>I stand firmly by what I said, miffed at being falsely accused by
>>>someone I
>>>would have thought would have been above that sort of thing. I don't
>>>find a
>>>false indication by a trusted terminal to be a laughing matter.
Ted:
>>You stand firm (righteous) and feeling miffed (victim) and you are an
>>idiot (several times over) for even bringing the subject of the thread
>>up. The impulse to spew was most likely a product of your mental
>>masturbation in which you seem to take so much pride.
>>
>>You toss out a ridiculous statement about people and then sit back and
>>take it as "must be fact" when someone doesn't answer up to refute your
>>claim.
>>
>>Wake up! Snap out of it! Get a life!
>>
>>--
>>Ted
Robert:
>Christine, have you been running UCP on this guy?
>
>He's sounding more and more like Konchok, but without the capital letters.
>
>My reaction is similar too - "Shaddap!"
>
>:-)
>
>Robert
Dear Robert:
Gee!
Do you think only people who have run UCP can SEE that you are a
stupidified out-of-valence rondroid clingly so tightly to his service facs
he can barely shout "ASSHOLE!"?
NEWS FLASH!:
Even WOGS can see that!
Konchok Penday
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
LR1...@aol.com
>>So why don't you describe to me your idea of the ideal religion as you
would make it if you were a messiah?
Lightnin say
>Enid was right you really have no idea how insulting some of your comments
are Robert.
Insults, like beauty and everythin else, are in the eyes of the beholder.
One can take a very obvious insult and answer it with literalness, levity,
sincerity or whatever else - not that I think Robert's question was intended
in the way you said. "IF I were a messiah, what would my ideal religion be?"
Hmmm. Could be a very self-enlightening question.
LR
Ted Crammer
>Hope that clarifies things somewhat.
You still don't have a fucking clue.
--
Ted
Christine
Raymond J. Krenik, Jr.
letting a workable philosophy become a Religion because then it became a
Church and then a cult and so on down the dwindling spiral which he had
written earlier. Oh well, it just proves that even a man made God makes
mistakes. I could say much more but this will suffice for the nonce. Ray
Krenik
rkr...@hotmail.com
>From: Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme)
>Reply-To: Vo...@ctinet.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cle...@lightlink.com>
>Subject: Re: Spirit of Scientology
>Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
>
>At 11:02 PM 30/07/99 -0400, Lightnin80 wrote:
> >In article <B0000...@cheetah.ctinet.net>, Vo...@ctinet.net (RDucharme)
> >writes:
> >
> >>>
>So why don't you describe to me your idea of the ideal religion as you
>would
>make it if you were a messiah?
>
>Robert
>
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com