Aaron Saxton kicks those from his YouTube channel that he considers being a threat to his credibility... [repost]
Roadrunner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6bjCtWMsOg
He is actually in the business of very brutely attacking Scientology
and all that comes with it.
Android Cat wrote: "I think I'd want to see the FO, policy letter or
whatever, where this came from, and why hasn't anyone come across it
previously, before I start giving this one too much credence. "
Tilman Hausherr wrote: "I have heard RJ67 and there is nothing about
jews there. If you mean another document - why hasn't this document
come up in so many years, with so many ex-sea-org members becoming
critics?"
Yeah, well, I challenged him a bit on his YouTube channel. I persisted
in to have him come forward with other than his opinion. All we got
from him on that was some supposedly subtile association, and
repeatedly (5x) asking me if I was a Scientologist. But utterly
failing to actually addressing the issues that he claimed.
His whole way of going about matters is pretty much as Gerry Armstrong
does. This Aaron dude wrote to me: "I was more dedicated to Scn than
any other human being I know. There was none more dedicated."
See, Gerry was dedicated for 12 years, or so he claimed.
I responded to that: "Dedication to Scientology can be blind, and this
in reality is no 'dedication' at all. You can't ever have submitted to
have been a blind follower. That is not what the subject of
Scientology is about."
He actually admits here that he just bought that was forwarded to him
without a particular critical eye.
He further commented to me: "HAve you seen LRH Jr. Interview?"
I assumed here that he referred to Nibs (oldest son of L. Ron
Hubbard). Then I commented back to him on that: "About Nibs, have a
bite on this: http://tiny.cc/nibs"
On his channel we also find the phrase: "Just ask his dead son, or his
3 wives, or his son Ron Dewolf. Do research."
He also wrote to me: "Do you really think I just changed my mind
overnight or listened to others? I researched, I researched hard. I
suggest you do the same. Research HARD."
This actually is interesting as obviously he wasn't very criticial
about Nibs. And it is not only that. At his YouTube channel (video
comments at first link given here above and his follow up video) he
makes various ludricous and for all unsupported claims. It does not
appear to me at all that he would have performed 'HARD research',
whatever that may actually mean. 'HARD'?
Anyway, next thing he did was blocking me from his channel. I appears
rather clear that he doesn't want or like people around that are
(more) knowledgeable about these matters, and that actually can cast
serious doubt about his socalled revelations. It is ALWAYS the SAME,
now isn't it! He kicks me, but allows the rather infantile
'jdtrickster4' continue to be on his channel.
Interestingly enough there exists a duplicate channel with username
'CensorshipIsBad', this is also carrying these particular video's of
this Aaron dude. Thus 'Censorship Is Bad'... yeah, indeed always the
same.
I actually had a peek on his 7part video release. I just checked pt1
and 5 for some minutes. It was all about ejaculations and sex,
coincidence? Either way, I didn't bather to see any more of that.
The guy is intelligent, but also utterly unreliable. He will tell
anything to attract attention. Indeed pretty much a Gerry Armstong
clone. I think this Aaron dude is capable of lying just about
anything.
On a TV3 clip, on YouTube elsewhere, he admitted to have been a bully
in younger years. But, so he responded, this allowed him to rise in
ranks within the Scn organization, so he claims. True there are
misstandings within the organization, and it is not always very
intelligent people that decide upon matters. Still this is people it
is not the subject itself. Some people are simply incapable here to
differentiate anything. This Aaron dude also puts out the claim of
coerced abortions. Any that would have had a clue about the book
Dianetics, knows this whole idea would be ludricous. But does Aaron
discern anything here? Of course not. He talks bad about L. Ron
Hubbard, the organization, and the subject, it all the same to him. He
that claims to have been such a 'dedicated' follower. Tsk, tsk...
I think he is still a bully (though an intelligent one), and pretty
aggressive. Just keep in mind that he doesn't answer to exact issues,
he swirles around them. See, taking some truths and then associate
them, make the rest appear as if true as well. Now, does he do that
deliberately (premeditated) or did he get caught in his own web?
Anyway the way to oppose him is to be EXACT in your questioning/
criticism and persist, do not ever allow him to sway to other things!
It thus appears that if you have such a YouTube channel you can block
any from commenting on it. Thus YouTube can be used as a means of
propaganda THIS EASILY. You just ban your opposers. Learned something
new.
I just thought I share this...
RR
Astrid
> I just thought I share this...
Thanks for sharing again. Aaron makes sense to those of us who aren't
brainwashed or insane. I suspect you, like Barbara S, suffer from
being brainwashed and insane.
Aaron is not going to be perfect. After all, he had his mind warped by
this crazy cult at a young age and went through some traumatic things
himself. Compared to L. Ron Hubbard, Aaron is honest and has
integrity.
You are always talking about proof. Hubbard had none. He was a
pathological liar and failed the one time in public he tried to prove
there was such thing as a "clear."
There is no clear. There are no super powers. Until a Scientologist
can get up and prove something, be other than a sputtering git like
Cyrus Brooks, or some kind of mental case like yourself, the burden or
proof lies in Scientologists themselves. All that Scientology has
shown, is the power it has over members to cause delusion and
compliant behavior. It is very powerful brainwashing.
Roadrunner
> On Dec 13, 8:23 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just thought I share this...
>
> Thanks for sharing again. Aaron makes sense to those of us who aren't
> brainwashed or insane. I suspect you, like Barbara S, suffer from
> being brainwashed and insane.
How did you determine that? Which criteria did you use??
Theoretically it owuld be equally true that those that are brainwashed
or insane are likely to agree with another that is also brainwashed
and insane if they have adopted the same falsities as being true.
Those that would suffice from such illnesses such as being brainwashed
or insane, they actually would be blind for if they themselves would
be in that condition...
Interesting though is that as a rule you apply the thesis that if
someone does not agree with you or your Aaron would automatically
deemed to be brainwashed or insane.
>
> Aaron is not going to be perfect. After all, he had his mind warped by
> this crazy cult at a young age and went through some traumatic things
> himself. Compared to L. Ron Hubbard, Aaron is honest and has
> integrity.
Again, what criteria do you offer???
>
> You are always talking about proof. Hubbard had none. He was a
> pathological liar and failed the one time in public he tried to prove
> there was such thing as a "clear."
The term pathological liar actually stems from the Gerry Armstong
trials from 1984. some judge said that, and Gerry Armstrong copied
that. Since that time he has been using that all over the place. The
data however that we have at hand about this Gerry Armstrong is rather
that he himself would be in that condition.
>
> There is no clear. There are no super powers. Until a Scientologist
> can get up and prove something, be other than a sputtering git like
> Cyrus Brooks, or some kind of mental case like yourself, the burden or
> proof lies in Scientologists themselves. All that Scientology has
> shown, is the power it has over members to cause delusion and
> compliant behavior. It is very powerful brainwashing.
Indeed, and you are doing nothing other than attempting to make
believe the things that you say...
RR
aaron saxton
This is Aaron Saxton
"Say anything to get attention" What a load of bullshit. I could have
made horrific claims, and did not. I stuck to the facts.
I removed you as a user from my channel not because I minded your
comments, as there were plenty of other negative comments around.
I removed you because you wanted your opinion voiced without any
research. And when I asked you to look, you didn't.
What is baffling is how available the information is about what I have
spoken of.
There is not a single comment made by myself in all my videos that has
been successfulyl challenged by anyone because I stuck to the facts.
I didn't do this to bully.
If I wanted to see the Sea Org fall, then I would stay in this for the
long haul. I didn't even get started with them. This was just a tatse
to let them know when they break promises with me personally, there
are consequences.
I'm pretty sure they got the message loud and clear and will back off.
I'm happy with the result I acheived.
When you have the time, I recommend spending the factual time to
researc the claims made by others, rather than waiving you judgement
over their arguements.
Go seek the facts.
And good luck with your research, if you actually do it.
Bye.
aaron saxton
exact questions?
What a load of shit. You can't read and you can't listen.
I have spent nothing but 2 months answering peoples emails and
questions.
E-mail me your questions to aarons...@gmail.com, on the agreement
that you post HERE your questions and my answers unedited and without
any additions by you or anyone else.
Then we shall see...
Tigger
> And by the way RR, whoever the hell you are, stating I don't answer
> exact questions?
>
> What a load of shit. You can't read and you can't listen.
>
> I have spent nothing but 2 months answering peoples emails and
> questions.
>
> that you post HERE your questions and my answers unedited and without
> any additions by you or anyone else.
>
> Then we shall see...
LOL....Great challenge, but don't hold your breath. RR's MO is to
always ignore the facts if they don't support his bullshit. While
claiming that he does the "research" and other people don't, he
rarely, if ever, proves it.
Thanks for all you've done to get the facts about Scientology out in
the open.
Best,
Tigger
rhill
RR has been in my killfile for a very long while now. His position is
pretty simple in the end:
If you look at Scientology and doesn't come to *his* conclusions, you
didn't research properly.
It will always come down to this, *no matter what*.
Hartley Patterson
>
> And by the way RR, whoever the hell you are, stating I don't answer
> exact questions?
It says that to everyone. It's a troll, trying to wind you up. Killfile it.
If this was a moderated forum, it would have been thrown out years ago.
--
ARS FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/faq.htm
Maureen
wrote:
> aaronsaxt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And by the way RR, whoever the hell you are, stating I don't answer
> > exact questions?
>
> It says that to everyone. It's a troll, trying to wind you up. Killfile it.
> If this was a moderated forum, it would have been thrown out years ago.
>
It has no power, other than what anyones gives it.
It's statistic is perhaps the number of replies.
Imagine being out of $cientology and not having to reply to 'Dear
Alice.'
(what a relief!)
Maureen
Mike Thomas
Hash: SHA1
He wont do it, but he will claim he already has done extensive research
on the matter and you are wrong.
Then, if you ask to see his research he will either tell you to research
it yourself, or make some excuse why he doesn't want to share.
By the way, I never thought I'd see you posting on ARS. It's funny
because I've been watching you on Aussie TV over the last month or so.
It's great to see someone slip out of the snare, do you still practice
Scientology privately (i.e. Freezone)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAks4GukACgkQQOyfU0q29nYXdwP+NtHEECqoxgzOsb+EolzwHce+
qrSsiKGWD7nTXJxYTiiu+zuFMaSTNLnAPLPY4BacKlFyL9aGZ4mO1M9228HDqfxa
jwRl5GntZuPanbAS9evRYBXw0OWOTXPOcyO8wqbsmzjreFBNZOQZyjX7pVjCyINF
rq5WyaMndr07y91w49Q=
=w4S9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
barbz
they're only mimicking Ron, who did no research and just pulled shit out
of his ass.
"Research..." it sounds so very important and srs, with test tubes and
lab coats and whatnot.
--
xenubarb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of
those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it
pulled-up to the curb.
Stephen Jones
realpch
I don't know that you want to spend too much time and effort on RR. He
has an endless appetite for argumentation. It's all circular and he's
always right.
:-D
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Andrew Robertson
"realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4B382833...@aol.com...
<snip>
> I don't know that you want to spend too much time and effort on RR. He
> has an endless appetite for argumentation. It's all circular and he's
> always right.
That's just your OPINION girl. You do no research! Ecce puella.
Yes of course he's always right, but he's getting on well with Homer at
present which is a good thing.
You don't have a spare sense of humour in one of those many boxes of
treasures tidily arranged in your house that you could send to Roadrunner as
a New Years gift do you?
He lost his at Flag in 1982.
Andrew
realpch
>
> "realpch" <rea...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4B382833...@aol.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I don't know that you want to spend too much time and effort on RR. He
> > has an endless appetite for argumentation. It's all circular and he's
> > always right.
>
> That's just your OPINION girl. You do no research! Ecce puella.
>
> Yes of course he's always right, but he's getting on well with Homer at
> present which is a good thing.
>
> You don't have a spare sense of humour in one of those many boxes of
> treasures tidily arranged in your house that you could send to Roadrunner as
> a New Years gift do you?
>
> He lost his at Flag in 1982.
>
> Andrew
I feel he is not totally bereft of humor, but does not employ it as much
as he could in his many many discussions here. I believe he often views
humorous comments as "twisting".
In the immortal words of Chubby Checker:
Come on let's twist again like we did last summer
Yea, let's twist again like we did last year
Do you remember when things were really hummin'
Yea, let's twist again, twistin' time is here
Maureen
> However you are RR, you have got it very very wrong.
>
> This is Aaron Saxton
>
> "Say anything to get attention" What a load of bullshit. I could have
> made horrific claims, and did not. I stuck to the facts.
<kind snip>
My sense is that they will try to get you very distracted and caught
up in
anything to stress and/or prevent you from speaking out in the way
that you have
<so greatly> been.
One of the greatest choices to exercise once leaving $cientology, is
the freedom to say, "no"
and reestablish that 'healthy selfish' boundary.
Choose your battles wisely, as there are plenty of RR's around to keep
you busy so that you'll
never have time for the media waiting to do real and respectable
interviews.
If only RR and countless others can only make you see the error of
your ways; Or some sociopaths
who find misery in ruthlessly grinding such personal questions. Hard
to tell the difference, but no matter.
There have always been the RR types here and in forums and even in
airports where those leaving $cientology
emerge. In the Nazi camps, weren't there 'checkpoint charlies' to stop
people at the gates?
Don't let these weirdos ever affect your freedom again.
Be well, and many congratulations to you for your excellent stand so
far!
Maureen
Roadrunner
> However you are RR, you have got it very very wrong.
>
> This is Aaron Saxton
>
> "Say anything to get attention" What a load of bullshit. I could have
> made horrific claims, and did not. I stuck to the facts.
>
> I removed you as a user from my channel not because I minded your
> comments, as there were plenty of other negative comments around.
>
> I removed you because you wanted your opinion voiced without any
> research. And when I asked you to look, you didn't.
You are an outright liar and a fraud. I provided you with effective
rebutals to your arguments. ALL you basically could ask me (5x), on
that YouTube channels of yours was if I was a Scientologist instead of
responding to the arguments that were forwarded to you. In addition
you referred to L. Ron Hubbard Jr. ('Nibs') as a reference. You
forwarded that to me in a private message. I responded to you with a
link to a study that casted a serious doubt on the credibility of that
person. You TOTALLY ignored all that, you simply went on kicking me
from your channel.
>
> What is baffling is how available the information is about what I have
> spoken of.
>
> There is not a single comment made by myself in all my videos that has
> been successfulyl challenged by anyone because I stuck to the facts.
You again are a liar. You made claims that no one else has made
previously, and this indeed is very strange. Even Android Cat (an anti-
Scientology advocate) pointed this out to you.
You don't explain anything with properly evaluated supporting data.
You just make claims...
>
> I didn't do this to bully.
>
> If I wanted to see the Sea Org fall, then I would stay in this for the
> long haul. I didn't even get started with them. This was just a tatse
> to let them know when they break promises with me personally, there
> are consequences.
>
> I'm pretty sure they got the message loud and clear and will back off.
>
> I'm happy with the result I acheived.
>
> When you have the time, I recommend spending the factual time to
> researc the claims made by others, rather than waiving you judgement
> over their arguements.
>
> Go seek the facts.
You are not interested in proper research nor in evaluated facts.
>
> And good luck with your research, if you actually do it.
>
> Bye.
So far you were unable to address any of the data that was forwarded
to you.
I state that you don't know the meaning of what research involves. You
purposely IGNORE that what was forwarded to you!!!!
I state that you are a false individual, and apparently still a bully.
Something which you have admitted that you had been prior to and while
advancing on your 'career' in Scientology. You admitted so in
interviews, why would anyone believe that you would have changed that
now?
RR
Roadrunner
> And by the way RR, whoever the hell you are, stating I don't answer
> exact questions?
It is fact...
>
> What a load of shit. You can't read and you can't listen.
You that speak of facts. It is FACT that you failed to respond to my
rebuttals on your channel. ALL you could do is inquiring: "Are you a
Scientologist", up to 5 times. It appears, by fact, that you indeed
can't read, can't listen, and will not respond to queries, you just
ignore them and call them for something else.
>
> I have spent nothing but 2 months answering peoples emails and
> questions.
I nor anyone else is interested in your claims. You FAILED to address
MY queries!!!!
>
> E-mail me your questions to aaronsaxt...@gmail.com, on the agreement
> that you post HERE your questions and my answers unedited and without
> any additions by you or anyone else.
You are in position to demand anything. You kicked a person from your
channel on false grounds.
>
> Then we shall see...
It would surprise me.
Start explaining about the [un]credibility of the claimed witness L.
Ron Hubbard Jr. (Nibs).
RR
Android Cat
news:1a728fd3-02c8-48f0...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Dec, 02:06, aaron saxton <aaronsaxt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is not a single comment made by myself in all my videos that has
>> been successfulyl challenged by anyone because I stuck to the facts.
>
> You again are a liar. You made claims that no one else has made
> previously, and this indeed is very strange. Even Android Cat (an anti-
> Scientology advocate) pointed this out to you.
Please don't think that because I had you killfiled, that I wouldn't notice
that you were using my statement again and again as somehow backing your
idiotic campaign.
--
Ron of that ilk.
husk
Quick question,
When Aaron asked if you were a Scientologist, did you answer
immediately in the affirmative?
If not, why?
When I am asked if I am a Christian, even in this protest environment
where atheists seem to be in the majority and have taken pot shots at
Christians, I don't hide my religion. Why do we encounter so many of
these, "I'm not a Scientologist but....." people? Admit what you
are with pride. If you can't admit what you are with pride, maybe
there is something wrong with your beliefs.
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If you made a statement about the claims of Aaron then stick with it
and for all face its consequences!!!!
See, you can't have it BOTH ways... of course if one anti-Scientology
propagate (such as yourself) utters such criticism at the address of
'Aaron', then that bears significance indeed... It damages his
credibility rather significantly.
Now, tell us ,are you really objective at this time in this matter??
RR
aaron saxton
Is this the best that OSA can do?
Oh, it is so pathetic.
I would think they could find someone who is a bit better than this...
What is worse, saving people in the cult if they are like roadrunner,
or putting up with people like roadrunner that do not have enough
brain cells to qualify for the cult in the first please, or to be a
critic but basically are allowed in?
I think of their poor children. God, I hope Roadrunner doesn't have
children.
Again it will be stated: Roadrunner, when you are ready to email me
and ask questions, let me know. aarons...@gmail.com in case you
forgot.
Until then, it would be a safe bet that you need to resume sucking on
your mothers teats, clearly that is the only place you get real
attention.
I know you won't email me.
Your a total coward. That is why no one takes your posts seriously.
Happy new year, chicken.
realpch
Aaron, some of us think that RR, or The Snoeck Guy, is in fact, not OSA
at all, but an extremely eccentric character who likes Scientology and
appears to believe that he is the only one who has a real handle on it.
Roadrunner
> You have to laugh out at this RoadRunner guy.
>
> Is this the best that OSA can do?
>
> Oh, it is so pathetic.
>
> I would think they could find someone who is a bit better than this...
>
> What is worse, saving people in the cult if they are like roadrunner,
> or putting up with people like roadrunner that do not have enough
> brain cells to qualify for the cult in the first please, or to be a
> critic but basically are allowed in?
>
> I think of their poor children. God, I hope Roadrunner doesn't have
> children.
>
> Again it will be stated: Roadrunner, when you are ready to email me
> forgot.
>
> Until then, it would be a safe bet that you need to resume sucking on
> your mothers teats, clearly that is the only place you get real
> attention.
>
> I know you won't email me.
>
> Your a total coward. That is why no one takes your posts seriously.
>
> Happy new year, chicken.
Your displayed behaviour speaks pretty much for itself. You haven't
addressed anything yet. You haven't accounted for the logical respons
of Android Cat. You haven't explained your referral to Nibs, as if he
would be a credible person. Also your repeated inquiry if I would or
would not be a Scientologist, when you should have address that what
was forwarded to you, is to say the least mindboggling. Address that
for starters... Not in private emails. Here, but I suspect you are not
enough man for that, even for a bully...
You seem to think that people will not notice your avoidance... well,
not my problem... You display the usual ridicule and person attack
instead of answering. You fit in nicely here... Ridicule however will
not cover up your avoidance.
You made claims of some Flag Orders and Xenu, where is your evidence?
Why has it not surfaced at any time earlier???
RR
Roadrunner
Because it is not relevant. I perceive that he intended to use that as
an argument to undermine my credibility if it would have been
affirmative, and if it would have responded with a negative he likely
would have jumped on me with that as well. Again these are irrelevant.
He should claify his claims and the inquiries that had been forwarded
to him...
>
> When I am asked if I am a Christian, even in this protest environment
> where atheists seem to be in the majority and have taken pot shots at
> Christians, I don't hide my religion. Why do we encounter so many of
> these, "I'm not a Scientologist but....." people? Admit what you
> are with pride. If you can't admit what you are with pride, maybe
> there is something wrong with your beliefs.
You are mistaken in that Scientology would be a beliefsystem. It is a
practical philosophy, it is something one can use, that's basically
all.
RR
husk
Having the knowledge that you are a Scientologist, he would have
framed his answer to your questions with the understanding that you
have a working knowledge of the topic. If he was just answering to a
troll, he would use another approach. It is very relevant.
> You are mistaken in that Scientology would be a beliefsystem. It is a
> practical philosophy, it is something one can use, that's basically
> all.
>
> RR
There is a creation story, is there not? DM repeatedly refers to
Scientology as a religion, does he not?
One either believes in the creation story, or one does not. One
believes that Scientology is a religion or one does not.
Roadrunner
Sorry, it bears no relevance whatsoever. My questions were very direct
and rational. Per the nature of my forwardances he already knew that
the topic was not directly new to me.
>
> > You are mistaken in that Scientology would be a beliefsystem. It is a
> > practical philosophy, it is something one can use, that's basically
> > all.
>
> > RR
>
> There is a creation story, is there not?
Actually there is not... you bought a mispresentation. You should
establish what these are about, prior to deciding how it is to be
interpreted.
> DM repeatedly refers to
> Scientology as a religion, does he not?
It is religious in nature as such that the subjects of Dianetics/
Scientology address man as a spiritual being rather then a put
together mass consisting of blood, bones and flesh.
>
> One either believes in the creation story, or one does not. One
> believes that Scientology is a religion or one does not.
As I said it is a practical philosophy, utterly opposed to a
beliefsystem. And it addresses man as a spiritual being, because it
was found that a person made no progress if treated as something
opposed to that. Don't assume something that is not there!!!
Don't pretend to know matters if you haven't studied it properly.
Damn, this is tiring...
RR
husk
Tommy Davis has admitted to the existence of the Xenu story, so I need
no further research other than reading the story in LRH's handwriting
and reading the stories of many exes. My interpretation of the Xenu
story is that it is the creation story for Scientology here on
earth. As there is no direct proof that the events of this story
actually took place, one believes it or not based on faith and not
Science. Since the concept of thetan follows the Xenu story, faith
does exist in Scientology. The belief in the thetan is based on faith
and not Science.
Hartley Patterson
> Aaron, some of us think that RR, or The Snoeck Guy, is in fact, not OSA
> at all, but an extremely eccentric character who likes Scientology and
> appears to believe that he is the only one who has a real handle on it.
A kind of Swedish Chef version of Ms Schwarz.
--
"and the best part is that when they make it into
a movie, all of the stars can play themselves."
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Peter Schilte
wrote:
I hate to correct you, but Michel Snoeck is Dutch, not Swedish. He
lives in Sweden.
He was kicked from 4 or 5 message boards (OCMB, ESMB and others) about
which he wrote some on his website. Without mentioning however the
message boards by name. Most likely to avoid people seeing the other
side of the story, only being "informed" by his side of the story.
He still has no clue that it is not all those message boards but HIM
that caused it to happen.
Peter
"The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower
bands of the Tone Scale from the social order would result in an
almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the
dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered."
- L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170
aaron1...@yahoo.com
Still no email from this crazy Roadrunner guy. He keeps talking about
"claims forwarded to Aaron" and has been asked three times to email
me.
STILL NO EMAIL.
Yawn.
Should be called "chicken" not roadrunner.
So "Roadrunner" aka "Chicken" that email address for the billionth
time is aarons...@gmail.com
Yawn.
I won't wait for your email. I know it is never going to come.
Peter Schilte
> Yawn.
>
> Still no email from this crazy Roadrunner guy. He keeps talking about
> "claims forwarded to Aaron" and has been asked three times to email
> me.
>
> STILL NO EMAIL.
>
> Yawn.
>
> Should be called "chicken" not roadrunner.
>
> So "Roadrunner" aka "Chicken" that email address for the billionth
>
> Yawn.
>
> I won't wait for your email. I know it is never going to come.
Aaron, it is part of what is called "Roadrunner tech".
Peter
"Scientology's upper level spiritual therapy is essentially dead space
alien souls exorcism."
- Chuck Beatty
realpch
Most everybody here has been on the RoadRunner merry go round from time
to time. I suppose it's ok if you HAVE a lot of time, and patience, but
ultimately, you will find that, the ride being circular, that you will
see the same scenery over and over again.
:-D
Hartley Patterson
> We don't really encounter very many "I'm not a Scientologist, but"
people,
> as in reality these tend to be the same people, armed with a number of
> different "names". Scientologists no doubt eventually believe that their
> inability to be brave enough or proud enough to admit their 'religious'
> affiliation is a failure on their own parts, as in "pulled it in-ness".
They usually give themselves away by using scienobabble words and phrases -
I spotted a Letter to the Editor yesterday with 'social betterment
programs' and a suggestion that 'research' into Narconon would show that it
was genuine!
It's as well to watch for false positives though, use of such in posts that
don't 100% attack Scientology can make people suspicious.
Roadrunner
You pretend to now and understand matters that you do not. You
couldn't be more wrong here. You display the logic of a child. You
have no clue about the how or what of the subject of Dianetics/
Scientology.
Why are people this selfrighteous and for all ignorant...
RR
Roadrunner
> Yawn.
>
> Still no email from this crazy Roadrunner guy. He keeps talking about
> "claims forwarded to Aaron" and has been asked three times to email
> me.
>
> STILL NO EMAIL.
>
> Yawn.
>
> Should be called "chicken" not roadrunner.
>
> So "Roadrunner" aka "Chicken" that email address for the billionth
>
> Yawn.
>
> I won't wait for your email. I know it is never going to come.
You are really the typical fraud and liar. Various has been repeated
here by my in this thread, and you just ignore!!!
It is YOU that is the chicken and the coward. You REFUSE to account
for ANYTHING. You ONLY intent here is to make it appear as if you did
the right actions, and at the same time do not have to explain
anything.
1. You ignored my inquiries at you YouTube channel.
2. You ignored my latest answer to your private reactions on that
YouTube channel.
As you didn't want to explain you went and kicked me from your
precious channel.
3. I have forwarded various here for you to respond to.
And what do you do? You talk about that you want a private email
message. It says it all, doesn't it... You can just go ahead and
continue to IGNORE ANYTHING. I guess once a bully, always a bully...
This is what you MUST do, as you have no answers nor clairifications.
This is what you MUST do, when you are confronted with persons that
know what they talk about, and may exceed you in knowledge.
RR
Roadrunner
> aaron1spe...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Yawn.
>
> > Still no email from this crazy Roadrunner guy. He keeps talking about
> > "claims forwarded to Aaron" and has been asked three times to email
> > me.
>
> > STILL NO EMAIL.
>
> > Yawn.
>
> > Should be called "chicken" not roadrunner.
>
> > So "Roadrunner" aka "Chicken" that email address for the billionth
>
> > Yawn.
>
> > I won't wait for your email. I know it is never going to come.
>
> Most everybody here has been on the RoadRunner merry go round from time
> to time. I suppose it's ok if you HAVE a lot of time, and patience, but
> ultimately, you will find that, the ride being circular, that you will
> see the same scenery over and over again.
Indeed, the level of projection is really astounding... most of you
live in some sort of alternate reality. Man sees what he chooses to
see. If there is no rebuttal to effective and valid arguments, they
therefore do not exist and are dealt with as such...
...and they go round and round and round this thing called
Scientology, a subject they call a scam, and waste an amazing amount
of time to chat about it. Now how insane isn't that...
RR
>
> :-D
>
> Peach
> --
> Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
> Save some dough, save some grief:http://www.xenu.nethttp://www.scientology-lies.com- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Roadrunner
> On 29 dec, 05:14, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > real...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Aaron, some of us think that RR, or The Snoeck Guy, is in fact, not OSA
> > > at all, but an extremely eccentric character who likes Scientology and
> > > appears to believe that he is the only one who has a real handle on it.
>
> > A kind of Swedish Chef version of Ms Schwarz.
>
> > --
> > "and the best part is that when they make it into
> > a movie, all of the stars can play themselves."http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
>
> I hate to correct you, but Michel Snoeck is Dutch, not Swedish. He
> lives in Sweden.
>
> He was kicked from 4 or 5 message boards (OCMB, ESMB and others) about
> which he wrote some on his website. Without mentioning however the
> message boards by name. Most likely to avoid people seeing the other
> side of the story, only being "informed" by his side of the story.
> He still has no clue that it is not all those message boards but HIM
> that caused it to happen.
Another smear attempt... You were personally involved in the exact
details of one them (your devoted Michelle), so you know this account
to be VERY correct. For the rest it can be accurately verified by
doing a websearch as the summaries provide for quotations. The only
reason why these MBs are not mentioned by name is because there is NO
intent to invite people, i.e. by such easy means, to visit these
boards.
But you went on this travel of 'Scientology' ONLY because you ex-
girlfriend successfully quit the drug habit after having been on the
Narconon program. You could not have that, and so you had to put her
down... yeah, you found your purpose in life...
RR
husk
You see this is where you are correct. I have never been a
Scientologist. I have never had a stress test. I know only what I
read of the leaked policies, many in LRH's own handwriting, and the
stories written by many ex's. My in depth understanding of
locationals and training routines and auditing is minimal, compared to
a Scientologist, as I have absolutely zero first hand knowledge.
Notice that I said "My" interpretation of the Xenu story. By
including "My" I was hoping to encourage others to comment if they too
interpreted it the same way. What is your interpretation of the Xenu
story and its importance to the concept of thetan? Can the concept of
thetan exist and be understood by Scientologists without having the
knowledge of, or belief in, the Xenu story? You see, if I have it
totally wrong, I do not mind being corrected by you, or the ex's who
visit here. Let's compare my questioning to someone who knows
nothing about Christianity. It would be similar to asking Christians
if they could believe in the concept of soul without 100% believing in
the historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story.
Here, I'll go first. I, as a Christian, have my doubts about the
historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story. The inbreeding
difficulties the offspring of the next few generations would render
the entire population handicapped.
Now its your turn.
Do you believe in the historical accuracy of the Xenu story as
described in LRH's own handwriting? Do you believe that believing
that the Xenu story is historically accurate is imperative to the
understanding of the thetan?
Regarding your question about being selfrighteous and ignorant. I
admit that I have less knowledge than a Scientologist
husk
.....
>
> Regarding your question about being selfrighteous and ignorant. I
> admit that I have less knowledge than a Scientologist
continued......
so you might ask why I'm here. I'm here out of my concerns about the
published crimes of Scientology. Rather than criticize with having
zero knowledge of the subject, one has more integrity if one learns as
much as as possible from those willing to speak. This is the only
place where Scientologists are willing to have a conversation. I do
not mean to be selfrighteous. I only ask the questions that I would
be willing to answer about my own religion. There isn't a question I
ask that I would be uncomfortable answering about my own faith.
realpch
And Andrew Robertson says you don't have a sense of humor!
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
> aaron saxton wrote:
>
> > You have to laugh out at this RoadRunner guy.
>
> > Is this the best that OSA can do?
>
> > Oh, it is so pathetic.
>
> > I would think they could find someone who is a bit better than this...
>
> > What is worse, saving people in the cult if they are like roadrunner,
> > or putting up with people like roadrunner that do not have enough
> > brain cells to qualify for the cult in the first please, or to be a
> > critic but basically are allowed in?
>
> > I think of their poor children. God, I hope Roadrunner doesn't have
> > children.
>
> > Again it will be stated: Roadrunner, when you are ready to email me
> > forgot.
>
> > Until then, it would be a safe bet that you need to resume sucking on
> > your mothers teats, clearly that is the only place you get real
> > attention.
>
> > I know you won't email me.
>
> > Your a total coward. That is why no one takes your posts seriously.
>
> > Happy new year, chicken.
>
> Aaron, some of us think that RR, or The Snoeck Guy, is in fact, not OSA
> at all, but an extremely eccentric character who likes Scientology and
> appears to believe that he is the only one who has a real handle on it.
>
> Peach
> --
> Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
> Save some dough, save some grief:http://www.xenu.nethttp://www.scientology-lies.com
Telling the difference between a sociopath and an osa op is very
difficult..
but it is a distinction without a difference in both result and best
to deal with it..
Some people think that the scientology scam is a religion, what is
your point?
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
realpch
I've always been a proponent of at least trying to make a distinction
between freelance posters and actual Office of Special Affairs
operatives. Cuts down on the paranoia, and encourages critical thinking skills.
realpch
Yeah, I heard you! I have been reading your stuff over the years, and
wringing my hands over some of it!
:-D
Roadrunner
And are they not already?
>
> Now its your turn.
>
> Do you believe in the historical accuracy of the Xenu story as
> described in LRH's own handwriting? Do you believe that believing
> that the Xenu story is historically accurate is imperative to the
> understanding of the thetan?
>
> Regarding your question about being selfrighteous and ignorant. I
> admit that I have less knowledge than a Scientologist
Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy? Without understanding
the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
take these matters in the right context?
I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
RR
Roadrunner
The bulk of the people here are heavily anti-Scientology. Thus you
will get heavily twisted information and presentations. Why would you
ask other people in order to find out what the subject of Dianetics/
Scientology is about? See, if I would want to know about the Jesus
tale, I don't ask people about it, I would read the gospel tales,
including the one from Thomas and so on. Further I would try to
establish historical verification through study of the sources that
are available. If you want to know some essenses then read the first
book Dianetics.
Regarding published crimes, you should establish what is Scientology
and which man may do. Again you make the error to go to secondary
sources. No one can tell you truth, truth is for you to find out by
exercizing a lot more effort than asking anti-Scientologists about
matters.
RR
Roadrunner
You see, and who is being circular here??
.-)
RR
Dennis L Erlich
lerma
>> Telling the difference between a sociopath and an osa op is very
>> difficult..
I can see how that might be very difficult for Arnie.
>> but it is a distinction without a difference in both result and best
>> to deal with it..
Yah, easy answers. A no-brainer, for him. Just fling sliem at anyone
who challenges his bs.
>> Some people think that the scientology scam is a religion, what is
>> your point?
It is a religion to those who believe it is theirs.
peach
>I've always been a proponent of at least trying to make a distinction
>between freelance posters and actual Office of Special Affairs
>operatives.
Making such distinctions is not a part of Arnie's psychopathy.
This inability to make clear distinctions between fact and
discreditable conjecture is what has caused the rift between critics.
>Cuts down on the paranoia, and encourages critical thinking skills.
It's not what he's into ... lessening paranoia or encouraging critical
thinking. Quite the opposite.
D
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
realpch
Sweetie, I just dance with you. I no longer try to make sense of any of
your arguments!
:-D
realpch
It does make it hard to have an intelligent conversation if people are
unable to agree on basic terms of reality!
"Oh, look at that flying fish!"
"That's not a fish, it's a bird.
"No, it's a fish. Didn't you see it jump out of the water and then
splash back in?"
"I saw it flying. Therefore it's a bird."
Dennis L Erlich
>It does make it hard to have an intelligent conversation if people are
>unable to agree on basic terms of reality!
Like if distinctions don't matter, what does?
husk
Thank you for that. You answer reveals that you do not believe the
Xenu story is historically accurate, nor do you believe that believing
such is a requirement for understanding the existence of the thetan.
It would be interesting to here the opinion of other current and ex-
Scientologists here.
You suggest reading Dianetics to get a better grasp on the answers to
the questions I am asking. It was my understanding that Dianetics
deals with engrams and the human mind. Would it not be a waste of
time to read about engrams when it is the nature of the thetan and its
relationship to the Xenu story which perks my interest? It is also my
understanding that a true discussion of these topics are only
available in the OT level documentation and not offered in my local
library. You see, I can sign out a Bible from my local library, but
would highly doubt that I would be able to find OT level documentation
there.
realpch
That's how I feel about it!
:-D
husk
......
> Regarding published crimes, you should establish what is Scientology
> and which man may do. Again you make the error to go to secondary
> sources. No one can tell you truth, truth is for you to find out by
> exercizing a lot more effort than asking anti-Scientologists about
> matters.
>
> RR
The only people you can ask about crimes are those who have had crimes
committed against them. For the most part these are current and ex-
Scientologists, and therefore it is logical that they be asked. The
criminal, who commits the crime, would probably be most reluctant to
answer. Aaron Saxton is an exception to this.
If I was to ask about child abuse in the Catholic church, would I be
more inclined to believe the children or the priest?
You do have a point about what is man's responsibility and what is the
organization's. The Catholic Church has no policy permitting the
molestation of children, whereas the SeaOrg does have policy pressuing
pregnant SeaOrg females to have abortions.
http://wiki.whyweprotest.net/Evidence_of_coerced_abortions Now you
may argue that this is a result of DM distorting the original intent
of LRH, but DM is in charge and he represents all active
Scientologists. Therefore if one is an active Scientologist (meaning
contributing donations to the organization) then one is guilty by
association.
Peter Schilte
Yes, of course you didn't mention those MB's. People might come to a
different conclusion than your one-sided view. Now they don't know the
whole story, only your side of it. How clever. NOT!
> But you went on this travel of 'Scientology' ONLY because you ex-
> girlfriend successfully quit the drug habit after having been on the
> Narconon program.
Manipulative remark as I told you over and over again why I got
involved with scientology.
"Roadrunner Tech" at its worst.
> You could not have that,
You know that is a lie.
> and so you had to put her
> down...
You know that is a lie too.
> yeah, you found your purpose in life...
>
Just one of many, being in this case exposing the scam of scientology.
Like "The Tech", your "Roadrunner Tech" is failing too. All it does is
expose you to be a manipulative and ignorant lying moron with social
issues.
Well done, Michel!
Peter
"That which works in $cientology
is not unique to $cientology,
and that which is unique to $cientology
does not work."
- Prufrock
Peter Schilte
Answering a question with two counter questions, without giving a
straight answer: "Roadrunner Tech"!
> I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>
> RR
It is about mind control and brainwashing into believing one doesn't
believe in anything and that Dianetics and scientology are not about
beliefs. 1400 pages about a subject you don't believe in: How
manipulated can a person be.....
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<654159ff-eaf5-4620...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy?
l. ron hubbard, founder/creator of dn and scn. i
guess you missed that primary source during your
research.
|Without understanding
| the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
| take these matters in the right context?
but scnists refuse to talk about these things. why
don't you explain what we need to know to put these
matters in the right context?
that's a rhetorical question, you know. you don't
have to answer because we all know what you'll say.
| I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
| Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
do you accept that engrams and thetans exist? if
so, that's a BELIEF because there is no evidence
that they are real except that hubbard said so. not
scientific proof.
as for me, i BELIEVE i'll have an omelet for
breakfast....
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<3abe06e2-9798-45ae...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| ...and they go round and round and round this thing called
| Scientology, a subject they call a scam, and waste an amazing amount
| of time to chat about it. Now how insane isn't that...
and here you are, right in the middle of all that
round and round, wasting time. how insane is that?
Roadrunner
Of course you do as you do, as you don't want them to make sense. Just
imagine having to respond to them. Aaron also does not choose to do
that. He reads like a badly written book, and still thinks he has some
sort of credibility... well, have you heroes...
RR
>
> :-D
>
> Peach
> --
> Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Roadrunner
Somehow you think that that people don't see your manipulative
misrepresentations. You ignore that what I wrote, you just IGNORED
it...
>
> > But you went on this travel of 'Scientology' ONLY because you ex-
> > girlfriend successfully quit the drug habit after having been on the
> > Narconon program.
>
> Manipulative remark as I told you over and over again why I got
> involved with scientology.
> "Roadrunner Tech" at its worst.
It is fact as you fail to explain the miracle of your ex-girlfriend
kicking the drug habit after following an, as you call it, a scam
program from Narconon. Where she failed 4 times elsewhere.
You should be very appreciative towards Narconon, but you attack it
all. Why not coming clean? Your ex-girlfriend is making it on her own,
she does not need you, so of course you need to put her down.
>
> > You could not have that,
>
> You know that is a lie.
>
> > and so you had to put her
> > down...
>
> You know that is a lie too.
Per the data at hand, this is FACT!
>
> > yeah, you found your purpose in life...
>
> Just one of many, being in this case exposing the scam of scientology.
A scam that got your ex-girlfriend OFF DRUGS!
>
> Like "The Tech", your "Roadrunner Tech" is failing too. All it does is
> expose you to be a manipulative and ignorant lying moron with social
> issues.
Your hero Aaron is also running, Aaron the chicken and the coward!
RR
> Well done, Michel!
>
> Peter
>
> "That which works in $cientology
> is not unique to $cientology,
> and that which is unique to $cientology
> does not work."
> - Prufrock
>
> http://www.scamofscientology.nl- Dölj citerad text -
Roadrunner
> On Dec 29, 6:39 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ......
>
> > Regarding published crimes, you should establish what is Scientology
> > and which man may do. Again you make the error to go to secondary
> > sources. No one can tell you truth, truth is for you to find out by
> > exercizing a lot more effort than asking anti-Scientologists about
> > matters.
>
> > RR
>
> The only people you can ask about crimes are those who have had crimes
> committed against them. For the most part these are current and ex-
> Scientologists, and therefore it is logical that they be asked. The
> criminal, who commits the crime, would probably be most reluctant to
> answer. Aaron Saxton is an exception to this.
He is pretty much a fraud as he is running away from me. Grand sources
you choose...
>
> If I was to ask about child abuse in the Catholic church, would I be
> more inclined to believe the children or the priest?
Data does need to be evaluated, does it not?
>
> You do have a point about what is man's responsibility and what is the
> organization's. The Catholic Church has no policy permitting the
> molestation of children, whereas the SeaOrg does have policy pressuing
> pregnant SeaOrg females to have abortions.http://wiki.whyweprotest.net/Evidence_of_coerced_abortions
What policy is that? Show us...
You do not have a clue about the subject of Dianetics, you really
don't.
> Now you
> may argue that this is a result of DM distorting the original intent
> of LRH, but DM is in charge and he represents all active
> Scientologists. Therefore if one is an active Scientologist (meaning
> contributing donations to the organization) then one is guilty by
> association.
You have no policy to show... you have ecce homo...
RR
Roadrunner
I did not say that, I said it is irrelevant if it be so or not. Don't
change what I say.
>, nor do you believe that believing
> such is a requirement for understanding the existence of the thetan.
Correct.
> It would be interesting to here the opinion of other current and ex-
> Scientologists here.
Why? All you get here is people who either don't even understand what
it all is about, or those that were 'followers'...
>
> You suggest reading Dianetics to get a better grasp on the answers to
> the questions I am asking. It was my understanding that Dianetics
> deals with engrams and the human mind. Would it not be a waste of
> time to read about engrams when it is the nature of the thetan and its
> relationship to the Xenu story which perks my interest?
No, as without having any basic understanding of these subjects you
will never be able to put them into the right perspective. You will
never know the difference from one thing to the other.
> It is also my
> understanding that a true discussion of these topics are only
> available in the OT level documentation and not offered in my local
> library.
So you choose to bicycle instead of first learning to walk... this
will get you very far...
>You see, I can sign out a Bible from my local library, but
> would highly doubt that I would be able to find OT level documentation
> there.-
May be in the Gnostic criptures...
RR
Roadrunner
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:29:58 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <654159ff-eaf5-4620-8f20-955d29f8d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
>
> [...]
>
> | Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy?
>
> l. ron hubbard, founder/creator of dn and scn. i
> guess you missed that primary source during your
> research.
Without basic understanding of these topics, you still deem you are
able to get matters into the right perspective. That is being
selfrigheous...
>
> |Without understanding
> | the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
> | take these matters in the right context?
>
> but scnists refuse to talk about these things. why
> don't you explain what we need to know to put these
> matters in the right context?
>
> that's a rhetorical question, you know. you don't
> have to answer because we all know what you'll say.
Read Dianetics... understand the purpose and the aim of processing.
>
> | I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> | Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>
> do you accept that engrams and thetans exist? if
> so, that's a BELIEF because there is no evidence
> that they are real except that hubbard said so. not
> scientific proof.
The concept of engrams confirms very accurately and explains why that
which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem...
>
> as for me, i BELIEVE i'll have an omelet for
> breakfast....
Yeah, and is it really, how do you know? I only appears to you as
such. If you look into the microscope there is no omelet or anything
resembling it.
RR
Roadrunner
> On 30 dec, 00:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On 29 Dec, 21:49, husk <h...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Do you believe in the historical accuracy of the Xenu story as
> > > described in LRH's own handwriting? Do you believe that believing
> > > that the Xenu story is historically accurate is imperative to the
> > > understanding of the thetan?
>
> > > Regarding your question about being selfrighteous and ignorant. I
> > > admit that I have less knowledge than a Scientologist
>
> > Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy? Without understanding
> > the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
> > take these matters in the right context?
>
> Answering a question with two counter questions, without giving a
> straight answer: "Roadrunner Tech"!
Your level of intelligence and understanding of research limits itself
in that you wish yes's and no's that you can box up. Where my intent
is understanding of the concept of these matters.
If you wish to call that 'Roadrunner Tech', then indeed this is very
accurate, thank you kindly.
>
> > I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> > Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>
> > RR
>
> It is about mind control and brainwashing into believing one doesn't
> believe in anything and that Dianetics and scientology are not about
> beliefs. 1400 pages about a subject you don't believe in: How
> manipulated can a person be.....
And here again we see a marvelous example of how your limited
intelligence and education urges you to present this interesting
twist...
RR
>
> Peter
>
> "That which works in $cientology
> is not unique to $cientology,
> and that which is unique to $cientology
> does not work."
> - Prufrock
>
Roadrunner
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:04:55 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <3abe06e2-9798-45ae-9c17-1f7f9cbf7...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>:
>
> [...]
>
> | ...and they go round and round and round this thing called
> | Scientology, a subject they call a scam, and waste an amazing amount
> | of time to chat about it. Now how insane isn't that...
>
> and here you are, right in the middle of all that
> round and round, wasting time. how insane is that?
Tsk, tsk, I USE the information that I gather very nicely, thank you
very much... how far did you come with it? See, this would an
interesting stick for measuring usefulness.
RR
Barbara Schwarz
> Y
Aaron, the chicken is you. You apparently never were a Scientologist.
We have to listed to your crap because you failed to route out of the
SO with 18 at the latest.
You should have been routed off. Scientology has its bad reputation
because of non-Scientologists like you.
It is not L. Ron Hubbard who is to blame but non-Scientologists who
are in the orgs to forge, alter and destroy and then to leave and to
blame what they have done on L. Ron Hubbard. Old story. You and others
like you are to be blamed.
Your underwear story that you told the female reporter is really
disgusting. Hundred-thousands of young men were in Scientology and
they did just fine with normal underwear and a girlfriend/wife and
nobody but perverts had your problem.
--
That lawless forger, defamer and cyber stalker Neal Warren aka Greg
Hall aka Ron Wilson aka Wilbur Hubbard and numerous other socks is
homeless for over 20 years and calls me a baglady despite I have a
nice big home. What a disturbed and insane bum and creep he is. If
attorney Charles Novin should lose the case than only because Neal
Warren is criminal and causes him troubles. He wants to support
Charles Novin but behaves WORSE than the people that Charles Novin
tries to stop. A stupid and criminal "friend" is a lot troubles than
an intelligent enemy.
Starts on page 13 about Neal Warren aka Greg Hall who thinks he can't
be sued or prosecuted because he is homeless on a tiny boat.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-04-27-Osterwald
(Countersuit filed by attorney Joseph A. Manzo on behalf of his
client. Case likely will be heard in federal court.)
Barbara Schwarz
Anonymous
Does it make you feel less of a fraud to put other people down who are
tons more worthy than you on every front, phony reverend?
-Anonymous
husk
> On 30 Dec, 01:40, husk <h...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for that. You answer reveals that you do not believe the
> > Xenu story is historically accurate
>
> I did not say that, I said it is irrelevant if it be so or not. Don't
> change what I say.
So you're not admitting whether or not you believe it is historically
factual, I see that now.
> >, nor do you believe that believing
> > such is a requirement for understanding the existence of the thetan.
>
> Correct.
>
> > It would be interesting to here the opinion of other current and ex-
> > Scientologists here.
>
> Why? All you get here is people who either don't even understand what
> it all is about, or those that were 'followers'...
The reason is that much is made out of keeping the Xenu story secret.
If the majority of those Scientologists and exes agree that the
historical accuracy of the Xenu story is irrelevant then I would
propose that the efforts to keep the story secret are misguided and
cause Scientology more harm than good. Why doesn't the Church just
admit that the story exists and is a type of Creation myth and leave
it at that. It just does them so much harm playing the we don't
believe that, crap.
Roadrunner
> On Dec 30, 4:01 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Dec, 01:40, husk <h...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> ........
> > > Thank you for that. You answer reveals that you do not believe the
> > > Xenu story is historically accurate
>
> > I did not say that, I said it is irrelevant if it be so or not. Don't
> > change what I say.
>
> So you're not admitting whether or not you believe it is historically
> factual, I see that now.
It simply DOES NOT INTEREST ME, clear enough? Keep out the belief
factor, it doesn't get anyone anywhere.
>
> > >, nor do you believe that believing
> > > such is a requirement for understanding the existence of the thetan.
>
> > Correct.
>
> > > It would be interesting to here the opinion of other current and ex-
> > > Scientologists here.
>
> > Why? All you get here is people who either don't even understand what
> > it all is about, or those that were 'followers'...
>
> The reason is that much is made out of keeping the Xenu story secret.
Non one in particular made that a big fuss about the publication
'History of Man'. Same stuff basically.
> If the majority of those Scientologists and exes agree that the
> historical accuracy of the Xenu story is irrelevant then I would
> propose that the efforts to keep the story secret are misguided and
> cause Scientology more harm than good. Why doesn't the Church just
> admit that the story exists and is a type of Creation myth and leave
> it at that. It just does them so much harm playing the we don't
> believe that, crap.
Because it triggers our track back into time. The ONLY reason why I
address it is because that news is already out literally all over the
place. I can't take that away, what I can do however is present a more
truthful perspective of it.
RR
Peter Schilte
No. I gave an explanation to the WHY you didn't mention any of the
MB's by name, and it is a different explanation than yours. Fact
remains that people hear from you one side of the story and have to
get through a lot of trouble to find the other side of the story.
That, Michel, isn't clever, and it is manipulative.
>
>
> > > But you went on this travel of 'Scientology' ONLY because you ex-
> > > girlfriend successfully quit the drug habit after having been on the
> > > Narconon program.
>
> > Manipulative remark as I told you over and over again why I got
> > involved with scientology.
> > "Roadrunner Tech" at its worst.
>
> It is fact as you fail to explain the miracle of your ex-girlfriend
> kicking the drug habit after following an, as you call it, a scam
> program from Narconon. Where she failed 4 times elsewhere.
>
I explained over and over again why I don't consider it a miracle. It
seems to be beyond your comprehension, as you keep insisting it was a
miracle. Which it isn't. So there is no miracle to explain.
> You should be very appreciative towards Narconon, but you attack it
> all. Why not coming clean? Your ex-girlfriend is making it on her own,
> she does not need you, so of course you need to put her down.
>
Maybe you understand what I mean with this little story?
A criminal saves me from drowning. So I am grateful that he saved me.
But I refuse to ignore that he is a criminal, and I warn other people
against his criminal activities. I am still very appreciative that he
saved me from drowning, but I do not turn a blind eye to his criminal
activities.
>
>
> > > You could not have that,
>
> > You know that is a lie.
>
> > > and so you had to put her
> > > down...
>
> > You know that is a lie too.
>
> Per the data at hand, this is FACT!
>
Fact? Nope. Assumption? Yes. In your limited view there is only one
explanation: Yours.
>
>
> > > yeah, you found your purpose in life...
>
> > Just one of many, being in this case exposing the scam of scientology.
>
> A scam that got your ex-girlfriend OFF DRUGS!
>
Yes, that is true.
>
>
> > Like "The Tech", your "Roadrunner Tech" is failing too. All it does is
> > expose you to be a manipulative and ignorant lying moron with social
> > issues.
>
> Your hero Aaron is also running, Aaron the chicken and the coward!
>
Pathetic remark.
Peter Schilte
> On 30 Dec, 06:37, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 30 dec, 00:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 21:49, husk <h...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > > > Do you believe in the historical accuracy of the Xenu story as
> > > > described in LRH's own handwriting? Do you believe that believing
> > > > that the Xenu story is historically accurate is imperative to the
> > > > understanding of the thetan?
>
> > > > Regarding your question about being selfrighteous and ignorant. I
> > > > admit that I have less knowledge than a Scientologist
>
> > > Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy? Without understanding
> > > the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
> > > take these matters in the right context?
>
> > Answering a question with two counter questions, without giving a
> > straight answer: "Roadrunner Tech"!
>
> Your level of intelligence and understanding of research limits itself
> in that you wish yes's and no's that you can box up. Where my intent
> is understanding of the concept of these matters.
>
It is high enough to see through your manipulations when you avoid to
give a straight answer to the question and instead respond with two
counter questions.
Your "intention" is unimportant. It is your action that is.
> If you wish to call that 'Roadrunner Tech', then indeed this is very
> accurate, thank you kindly.
>
Nothing to thank me for, as "Roadrunner Tech" doesn't work.
>
>
> > > I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> > > Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>
> > > RR
>
> > It is about mind control and brainwashing into believing one doesn't
> > believe in anything and that Dianetics and scientology are not about
> > beliefs. 1400 pages about a subject you don't believe in: How
> > manipulated can a person be.....
>
> And here again we see a marvelous example of how your limited
> intelligence and education urges you to present this interesting
> twist...
>
And you still insist you don't believe in anything? You BELIEVE in my
"limited intelligence and education". You BELIEVE I HAD to put my ex-
girlfriend down. You BELIEVE Narconon getting her off drugs is a
miracle.
You believe a lot for someone that don;t believe in anything......
Roadrunner
Join these damn forums and ask the questions that I forwarded, people
will very soon get their so sought after confirmation. By the way I
haven't seen any query from you about the ESMB summary...
You were given the reason why these forums were not directly linked
to, live with it...
Manipulate as much as you choose. The accounts of experiences are VERY
accurate.
>
>
>
> > > > But you went on this travel of 'Scientology' ONLY because you ex-
> > > > girlfriend successfully quit the drug habit after having been on the
> > > > Narconon program.
>
> > > Manipulative remark as I told you over and over again why I got
> > > involved with scientology.
> > > "Roadrunner Tech" at its worst.
>
> > It is fact as you fail to explain the miracle of your ex-girlfriend
> > kicking the drug habit after following an, as you call it, a scam
> > program from Narconon. Where she failed 4 times elsewhere.
>
> I explained over and over again why I don't consider it a miracle. It
> seems to be beyond your comprehension, as you keep insisting it was a
> miracle. Which it isn't. So there is no miracle to explain.
You are just in plain denial. It deems you being insane, simple as
that...
>
> > You should be very appreciative towards Narconon, but you attack it
> > all. Why not coming clean? Your ex-girlfriend is making it on her own,
> > she does not need you, so of course you need to put her down.
>
> Maybe you understand what I mean with this little story?
> A criminal saves me from drowning. So I am grateful that he saved me.
> But I refuse to ignore that he is a criminal, and I warn other people
> against his criminal activities. I am still very appreciative that he
> saved me from drowning, but I do not turn a blind eye to his criminal
> activities.
>
>
>
> > > > You could not have that,
>
> > > You know that is a lie.
>
> > > > and so you had to put her
> > > > down...
>
> > > You know that is a lie too.
>
> > Per the data at hand, this is FACT!
>
> Fact? Nope. Assumption? Yes. In your limited view there is only one
> explanation: Yours.
We have your displayed behaviour, that's ALL the evidence we need...
>
>
>
> > > > yeah, you found your purpose in life...
>
> > > Just one of many, being in this case exposing the scam of scientology.
>
> > A scam that got your ex-girlfriend OFF DRUGS!
>
> Yes, that is true.
Thus a miracle, but you deny that. Give me a f***ing break, you
lunatic.
>
>
>
> > > Like "The Tech", your "Roadrunner Tech" is failing too. All it does is
> > > expose you to be a manipulative and ignorant lying moron with social
> > > issues.
>
> > Your hero Aaron is also running, Aaron the chicken and the coward!
>
> Pathetic remark.
FACT!!!!!
Now WHERE, oh WHERE are the responses of you hero Aaron!!!!! The
coward and the chicken. He is f****ing more dishonest than your St.
Gerry. He is a wind that will blow over as his tales do not get
confirmed, and he boldly REFUSES to account for ANYTHING. Sooner or
later the media will pick this up.
RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:31 pm, aaron saxton <aaronsaxt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Y
>
> Aaron, the chicken is you. You apparently never were a Scientologist.
> We have to listed to your crap because you failed to route out of the
> SO with 18 at the latest.
> You should have been routed off. Scientology has its bad reputation
> because of non-Scientologists like you.
>
> It is not L. Ron Hubbard who is to blame but non-Scientologists who
> are in the orgs to forge, alter and destroy and then to leave and to
> blame what they have done on L. Ron Hubbard. Old story. You and others
> like you are to be blamed.
>
> Your underwear story that you told the female reporter is really
> disgusting. Hundred-thousands of young men were in Scientology and
> they did just fine with normal underwear and a girlfriend/wife and
> nobody but perverts had your problem.
I think it suffices to establish that he is running away from me. He
is a wind that will blow over, as basically all he can do is make
unsubstantiated claims. Even Android Cat threw that at him. St. Aaron
is nothing to worry about...
I also have started to seriously question his claimed previous status
within the organization. See, he REFUSES to respond to any of my
queries and requests for claification. Of course if he is making up
tales, then how could he respond to me!!! It would become so very
obvious that would be a fraud.
RR
>
> --
> That lawless forger, defamer and cyber stalker Neal Warren aka Greg
> Hall aka Ron Wilson aka Wilbur Hubbard and numerous other socks is
> homeless for over 20 years and calls me a baglady despite I have a
> nice big home. What a disturbed and insane bum and creep he is. If
> attorney Charles Novin should lose the case than only because Neal
> Warren is criminal and causes him troubles. He wants to support
> Charles Novin but behaves WORSE than the people that Charles Novin
> tries to stop. A stupid and criminal "friend" is a lot troubles than
> an intelligent enemy.
>
> Starts on page 13 about Neal Warren aka Greg Hall who thinks he can't
> be sued or prosecuted because he is homeless on a tiny boat.
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-04-27-Ost...
Peter Schilte
Accurate, as in: One sided, subjective, a one man's opinion.
Funny how you make a difference between your own experiences, which I
should take seriously, and on the other hand experiences from other
people, let's say in the organization of scientology, which are "just
stories from people who do not understand the subject", or whatever
reason you come up with. Why should I take your experiences at face
value and do the opposite with the experiences of people reporting
from within the organization of scientology? You are applying double
standards again.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > But you went on this travel of 'Scientology' ONLY because you ex-
> > > > > girlfriend successfully quit the drug habit after having been on the
> > > > > Narconon program.
>
> > > > Manipulative remark as I told you over and over again why I got
> > > > involved with scientology.
> > > > "Roadrunner Tech" at its worst.
>
> > > It is fact as you fail to explain the miracle of your ex-girlfriend
> > > kicking the drug habit after following an, as you call it, a scam
> > > program from Narconon. Where she failed 4 times elsewhere.
>
> > I explained over and over again why I don't consider it a miracle. It
> > seems to be beyond your comprehension, as you keep insisting it was a
> > miracle. Which it isn't. So there is no miracle to explain.
>
> You are just in plain denial. It deems you being insane, simple as
> that...
>
IAW, when someone disagrees with you about what you insist is a
miracle, he MUST be insane. Simple? Yes, simple minded indeed.
>
>
>
>
> > > You should be very appreciative towards Narconon, but you attack it
> > > all. Why not coming clean? Your ex-girlfriend is making it on her own,
> > > she does not need you, so of course you need to put her down.
>
> > Maybe you understand what I mean with this little story?
> > A criminal saves me from drowning. So I am grateful that he saved me.
> > But I refuse to ignore that he is a criminal, and I warn other people
> > against his criminal activities. I am still very appreciative that he
> > saved me from drowning, but I do not turn a blind eye to his criminal
> > activities.
>
> > > > > You could not have that,
>
> > > > You know that is a lie.
>
> > > > > and so you had to put her
> > > > > down...
>
> > > > You know that is a lie too.
>
> > > Per the data at hand, this is FACT!
>
> > Fact? Nope. Assumption? Yes. In your limited view there is only one
> > explanation: Yours.
>
> We have your displayed behaviour, that's ALL the evidence we need...
>
No evidence, just your opinion, based on a very biased and
preconceived view of matters, as you were never witness with our
conversations. If that is all the evidence you need, you expose
yourself being not interested in fact finding. Go figure how that
makes look all of your other claims.....
>
>
> > > > > yeah, you found your purpose in life...
>
> > > > Just one of many, being in this case exposing the scam of scientology.
>
> > > A scam that got your ex-girlfriend OFF DRUGS!
>
> > Yes, that is true.
>
> Thus a miracle, but you deny that. Give me a f***ing break, you
> lunatic.
>
See? Your social inabilities prevent to recognize the facts: She got
of drugs by Narconon, which I told you myself. YOU want it to be
classified as a miracle, which I stated it isn't. That makes YOU the
lunatic, not me. But I understand that it is because it was Narconon
that got her of drugs it MUST be a miracle. Having investigated its
success rates, I tend to agree it was, although not in the way you see
it.
>
>
> > > > Like "The Tech", your "Roadrunner Tech" is failing too. All it does is
> > > > expose you to be a manipulative and ignorant lying moron with social
> > > > issues.
>
> > > Your hero Aaron is also running, Aaron the chicken and the coward!
>
> > Pathetic remark.
>
> FACT!!!!!
>
Nope. Just a pathetic remark from a pathetic person.
> Now WHERE, oh WHERE are the responses of you hero Aaron!!!!!
I am not very interested in his responses, so your claim he is my
hero, is ridiculous.
> The
> coward and the chicken. He is f****ing more dishonest than your St.
> Gerry. He is a wind that will blow over as his tales do not get
> confirmed, and he boldly REFUSES to account for ANYTHING. Sooner or
> later the media will pick this up.
>
And reveal the facts you mean? What if his claims turn out to be true?
Are you going to apologize for your pathetic behavior?
"Scientology's upper level spiritual therapy is essentially dead space
alien souls exorcism."
- Chuck Beatty
Roadrunner
> On 31 dec, 11:58, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Your hero Aaron is also running, Aaron the chicken and the coward!
>
> > > Pathetic remark.
>
> > FACT!!!!!
>
> Nope. Just a pathetic remark from a pathetic person.
>
> > Now WHERE, oh WHERE are the responses of you hero Aaron!!!!!
>
> I am not very interested in his responses, so your claim he is my
> hero, is ridiculous.
>
> > The
> > coward and the chicken. He is f****ing more dishonest than your St.
> > Gerry. He is a wind that will blow over as his tales do not get
> > confirmed, and he boldly REFUSES to account for ANYTHING. Sooner or
> > later the media will pick this up.
>
> And reveal the facts you mean? What if his claims turn out to be true?
> Are you going to apologize for your pathetic behavior?
Aaron is nowhere to be seen, he ran away and clarified NOTHING... I
think Android Cat has been around a bit longer than you (one of your
pals nonetheless), anyhow he also made the observation why his
revelations would not have not have come into the open much earlier.
You assume a negative to be true and then ask me if I am going to
apoligize if....?? What's this???
His claims can not be true as Xenu does not belong in any FO, BFO,
FMO, FPGMO, or any of these administrative issue-types... It is a
tech matter...
RR
Roadrunner
> On 30 dec, 22:16, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 30 Dec, 06:37, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 30 dec, 00:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 29 Dec, 21:49, husk <h...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > > Do you believe in the historical accuracy of the Xenu story as
> > > > > described in LRH's own handwriting? Do you believe that believing
> > > > > that the Xenu story is historically accurate is imperative to the
> > > > > understanding of the thetan?
>
> > > > > Regarding your question about being selfrighteous and ignorant. I
> > > > > admit that I have less knowledge than a Scientologist
>
> > > > Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy? Without understanding
> > > > the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
> > > > take these matters in the right context?
>
> > > Answering a question with two counter questions, without giving a
> > > straight answer: "Roadrunner Tech"!
>
> > Your level of intelligence and understanding of research limits itself
> > in that you wish yes's and no's that you can box up. Where my intent
> > is understanding of the concept of these matters.
>
> It is high enough to see through your manipulations when you avoid to
> give a straight answer to the question and instead respond with two
> counter questions.
> Your "intention" is unimportant. It is your action that is.
Totally amazing!!! You deny everything and walk in the blind. You
really have no intelligence... You want boxes, THAT's your level...
>
> > If you wish to call that 'Roadrunner Tech', then indeed this is very
> > accurate, thank you kindly.
>
> Nothing to thank me for, as "Roadrunner Tech" doesn't work.
Not on simple minded fools like you, of course not...
>
> > > > I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> > > > Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > It is about mind control and brainwashing into believing one doesn't
> > > believe in anything and that Dianetics and scientology are not about
> > > beliefs. 1400 pages about a subject you don't believe in: How
> > > manipulated can a person be.....
>
> > And here again we see a marvelous example of how your limited
> > intelligence and education urges you to present this interesting
> > twist...
>
> And you still insist you don't believe in anything? You BELIEVE in my
> "limited intelligence and education". You BELIEVE I HAD to put my ex-
> girlfriend down. You BELIEVE Narconon getting her off drugs is a
> miracle.
> You believe a lot for someone that don;t believe in anything......
Whahawhahaaahaaa... you know nothing of the study of human behaviour.
No, I don't believe in your 'limited intelligence and education', you
just display is all over the place, it is an OBSERVED FACT...
You will deny anything probably until the day you'll leave this
planet, and you will then leave as an ignorant. Finding another game
to play, an aberrated game at that...
Your logic is really a child's logic. You just plainly DENY that waht
you don't like... No wonder why you put your ex-girlfriend down.
RR
Peter Schilte
Getting frustrated by that, you address the wrong person: I couldn't
care less.
Peter
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<7437d98b-bd09-441d...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
| On 30 Dec, 14:05, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:29:58 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > <654159ff-eaf5-4620-8f20-955d29f8d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > �| �Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy?
| >
| > � � � � l. ron hubbard, founder/creator of dn and scn. i
| > � � � � guess you missed that primary source during your
| > � � � � research.
|
| Without basic understanding of these topics, you still deem you are
| able to get matters into the right perspective. That is being
| selfrigheous...
after being asked numerous times to explain such
things to us ignorant folks, you never do. that is
being evasive and self-serving.
| > �|Without understanding
| > �| �the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
| > �| �take these matters in the right context?
| >
| > � � � � but scnists refuse to talk about these things. why
| > � � � � don't you explain what we need to know to put these
| > � � � � matters in the right context?
| >
| > � � � � that's a rhetorical question, you know. you don't
| > � � � � have to answer because we all know what you'll say.
|
| Read Dianetics... understand the purpose and the aim of processing.
i have read it. after i understand the purpose and
the aim of processing, then what?
| > �| �I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
| > �| �Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
| >
| > � � � � do you accept that engrams and thetans exist? if
| > � � � � so, that's a BELIEF because there is no evidence
| > � � � � that they are real except that hubbard said so. not
| > � � � � scientific proof.
|
| The concept of engrams confirms very accurately
how? please provide some evidence. otherwise engrams
are just a belief. what about thetans?
|and explains why that
| which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
| evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem...
how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
scientific evidence in many different scientific
disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
sense).
| > � � � � as for me, i BELIEVE i'll have an omelet for
| > � � � � breakfast....
|
| Yeah, and is it really, how do you know? I only appears to you as
| such. If you look into the microscope there is no omelet or anything
| resembling it.
if you look at yourself under a microscope, i'm sure
there is no YOU or anything resembling YOU. but
then, i think that body thetans cannot be seen
except by ot's, no microscope necessary.
Peter Schilte
....says Michel Snoeck, putting people in boxes all of the time.
>
>
> > > If you wish to call that 'Roadrunner Tech', then indeed this is very
> > > accurate, thank you kindly.
>
> > Nothing to thank me for, as "Roadrunner Tech" doesn't work.
>
> Not on simple minded fools like you, of course not...
>
Whatever....
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> > > > > Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>
> > > > > RR
>
> > > > It is about mind control and brainwashing into believing one doesn't
> > > > believe in anything and that Dianetics and scientology are not about
> > > > beliefs. 1400 pages about a subject you don't believe in: How
> > > > manipulated can a person be.....
>
> > > And here again we see a marvelous example of how your limited
> > > intelligence and education urges you to present this interesting
> > > twist...
>
> > And you still insist you don't believe in anything? You BELIEVE in my
> > "limited intelligence and education". You BELIEVE I HAD to put my ex-
> > girlfriend down. You BELIEVE Narconon getting her off drugs is a
> > miracle.
> > You believe a lot for someone that don;t believe in anything......
>
> Whahawhahaaahaaa... you know nothing of the study of human behaviour.
Of course you know everything about me? LOL!
> No, I don't believe in your 'limited intelligence and education', you
> just display is all over the place, it is an OBSERVED FACT...
>
And was your observation with an objective, open mind? Nope, because
that's where you fail time and time again.
What was it that you said about facts again?
> You will deny anything probably until the day you'll leave this
> planet, and you will then leave as an ignorant. Finding another game
> to play, an aberrated game at that...
>
Yeah right. Please keep on exposing yourself. You believe in miracles,
that's for sure. Well, I do not.
> Your logic is really a child's logic. You just plainly DENY that waht
> you don't like...
Nope. I deny what is idiocy, spouted by a preconceived ignorant
moron.
> No wonder why you put your ex-girlfriend down.
>
Whatever. Using "Roadrunner Tech" wont take you anywhere with me,
Michel. Insisting that I put my ex-girlfriend down wont help you
either. Talking about child's logic: You are the one repeating over
and over and over and over again that I put her down in a futile
attempt to put ME down. Only idiots like you think that repeating
idiocy eventually will make it look less idiotic or even true.
You don't know me, you don't know her, you don't know how we talked,
and here you are, claiming to know everything. Poor sod......
delusional as ever.
Peter
"You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you
mocked up your past lives.
Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no
uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the
bridge.
He even told you he was selling you a bridge."
- Ladybird
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<3f0b23c7-02b9-4b24...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>:
| On 30 Dec, 14:08, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:04:55 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > <3abe06e2-9798-45ae-9c17-1f7f9cbf7...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > �| �...and they go round and round and round this thing called
| > �| �Scientology, a subject they call a scam, and waste an amazing amount
| > �| �of time to chat about it. Now how insane isn't that...
| >
| > � � � � and here you are, right in the middle of all that
| > � � � � round and round, wasting time. how insane is that?
|
| Tsk, tsk, I USE the information that I gather very nicely, thank you
| very much... how far did you come with it? See, this would an
| interesting stick for measuring usefulness.
you ASSume i've not used the info that i've gathered
here...and you are wrong. what have you done with it??
Roadrunner
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:10:32 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> <7437d98b-bd09-441d-803f-e0ecb4742...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
> | On 30 Dec, 14:05, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
> | > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:29:58 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
> | > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
> | > <654159ff-eaf5-4620-8f20-955d29f8d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy?
> | >
> | > l. ron hubbard, founder/creator of dn and scn. i
> | > guess you missed that primary source during your
> | > research.
> |
> | Without basic understanding of these topics, you still deem you are
> | able to get matters into the right perspective. That is being
> | selfrigheous...
>
> after being asked numerous times to explain such
> things to us ignorant folks, you never do. that is
> being evasive and self-serving.
I am not your keeper... get basic understanding of the topic, I won't
give you that... I am not into the business to disprove your
negative...
>
> | > |Without understanding
> | > | the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
> | > | take these matters in the right context?
> | >
> | > but scnists refuse to talk about these things. why
> | > don't you explain what we need to know to put these
> | > matters in the right context?
> | >
> | > that's a rhetorical question, you know. you don't
> | > have to answer because we all know what you'll say.
> |
> | Read Dianetics... understand the purpose and the aim of processing.
>
> i have read it. after i understand the purpose and
> the aim of processing, then what?
Let's give a rhetorical respons, you wouldn't ask that if you had a
concept of that claimed understanding after reading.
>
> | > | I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
> | > | Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
> | >
> | > do you accept that engrams and thetans exist? if
> | > so, that's a BELIEF because there is no evidence
> | > that they are real except that hubbard said so. not
> | > scientific proof.
> |
> | The concept of engrams confirms very accurately
>
> how? please provide some evidence. otherwise engrams
> are just a belief. what about thetans?
Pretty easy. Donation of body parts of deceased, curious enough the
personality of the donor travels to the receiver of the body part.
>
> |and explains why that
> | which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
> | evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem...
>
> how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
of any use to you.
>
> evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
> scientific evidence in many different scientific
> disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
> engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
> not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
> sense).
The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
with a creational view of origin. And indeed I have observed that
engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
>
> | > as for me, i BELIEVE i'll have an omelet for
> | > breakfast....
> |
> | Yeah, and is it really, how do you know? I only appears to you as
> | such. If you look into the microscope there is no omelet or anything
> | resembling it.
>
> if you look at yourself under a microscope, i'm sure
> there is no YOU or anything resembling YOU. but
> then
If your microscope is strong enough it will...
>, i think that body thetans cannot be seen
> except by ot's, no microscope necessary.
Indeed, YOU don't even need eyes, the blind and the denier don't need
these to adopt anything of their choosing that they then can
worship...
RR
Mike Thomas
Hash: SHA1
>> | > have to answer because we all know what you'll say..
>> |
>> | Read Dianetics... understand the purpose and the aim of processing.
>>
>> i have read it. after i understand the purpose and
>> the aim of processing, then what?
>
> Let's give a rhetorical respons, you wouldn't ask that if you had a
> concept of that claimed understanding after reading.
>
>
>> | > | I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
>> | > | Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
>> | >
>> | > do you accept that engrams and thetans exist? if
>> | > so, that's a BELIEF because there is no evidence
>> | > that they are real except that hubbard said so. not
>> | > scientific proof.
>> |
>> | The concept of engrams confirms very accurately
>>
>> how? please provide some evidence. otherwise engrams
>> are just a belief. what about thetans?
>
> Pretty easy. Donation of body parts of deceased, curious enough the
> personality of the donor travels to the receiver of the body part.
This statement has absolutely no Scientific backing, believing in
thetans and engrams is faith.
The soul can't be measured, anyone who believes the e-meter measures the
soul has mistaken galvanic skin response for a soul.
>
>> |and explains why that
>> | which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
>> | evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem....
>>
>> how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
>
> It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
> make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
> of any use to you.
>
>> evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
>> scientific evidence in many different scientific
>> disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
>> engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
>> not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
>> sense).
>
> The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
> not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
> with a creational view of origin. And indeed I have observed that
> engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
Evolution is real, as a geologist you should understand that better than
anyone. Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed? Do
you really believe that?
>
>> | > as for me, i BELIEVE i'll have an omelet for
>> | > breakfast....
>> |
>> | Yeah, and is it really, how do you know? I only appears to you as
>> | such. If you look into the microscope there is no omelet or anything
>> | resembling it.
>>
>> if you look at yourself under a microscope, i'm sure
>> there is no YOU or anything resembling YOU. but
>> then
>
> If your microscope is strong enough it will...
>
>
>> , i think that body thetans cannot be seen
>> except by ot's, no microscope necessary.
>
> Indeed, YOU don't even need eyes, the blind and the denier don't need
> these to adopt anything of their choosing that they then can
> worship...
>
> RR
>
>> --
>> -elle
>> --------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
>>
>> usenet disproves the infinite-monkey theorem
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAks9O8MACgkQQOyfU0q29nYYCwQAlqKpd0HVx1AIRvMmmSHyUPii
+p7I4FhZoqHyGpwKoyqHLAVtWigQjXa+BPutR4fOW4yhcZDFjAy44tKrjglyJNZP
KE3hN5HpAIPWZRFGLNGgdv+JQ+f/EIWUf1PSd3//QeO2vE185x5Ft4MOP3Wb7CdK
rS64mkg799liVav1zUs=
=LU1b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roadrunner
Negative... May be you should try Baruch de Spinoza, his Ethica I
mean.
>
> The soul can't be measured, anyone who believes the e-meter measures the
> soul has mistaken galvanic skin response for a soul.
Per the Holy Scriptures the soul dies, it does not survive...
>
>
>
> >> |and explains why that
> >> | which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
> >> | evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem....
>
> >> how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
>
> > It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
> > make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
> > of any use to you.
>
> >> evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
> >> scientific evidence in many different scientific
> >> disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
> >> engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
> >> not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
> >> sense).
>
> > The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
> > not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
> > with a creational view of origin. And indeed I have observed that
> > engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
>
> Evolution is real, as a geologist you should understand that better than
> anyone.
And how do YOU know that, hmmm?
>Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed?
Pretty much so yes.
>Do
> you really believe that?
I don't have to believe that, but your faith is clear I see, and I do
mean FAITH...
RR
Mike Thomas
Even he says the soul is imaginary.
>
> The soul can't be measured, anyone who believes the e-meter measures the
> soul has mistaken galvanic skin response for a soul.
>
>> Per the Holy Scriptures the soul dies, it does not survive...
What's that got to do with anything? You said that the personality of a
body part donor will travel to the receiver of the body part, theres no
scientific backing to this at all. The soul doesn't even have a
scientific basis for existence, it's just as crazy as an aura.
>
>
>
>>>>> |and explains why that
>>>>> | which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
>>>>> | evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem....
>>>>> how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
>>>> It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
>>>> make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
>>>> of any use to you.
>>>>> evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
>>>>> scientific evidence in many different scientific
>>>>> disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
>>>>> engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
>>>>> not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
>>>>> sense).
>>>> The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
>>>> not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
>>>> with a creational view of origin. And indeed I have observed that
>>>> engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
> Evolution is real, as a geologist you should understand that better than
> anyone.
>
>> And how do YOU know that, hmmm?
It is what I was taught in school.
>
> Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed?
>
>> Pretty much so yes.
Looking at sedimentary layers it can be calculated fairly accurately the
age of dinosaurs and using uranium-lead isotope dating we can calculate
the age of the earth.
The theory of evolution is based on observable evidence, the theory of
creation is based off the bible, and everything else needs to be
forced/ignored to be even a half credible theory.
Nothing in evolution takes faith, it has all been proven by geologists
in a lab. Next thing you'll be talking about Noah's Ark in the middle
east, tell me if he saved two of every animal.. and he existed at the
same time as dinosaurs - why don't dinosaurs exist anymore?
iJwEAQECAAYFAks9jKgACgkQQOyfU0q29nYSNwP+NJa/IltzTG5DleeLKzsjLQRy
06abLucng7AZLR3Xl7yDCUGuGbgXLCEe9bHpRRywG3W+0twSQPtuajWHiqe+Ln7E
khj9EWKQtf+4aEuQB9AFoO2z9zDMDApMwDCI2EUPzHxNnf7hJBZcp46T+B1rNFqJ
9z+mdvTRBfqvi2x3M4I=
=Rso7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roadrunner
Does it matter? Does it make any difference? ANYTHING in essense is
imaginary. You may try something like cogito ergo sum...
>
> > The soul can't be measured, anyone who believes the e-meter measures the
> > soul has mistaken galvanic skin response for a soul.
>
> >> Per the Holy Scriptures the soul dies, it does not survive...
>
> What's that got to do with anything?
You said soul, I did not.
>You said that the personality of a
> body part donor will travel to the receiver of the body part, theres no
> scientific backing to this at all.
Quit your line of 'no scientific backing'. You don't know what you
talk about. There is a LOT out there, so get f***ing active and find
it...
>The soul doesn't even have a
> scientific basis for existence, it's just as crazy as an aura.
Again, you don't know what you talk about.
>
>
>
> >>>>> |and explains why that
> >>>>> | which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
> >>>>> | evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem....
> >>>>> how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
> >>>> It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
> >>>> make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
> >>>> of any use to you.
> >>>>> evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
> >>>>> scientific evidence in many different scientific
> >>>>> disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
> >>>>> engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
> >>>>> not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
> >>>>> sense).
> >>>> The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
> >>>> not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
> >>>> with a creational view of origin. And indeed I have observed that
> >>>> engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
> > Evolution is real, as a geologist you should understand that better than
> > anyone.
>
> >> And how do YOU know that, hmmm?
>
> It is what I was taught in school.
Ah right, and you believe what they told you at school. I repeat 'they
told you', and so you adopted... got it...
>
> > Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed?
>
> >> Pretty much so yes.
>
> Looking at sedimentary layers it can be calculated fairly accurately the
> age of dinosaurs and using uranium-lead isotope dating we can calculate
> the age of the earth.
In fact you can not at all. Total rubbish. See, ANY of the dating
metods is based on unchanged atmospheric conditions and assumptive
outset.
The layers appear not, I repeat NOT in any chronological order. They
are messed up.
>
> The theory of evolution is based on observable evidence
Ah, observable evidence that shows we came from an amoebe something.
Wouldn't think so. All that has been observed is decay and
deterioriation of DNA sequence. It never gets better. Matter dies,
this indicates creation.
>, the theory of
> creation is based off the bible
May be as a start, but that does not make it untrue by definition. I
don't base anything off some Holy Scriptures, you examine the
available facts and observations, ALL of them. Are you using this as
an argument that creation would be incorrect, without actually examing
the facts of life that we have?
Ah, the Bible, a work of fiction, it says creation, thus creation can
not be true, because the Bible is a work of some sort of fiction/
fairytale. Is this your rocking-horse?
>, and everything else needs to be
> forced/ignored to be even a half credible theory.
And that's what they told you, and you are a willing 'believer', got
it...
Sorry, but evolution is the fraud.
>
> Nothing in evolution takes faith, it has all been proven by geologists
> in a lab.
Ah, and how do you know that? Because they told you so? Sorry, no
proof, that's just a load of crap. It's all about a 'chosen'
interpretation. This is easy done if you ignore all the other valid
interpretations. See, it is the nature of man to find proof for his/
her beliefs, and they cirlce arond that, and don't see the rest.
>Next thing you'll be talking about Noah's Ark in the middle
> east, tell me if he saved two of every animal.. and he existed at the
> same time as dinosaurs - why don't dinosaurs exist anymore?
They do, but generally they do not get that big anymore. Why? Because
our present atmosphere contains a lot less oxygen today. Reptiles
never stop growing. Get the idea?
Do some research of your own, and stop being a blind believer, and I
mean evolutionism.
RR
Mike Thomas
I'll repeat this again: The soul is imaginary and does not exist.
>
>>>> The soul can't be measured, anyone who believes the e-meter measures the
>>>> soul has mistaken galvanic skin response for a soul.
>>>>> Per the Holy Scriptures the soul dies, it does not survive...
> What's that got to do with anything?
>
>> You said soul, I did not.
>
> You said that the personality of a
> body part donor will travel to the receiver of the body part, theres no
> scientific backing to this at all.
>
>> Quit your line of 'no scientific backing'. You don't know what you
>> talk about. There is a LOT out there, so get f***ing active and find
>> it...
No, I'm not going to do your research for you. I know that this is not
true because personality is not contained within any body part but the
brain, and it can't be transplanted. It's up to you to prove your claim,
just saying it doesn't make it true.
>
> The soul doesn't even have a
> scientific basis for existence, it's just as crazy as an aura.
>
>> Again, you don't know what you talk about.
Yes I do, I don't understand why you would make a claim like this, you
don't know me, my studies or anything of the sort. So stfu. A soul has
never been detected and recorded - because it does not exist.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>> |and explains why that
>>>>>>>> | which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
>>>>>>>> | evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem....
>>>>>>>> how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
>>>>>>> It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
>>>>>>> make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
>>>>>>> of any use to you.
>>>>>>>> evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
>>>>>>>> scientific evidence in many different scientific
>>>>>>>> disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
>>>>>>>> engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
>>>>>>>> not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
>>>>>>>> sense).
>>>>>>> The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
>>>>>>> not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
>>>>>>> with a creational view of origin. And indeed I have observed that
>>>>>>> engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
>>>> Evolution is real, as a geologist you should understand that better than
>>>> anyone.
>>>>> And how do YOU know that, hmmm?
> It is what I was taught in school.
>
>> Ah right, and you believe what they told you at school. I repeat 'they
>> told you', and so you adopted... got it...
Yes I believe what I was taught at school because they didn't just tell
us "hey evolution is a fact". They proved it - over the course of a
year. Why is it a crime to be taught something? or as you put it,
"Adopt" it?
>
>>>> Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed?
>>>>> Pretty much so yes.
> Looking at sedimentary layers it can be calculated fairly accurately the
> age of dinosaurs and using uranium-lead isotope dating we can calculate
> the age of the earth.
>
>> In fact you can not at all. Total rubbish. See, ANY of the dating
>> metods is based on unchanged atmospheric conditions and assumptive
>> outset.
Even with this, the margin of error is only a few million years...
>
>> The layers appear not, I repeat NOT in any chronological order. They
>> are messed up.
On top of this there is also the erosion of Niagra falls.. The great
lakes, evidence of multiple ice ages.. the list goes on..
>
> The theory of evolution is based on observable evidence
>
>> Ah, observable evidence that shows we came from an amoebe something.
>> Wouldn't think so. All that has been observed is decay and
>> deterioriation of DNA sequence. It never gets better. Matter dies,
>> this indicates creation.
Explain to me natural selection, that is evolution - survival of the
fittest.
>
> , the theory of
> creation is based off the bible
>
>> May be as a start, but that does not make it untrue by definition. I
>> don't base anything off some Holy Scriptures, you examine the
>> available facts and observations, ALL of them. Are you using this as
>> an argument that creation would be incorrect, without actually examing
>> the facts of life that we have?
Assuming the bible gives a credible account of history - which it does
not. As you mention below it is fiction - all of it.
>
>> Ah, the Bible, a work of fiction, it says creation, thus creation can
>> not be true, because the Bible is a work of some sort of fiction/
>> fairytale. Is this your rocking-horse?
No, I just care that the facts are there, yet people still persist to
ignore them because it is convenient for their religion.
>
>
> , and everything else needs to be
> forced/ignored to be even a half credible theory.
>
>> And that's what they told you, and you are a willing 'believer', got
>> it...
It's fact.
>
>> Sorry, but evolution is the fraud.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> Nothing in evolution takes faith, it has all been proven by geologists
> in a lab.
>
>> Ah, and how do you know that? Because they told you so? Sorry, no
>> proof, that's just a load of crap. It's all about a 'chosen'
>> interpretation. This is easy done if you ignore all the other valid
>> interpretations. See, it is the nature of man to find proof for his/
>> her beliefs, and they cirlce arond that, and don't see the rest.
This is complete bs, you basically say to go against anything anyone
says even if they show you the facts, because that would be adopting and
representing only one interpretation of what is there (there is only one
correct interpretation by the way)
>
>
> Next thing you'll be talking about Noah's Ark in the middle
> east, tell me if he saved two of every animal.. and he existed at the
> same time as dinosaurs - why don't dinosaurs exist anymore?
>
>> They do, but generally they do not get that big anymore. Why? Because
>> our present atmosphere contains a lot less oxygen today. Reptiles
>> never stop growing. Get the idea?
So I suppose there was also giant people?
>
>> Do some research of your own, and stop being a blind believer, and I
>> mean evolutionism.
I have had to do my own reports and research for assignments at school,
I don't blindly follow anything, hence why I'm an Atheist, naturally
skeptical.
iJwEAQECAAYFAks97JcACgkQQOyfU0q29nbgMgP/ZX4DFaiw4dUcQvb7KL/7x7B6
3nORob2vvBA1mu4+0eKCXT8cb+xKIT2Op+YpVFDJrrQDzXLeDo0FrXY8P5kCLFXF
duIOYPG0bLfkynzeTpA0fs/j9AjcGGGjcIIPOVAU5GBv6bAYqk1d429wG4zeFK11
qqgXSdyIIaLmCgJvqkc=
=HdjR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Schilte
>
> meer lezen »
Welcome to the "scientific" world of Michel Snoeck:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html
;-)
Peter
"Arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases,
asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalogue
of illnesses goes away and stays away."
- L. Ron Hubbard, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, 1987
Ed., p. 72
Mike Thomas
Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>> personality of the donor travels to the receiver of the body part..
>>>>>>>>>> how? please explain why it explains the reactive..
Boggles my mind how people (espescially Americans) can ignore the
evidence supporting evolution. In the case of America, they live amongst
half the evidence which makes it even worse.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
iJwEAQECAAYFAks+BTwACgkQQOyfU0q29nZLmQP/VpCl/Jf3h1Mrs6GF93SKDwz3
zg8oeyINdYXiJ+C/VQqiRpgdODAX+qyC8ncuiKcV4UGyGSanu9CHthiT/ZYIZlmY
6UPaM6rwiuJ+AvY0DE22moYQ1d1mNTjEomp8iHayyzQyCRnbH01rgXsiOCPAoOre
v9FA0JN5BJaXaGkzNfc=
=Tct4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
husk
......
> I'll repeat this again: The soul is imaginary and does not exist.
> > The soul doesn't even have a
> > scientific basis for existence, it's just as crazy as an aura.
One cannot say that the soul is imaginary, one can only say that there
is no scientific evidence for the existence of the soul. There is a
big difference. Imagination and faith are two different things.
rhill
One can say though that a "soul" hypothesis is not required to explain
what we know of the mind.
husk
> don't know me, my studies or anything of the sort. So stfu. A soul has
> never been detected and recorded - because it does not exist.
Just because it has never been detected does not mean it does not
exist. Humans have not reached the pinnacle of their scientific
abilities. One cannot predict what future scientists will be able to
detect. Now if they do detect a soul, this does not necessarily
debunk evolutionary theory. It is possible for a soul to occupy a
being whose physical form developed though survival of the fittest.
That theory of course does not fulfill the creationists' viewpoint
either, but there is room for an evolutionary being to have a soul.
As for the soul not existing, how does one explain that my soul,
essence, self-aware, consciousness, whatever you call it decided to
inhabit my body sometime in 1960? If there is no God created soul,
what is this consciousness that exists in my body. Why isn't this
consciousness in another body, born at another time? Evolution has
not explained these whys. There is no survival of the fittest reason
for me to be in my body at this time and in this place. If I am to be
conscious only once, I ask why?
l.l.lipshitz
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in
<a6ffbdab-4e74-48c2...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>:
| On 31 Dec, 15:55, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:10:32 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > <7437d98b-bd09-441d-803f-e0ecb4742...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
| > �| �On 30 Dec, 14:05, "l.l.lipshitz" <elk...@seesig.info> wrote:
| > �| > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:29:58 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner
| > �| > <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in
| > �| > <654159ff-eaf5-4620-8f20-955d29f8d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
| > �| >
| > �| > [...]
| > �| >
| > �| > �| �Who ever said that Xenu has historical accuracy?
| > �| >
| > �| > � � � � l. ron hubbard, founder/creator of dn and scn. i
| > �| > � � � � guess you missed that primary source during your
| > �| > � � � � research.
| > �|
| > �| �Without basic understanding of these topics, you still deem you are
| > �| �able to get matters into the right perspective. That is being
| > �| �selfrigheous...
| >
| > � � � � after being asked numerous times to explain such
| > � � � � things to us ignorant folks, you never do. that is
| > � � � � being evasive and self-serving.
|
| I am not your keeper... get basic understanding of the topic,
you are not the boss of me.
|I won't
| give you that...
you can't explain it, can you?
|I am not into the business to disprove your
| negative...
you're not even in the business of proving your own
claims.
| > �| > �|Without understanding
| > �| > �| �the purpose and aim of socalled processing, how will you be able to
| > �| > �| �take these matters in the right context?
| > �| >
| > �| > � � � � but scnists refuse to talk about these things. why
| > �| > � � � � don't you explain what we need to know to put these
| > �| > � � � � matters in the right context?
| > �| >
| > �| > � � � � that's a rhetorical question, you know. you don't
| > �| > � � � � have to answer because we all know what you'll say.
| > �|
| > �| �Read Dianetics... understand the purpose and the aim of processing.
| >
| > � � � � i have read it. after i understand the purpose and
| > � � � � the aim of processing, then what?
|
| Let's give a rhetorical respons, you wouldn't ask that if you had a
| concept of that claimed understanding after reading.
i believe all your responses are rhetorical, ie,
'merely for effect with no answer expected'.
| > �| > �| �I don't believe anything. It is not what the subject of Dianetics/
| > �| > �| �Scientology is about, quite the reverse.
| > �| >
| > �| > � � � � do you accept that engrams and thetans exist? if
| > �| > � � � � so, that's a BELIEF because there is no evidence
| > �| > � � � � that they are real except that hubbard said so. not
| > �| > � � � � scientific proof.
| > �|
| > �| �The concept of engrams confirms very accurately
| >
| > � � � � how? please provide some evidence. otherwise engrams
| > � � � � are just a belief. what about thetans?
|
| Pretty easy. Donation of body parts of deceased, curious enough the
| personality of the donor travels to the receiver of the body part.
pretty silly. what evidence do you have, other than
silly people *believing* this silly superstition?
| > �|and explains why that
| > �| �which is reactive in us to survive over time. This is much more
| > �| �evidence than evolutionists have to offer for their beliefsystem...
| >
| > � � � � how? please explain why it explains the reactive.
|
| It is in the book Dianetics... if you are interested enough you will
| make the effort, if not, then get on with your life. As it will not be
| of any use to you.
you can't explain it, can you?
| > � � � � evolutionists have an enormous amount of actual
| > � � � � scientific evidence in many different scientific
| > � � � � disciplines. i don't see how the 'concept of
| > � � � � engrams' PROVES anything since it's just a concept,
| > � � � � not even a theory (a 'theory' in the scientific
| > � � � � sense).
|
| The world in reverse. We are total opposites here. Evolutionists do
| not have the slightest piece of evidence that could not be explained
| with a creational view of origin.
well, duh! 'it's magic!' explains EVERYTHING!
'credo quia absurdum est!'
|And indeed I have observed that
| engrams, or at least something resembling that, are reality.
how have you observed that?
| > �| > � � � � as for me, i BELIEVE i'll have an omelet for
| > �| > � � � � breakfast....
| > �|
| > �| �Yeah, and is it really, how do you know? I only appears to you as
| > �| �such. If you look into the microscope there is no omelet or anything
| > �| �resembling it.
| >
| > � � � � if you look at yourself under a microscope, i'm sure
| > � � � � there is no YOU or anything resembling YOU. but
| > � � � � then
|
| If your microscope is strong enough it will...
then i could see my omelet, too!
| >, i think that body thetans cannot be seen
| > � � � � except by ot's, no microscope necessary.
|
| Indeed, YOU don't even need eyes, the blind and the denier don't need
| these to adopt anything of their choosing that they then can
| worship...
i understand that ot's are like that. they don't
have eyes and yet they can 'see' and recognize
other ot's.
Roadrunner
I did my research, but you have not done your own..
> I know that this is not
> true because personality is not contained within any body part but the
> brain, and it can't be transplanted. It's up to you to prove your claim,
> just saying it doesn't make it true.
You have to deal with consequences, I don't care about your opinion.
Research has been done and published that show that character traits
and personality tendences/interest traveled with the organs.
Just you denying everything does not make that true either.
>
>
>
> > The soul doesn't even have a
> > scientific basis for existence, it's just as crazy as an aura.
>
> >> Again, you don't know what you talk about.
>
> Yes I do, I don't understand why you would make a claim like this, you
> don't know me, my studies or anything of the sort. So stfu. A soul has
> never been detected and recorded - because it does not exist.
I said, per the Holy Scriptures the soul DIES... get your definitions
right for starters.
I know and see how you deal with matter here and now, I don't give
s*** about what you may have done in the past at any place...
Science is a study of consequences.
They proved it??? Ah, and how did they do that?? Did it never occurred
to you that you may have been brainwashed. Now, WHO selects, approves
and pays for the textbooks?? Ever bothered to look into that?
>
> >>>> Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed?
> >>>>> Pretty much so yes.
> > Looking at sedimentary layers it can be calculated fairly accurately the
> > age of dinosaurs and using uranium-lead isotope dating we can calculate
> > the age of the earth.
>
> >> In fact you can not at all. Total rubbish. See, ANY of the dating
> >> metods is based on unchanged atmospheric conditions and assumptive
> >> outset.
>
> Even with this, the margin of error is only a few million years...
You don't get it... and you are not listening...
>
> >> The layers appear not, I repeat NOT in any chronological order. They
> >> are messed up.
>
> On top of this there is also the erosion of Niagra falls.. The great
> lakes, evidence of multiple ice ages.. the list goes on..
You are not listening. The layers are messed up. You have BEEN TOLD
they are in some logical chronological order.
>
> > The theory of evolution is based on observable evidence
>
> >> Ah, observable evidence that shows we came from an amoebe something.
> >> Wouldn't think so. All that has been observed is decay and
> >> deterioriation of DNA sequence. It never gets better. Matter dies,
> >> this indicates creation.
>
> Explain to me natural selection, that is evolution - survival of the
> fittest.
No such thing, there is adjustment factors, but that's about it.
>
>
>
> > , the theory of
> > creation is based off the bible
>
> >> May be as a start, but that does not make it untrue by definition. I
> >> don't base anything off some Holy Scriptures, you examine the
> >> available facts and observations, ALL of them. Are you using this as
> >> an argument that creation would be incorrect, without actually examing
> >> the facts of life that we have?
>
> Assuming the bible gives a credible account of history - which it does
> not.
You assume and probably have been told. Historically however these
books are surprisingly correct and therefore credible.
>As you mention below it is fiction - all of it.
Sorry guy, you just ADOPTED all you have been told.
>
> >> Ah, the Bible, a work of fiction, it says creation, thus creation can
> >> not be true, because the Bible is a work of some sort of fiction/
> >> fairytale. Is this your rocking-horse?
>
> No, I just care that the facts are there, yet people still persist to
> ignore them because it is convenient for their religion.
For evolutionism that is... which is YOUR religion.
>
> > , and everything else needs to be
> > forced/ignored to be even a half credible theory.
>
> >> And that's what they told you, and you are a willing 'believer', got
> >> it...
> It's fact.
>
> >> Sorry, but evolution is the fraud.
>
> Saying it doesn't make it so.
The facts do.
>
> > Nothing in evolution takes faith, it has all been proven by geologists
> > in a lab.
>
> >> Ah, and how do you know that? Because they told you so? Sorry, no
> >> proof, that's just a load of crap. It's all about a 'chosen'
> >> interpretation. This is easy done if you ignore all the other valid
> >> interpretations. See, it is the nature of man to find proof for his/
> >> her beliefs, and they cirlce arond that, and don't see the rest.
>
> This is complete bs, you basically say to go against anything anyone
> says even if they show you the facts, because that would be adopting and
> representing only one interpretation of what is there (there is only one
> correct interpretation by the way)
And how do you know that? You have been told so, or they only showed
you the convenient interpretations? You don't know how science works
in the lab, and I do.
>
> > Next thing you'll be talking about Noah's Ark in the middle
> > east, tell me if he saved two of every animal.. and he existed at the
> > same time as dinosaurs - why don't dinosaurs exist anymore?
>
> >> They do, but generally they do not get that big anymore. Why? Because
> >> our present atmosphere contains a lot less oxygen today. Reptiles
> >> never stop growing. Get the idea?
>
> So I suppose there was also giant people?
Nonsense respons, we stop growing at about 20 years or so.
>
> >> Do some research of your own, and stop being a blind believer, and I
> >> mean evolutionism.
>
> I have had to do my own reports and research for assignments at school,
> I don't blindly follow anything, hence why I'm an Atheist, naturally
> skeptical.
An Atheist is in essense a denier. You do a grand job here, you just
look the other way in the direction of your teachers.
RR
Roadrunner
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Boggles my mind how people (espescially Americans) can ignore the
> evidence supporting evolution. In the case of America, they live amongst
> half the evidence which makes it even worse.
No, they live amongst half the interpretations supporting the
concept... If you control the textbooks, the media and all that, you
can make people (like yourself) believe and adopt ANYTHING...
RR
Peter Schilte
And it led you to believe that some personality of a donor travels to
the receiver.
This preposterous claim screams to be supported!
So where is your evidence and research results for to prove this
claim? Remember: It is what you always demand from others.
Or are we going to see you apply double standards again.
> > I know that this is not
> > true because personality is not contained within any body part but the
> > brain, and it can't be transplanted. It's up to you to prove your claim,
> > just saying it doesn't make it true.
>
> You have to deal with consequences, I don't care about your opinion.
Sorry, but you can't talk yourself out and safe face without evidence
supporting your claim. Not even with answers that are insane.
> Research has been done and published that show that character traits
> and personality tendences/interest traveled with the organs.
>
And you are going to present this "research" and the publications that
prove that character traits and personality tendencies/interest
traveled with the organs?
O, you are not, of course.
Well, than all there is, is your empty, unsupported claim.
> Just you denying everything does not make that true either.
>
Not presenting evidence supporting your claim doesn't do your
credibility any good.
>
>
> > > The soul doesn't even have a
> > > scientific basis for existence, it's just as crazy as an aura.
>
> > >> Again, you don't know what you talk about.
>
> > Yes I do, I don't understand why you would make a claim like this, you
> > don't know me, my studies or anything of the sort. So stfu. A soul has
> > never been detected and recorded - because it does not exist.
>
> I said, per the Holy Scriptures the soul DIES... get your definitions
> right for starters.
>
The souls of dead people go either to heaven, purgatory or hell. That
is what Christians believe.So it must be in the Holy Scriptures, don't
you think? Eternal life, as we were taught during religion class.
> I know and see how you deal with matter here and now, I don't give
> s*** about what you may have done in the past at any place...
>
I hope you realize that goes for you too.
> Science is a study of consequences.
>
Yeah, right. Huge humans living together with dinosaurs, souls
traveling from one body to another during a donor transplant. Sounds
like real science to me..... Not!
OMG! You are a believer in conspiracy theories too!
Wow. That explains a lot to me. It all becomes clear all of a sudden.
>
>
> > >>>> Creationism is a lie, c'mon - dinosaurs when people existed?
> > >>>>> Pretty much so yes.
> > > Looking at sedimentary layers it can be calculated fairly accurately the
> > > age of dinosaurs and using uranium-lead isotope dating we can calculate
> > > the age of the earth.
>
> > >> In fact you can not at all. Total rubbish. See, ANY of the dating
> > >> metods is based on unchanged atmospheric conditions and assumptive
> > >> outset.
>
> > Even with this, the margin of error is only a few million years...
>
> You don't get it... and you are not listening...
>
Yeah, right. We can see how you do, right?
>
>
> > >> The layers appear not, I repeat NOT in any chronological order. They
> > >> are messed up.
>
> > On top of this there is also the erosion of Niagra falls.. The great
> > lakes, evidence of multiple ice ages.. the list goes on..
>
> You are not listening. The layers are messed up. You have BEEN TOLD
> they are in some logical chronological order.
>
And who told you the layers are mixed up? Some other conspiracy
theorist?
>
>
> > > The theory of evolution is based on observable evidence
>
> > >> Ah, observable evidence that shows we came from an amoebe something.
> > >> Wouldn't think so. All that has been observed is decay and
> > >> deterioriation of DNA sequence. It never gets better. Matter dies,
> > >> this indicates creation.
>
> > Explain to me natural selection, that is evolution - survival of the
> > fittest.
>
> No such thing, there is adjustment factors, but that's about it.
>
IAW, natural selection. What a lame answer you gave, Michel.
Adjustment factors against natural selection: What's in a name. You,
however, manage to make it look as if it is something completely,
totally different. How scientofic.
>
>
> > > , the theory of
> > > creation is based off the bible
>
> > >> May be as a start, but that does not make it untrue by definition. I
> > >> don't base anything off some Holy Scriptures, you examine the
> > >> available facts and observations, ALL of them. Are you using this as
> > >> an argument that creation would be incorrect, without actually examing
> > >> the facts of life that we have?
>
> > Assuming the bible gives a credible account of history - which it does
> > not.
>
> You assume and probably have been told. Historically however these
> books are surprisingly correct and therefore credible.
>
How scientific!
> >As you mention below it is fiction - all of it.
>
> Sorry guy, you just ADOPTED all you have been told.
>
And where and how did you get the idea about traveling souls during
donor transplants? Or about the mixed up layers? Or your creationist
ideas? All by yourself?
Then where are your publications supporting your research of those
subjects? Where are your studies, your evaluations of your studies?
I bet you don't have any. As usual.
>
>
> > >> Ah, the Bible, a work of fiction, it says creation, thus creation can
> > >> not be true, because the Bible is a work of some sort of fiction/
> > >> fairytale. Is this your rocking-horse?
>
> > No, I just care that the facts are there, yet people still persist to
> > ignore them because it is convenient for their religion.
>
> For evolutionism that is... which is YOUR religion.
>
Evolutionism is supported by science, creationism is supported by
religion. It even originates from religion.
>
>
> > > , and everything else needs to be
> > > forced/ignored to be even a half credible theory.
>
> > >> And that's what they told you, and you are a willing 'believer', got
> > >> it...
> > It's fact.
>
> > >> Sorry, but evolution is the fraud.
>
> > Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> The facts do.
>
You haven't presented any facts, did you know that? Only unsupported,
empty claims.
>
>
> > > Nothing in evolution takes faith, it has all been proven by geologists
> > > in a lab.
>
> > >> Ah, and how do you know that? Because they told you so? Sorry, no
> > >> proof, that's just a load of crap. It's all about a 'chosen'
> > >> interpretation. This is easy done if you ignore all the other valid
> > >> interpretations. See, it is the nature of man to find proof for his/
> > >> her beliefs, and they cirlce arond that, and don't see the rest.
>
> > This is complete bs, you basically say to go against anything anyone
> > says even if they show you the facts, because that would be adopting and
> > representing only one interpretation of what is there (there is only one
> > correct interpretation by the way)
>
> And how do you know that? You have been told so, or they only showed
> you the convenient interpretations? You don't know how science works
> in the lab, and I do.
>
And what a way of showing how you adopted exactly that! All you have
to present are ridiculous, unsupported, pseudo-scientific claims.
>
>
> > > Next thing you'll be talking about Noah's Ark in the middle
> > > east, tell me if he saved two of every animal.. and he existed at the
> > > same time as dinosaurs - why don't dinosaurs exist anymore?
>
> > >> They do, but generally they do not get that big anymore. Why? Because
> > >> our present atmosphere contains a lot less oxygen today. Reptiles
> > >> never stop growing. Get the idea?
>
> > So I suppose there was also giant people?
>
> Nonsense respons, we stop growing at about 20 years or so.
>
But you still insist that before the big dinosaurs vanished 65 million
years ago, there were humans too.
Evaluating your response earlier it is not a nonsense response but a
valid question. All in line with your claims.
>
>
> > >> Do some research of your own, and stop being a blind believer, and I
> > >> mean evolutionism.
>
> > I have had to do my own reports and research for assignments at school,
> > I don't blindly follow anything, hence why I'm an Atheist, naturally
> > skeptical.
>
> An Atheist is in essense a denier.
No, an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in what isn't proved
with supporting evidence.
You believe without it being proved with supporting evidence.
> You do a grand job here, you just
> look the other way in the direction of your teachers.
>
It appears you did, not Mike Thomas.
Barbara Schwarz
<hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> real...@aol.com wrote:
> > Aaron, some of us think that RR, or The Snoeck Guy, is in fact, not OSA
> > at all, but an extremely eccentric character who likes Scientology and
> > appears to believe that he is the only one who has a real handle on it.
>
> A kind of Swedish Chef version of Ms Schwarz.
>
> --
> "and the best part is that when they make it into
> a movie, all of the stars can play themselves."http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Your small mind just can deal with people when you put them in the
same drawers, right, Hartley?
Barbara Schwarz
Peter Schilte
> On 1 Jan, 15:23, Mike Thomas <active.m3...@gmail.com> wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Boggles my mind how people (espescially Americans) can ignore the
> > evidence supporting evolution. In the case of America, they live amongst
> > half the evidence which makes it even worse.
>
> No, they live amongst half the interpretations supporting the
> concept... If you control the textbooks, the media and all that, you
> can make people (like yourself) believe and adopt ANYTHING...
Sorry? It is clear that you are the one that can be made believe and
adopt everything.
Barbara Schwarz
wrote:
> On 30 Dec, 22:23, Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 8:31 pm, aaron saxton <aaronsaxt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Y
>
> > Aaron, the chicken is you. You apparently never were a Scientologist.
> > We have to listed to your crap because you failed to route out of the
> > SO with 18 at the latest.
> > You should have been routed off. Scientology has its bad reputation
> > because of non-Scientologists like you.
>
> > It is not L. Ron Hubbard who is to blame but non-Scientologists who
> > are in the orgs to forge, alter and destroy and then to leave and to
> > blame what they have done on L. Ron Hubbard. Old story. You and others
> > like you are to be blamed.
>
> > Your underwear story that you told the female reporter is really
> > disgusting. Hundred-thousands of young men were in Scientology and
> > they did just fine with normal underwear and a girlfriend/wife and
> > nobody but perverts had your problem.
>
> I think it suffices to establish that he is running away from me.
> He
> is a wind that will blow over, as basically all he can do is make
> unsubstantiated claims. Even Android Cat threw that at him. St. Aaron
> is nothing to worry about...
I agree with you about Saxton, RR, but I can't follow the "Saint"
part.
>
> I also have started to seriously question his claimed previous status
> within the organization. See, he REFUSES to respond to any of my
> queries and requests for claification. Of course if he is making up
> tales, then how could he respond to me!!! It would become so very
> obvious that would be a fraud.
He never was a Scientologist and should have been never allowed in the
SO. It just shows how ethics and tech is out with people like this in
all orgs and on all kind of jobs. He never had wins as we did. His
loss.
Barbara Schwarz
--
http://barbaraschwarz.wordpress.com/
>