Disabled and Scientology...Questions....?
Beckyboo
long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
card".....
/Quote/
I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
number of working limbs or neurons they have.
But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
/end Quote/
Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
an embarassment?
Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
tests? At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
bizarre? That my religion is making me take a lie detector test? A
religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
get out, I can't....but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
--
Becky
formerlyfooled
Becky,
If my recollection serves me well, the disabled are not so much an
embarrassment as they are considered potentially 'problematic' people
to steer clear of (they believe it's catchy).
Truthfully, they probably still don't keep disabled people around long
enough to allow them to become an embarrassment. It's pretty sick, heh?
Muldoon
Beckyboo wrote:
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
Actually, I don't think deafness is regarded as a "disability" by most
people these days. There are just too many smart deaf people, and too
many deaf sexy movie actresses for that.
I think the comments by (?) were thoughtless and a poor attempt at
being witty.
As far as I know, the person (?) who made the comments was never a
Scientologist. He's just momentarily being a clod. (There is an
unwritten universal law *that requires everyone to behave like a clod
for a tiny fraction of time, every so often*. Obviously, this was this
person's turn at it.)
As for Alex, his problems are much deeper.
That sticky foam-like goo you may have seen on some of the close-up
photos of Hubbard, that makes Hubbard's lips appear as though they are
stuck together - well, that sticky goo can get on a person. Alex got
some on him, and well... one result is that it now oozes out of *him*,
and his keyboard keys are sticking together. That's why he writes
nonexistent words such as, "irregardless."
Don't let this nonsense concern you too much. You're a breath of fresh
air on this NG.
zeeorger
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
LRH makes a lot of statements, which when strung
together, forms the overall viewpoint/mindset of all
scientologist's towards who, how and when they will
"help" someone.
"scientology makes the able more able" - This limits
scientology to those that are 'able'.
"we will handle those [degraded beings] once we have
made it." - scientology is for those aware enough to
merit it.
The task of 'clearing the planet' is so large that we do
not help those who can not help in return. (equivalent
to medical triage - help those who will help us, dump
the rest).
In scientology there is term called "criminal exchange".
The criminal is defined as one who takes things without
giving anything in return. The corollary to this datum is
that "giving something for nothing creates criminals".
So nothing is ever given without expecting something
in return, by force if need be.
Propitiation, defined as giving something to another in
the hopes that you will not get harmed - it is considered
to be extremely 'low toned' (emotionally degraded)
Sympathy, defined as going into agreement with another
who is down in the dumps is also considered to be very
'low toned' - hence scientologists have no sympathy.
"you are _entirely_ responsible for the condition you
are in <period>" - This comes from the viewpoint that
you are an 'Operating Thetan' (akin to GOD) - so it can
only be YOU who put you in the state you are in. If you
are disabled, it is because to chose to be in that state.
(this is PHD level scientology ethics)
"We don't owe scientology to anyone".
There is an LRH policy called "Illegal PCs" a.k.a. the
"A to J" types. These are people who are not allowed
to be audited. It excludes those from the media, press
demonstrations, those who want to do scientific tests,
those who are not there on their own free will, ...
The insane, any psychiatrists and those who have been
treated by psychiatrists, are not allowed near scientology.
These people are considered brain-damaged. Psychiatrists
are considered pure evil.
... there are some exceptions. There are people who are
disabled who are scientologists. The numbers are very low.
They are even lower for those on staff or in the Sea Org.
It is very difficult to audit or get audited if you are missing
an arm or are unable to walk on you own.
In a way being a scientologist is a bit like being in the
army (they only want able bodied people) to do battle
against perceived imaginary enemies.
> And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> tests?
Yes, they are called security checks, sec-checks for short.
There is a heavy emphasis on uncovering 'sins' (called 'overts'
in scientology) ...
The basic theory runs as follows:
You do something wrong - this is an overt (sin). This overt
(sin) causes you to distance yourself from the general area
and the people you have comitted an overt (sin) on. This
separation then creates a "me v.s. them" and you commit
more overts (sins) against "them" ... It also causes you to
"not see" what others are doing. The general behaviour of
those who have commited overts is called 'withhold' or
what is commonly known as "guilty behaviour". The two
terms often put together in one word "O/W" (short for
Overt/Withhold).
The scn solution to this "dwindling spiral" is to have you
confess your sins. This works up to a point. But scientology
takes it to extremes:
If you are not as productive as you should be, you get
sec-checks. If you are trying to leave (putting distance
between you and those you have sined upon) you get a
sec-check (even if the place stinks). Anytime something
major goes wrong in your unit, department or org, the entire
crew gets sec-checked (you should have seen it comming,
you did not see it comming, so you must have major sins).
...
The ultimate solution is to chuck scientology.
> At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> bizarre?
All the way in. :-)
I left the Sea Org when I realized the RTC (most church
management) was nuts. A lot of us left the church in the
1980's. But I was still a "scientologist".
I quit being a scientologist on my own. For me it was the
equivalent of a reverse self-induced psychotic break. Only
then did it become possible to be willing to google for people
like David Mayo, Vaughn Young, ... and read what others had
to say and what they went through.
> ... That my religion is making me take a lie detector test?
I gave up on sec-checks when I realized scientology ethics
was not working as it should. The reason why is complex
to explain - you have to understand the mechanics of mind
control as it is used within scientology.
> ... A
> religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> get out, I can't.
> ...but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
>
> Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
>
> Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
>
> Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
>
> Becky
The short answer is - scientology is a mind control operation.
Its purpose was (still is) to abuse people for their energy, their
money, to wield the power of fanatics ...
You are getting hypnotized without your consent. Auditing
involves controlled communication and controlled attention.
You get stuffed with endless datums that are 'near truths'
together with 'total absurdities' ... you can sometimes see
that something is not right, but by then you keep trying to
compute your way out (which is not allowed in scientology
either) and your mind jams up, or you keep going back to
the Org and try to "fix it" and you run into more people that
are even more "screwed into their heads" ... scientology
was designed to introvert you into your own mind. It is
very very nasty. It creates schizophrenia.
Z
Muldoon
I agree completely, but would add this footnote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/dbf50f7f7c5fc3d0
Over the Hill
Great post zeeorger - I learnt a lot from it
.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Over the Hill wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> Great post zeeorger - I learnt a lot from it <
ditto!
JustCallMeFree
Out_Of_The_Dark
Good post, too Muldoon
alexr...@hotmail.com
I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
I feel helpless sometimes because I dont know what to do for them, but
usually they would say
'just act normal, doofus", or some such.
Pretty weird stuff, Scientology, isn't it?!
Scientology does good works in its own way, you can leave by just
stopping attending, the money goes uplines, and you just cant be
auditied for 2 week if you take an asprin.
If you are interested in understanding, truely just go to the churchs
web site and read. Dont worry, you can read the pages without losing
you soul or sanity. Read what the church says it is and read our
philosophy and code of honor.
http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/33/33-hon.htm
http://www.whatisscientology.org/
You dont have to agree. You can read it and think its worthless if you
want. But your questions show that you dont really understand what
scientology is trying to be and do.
And then consider: are we living up to our possiblities? No. Are we
inherently evil?
alex
jerald
I have been to the site and read as you asked. But saying you do
something and really doing it are two very different things. So let me
ask a couple of questions if I may.
How many disabled people are members of scientology? I have to say I
have yet to see a wheel chair in any picture of a gathering of members.
How many members do you have that are disabled due to mental illness?
I seem to remember reading something somewhere about a tone scale.
I think Becky understands just fine and yes we can and will disagee
from time to time. I can also admit I may be wrong, which is why I am
asking these questions. Is there a chance you could be the one wrong
here?
jerald
Beckyboo
alexr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Becky
>
> I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
That's complete bs...I'm calling bs on this....
>
> I feel helpless sometimes because I dont know what to do for them, but
> usually they would say
> 'just act normal, doofus", or some such.
You don't have to "do" anything.... and this is not just a Sci-fi
issue, this applies to the regular general population also. Think to
yourself....the last time you saw a person in a wheelchair, did you
avert your eyes? Or did you look down into their face and talk to them
like you would a normal person? Try treating us like normal people for
a change and get it out of your head than we are differently abled, or
less abled than you. God, I hate labels!!!!! Call me disabled, that's
what it is...a disability...and if you can triumph over your
disability, then you've accomplished a lot already!!
WE will tell you what we need.... so you can relax. But I suspect from
what you are posting that you are not clearly out of the Sci-fi
mindset, that you think you are still somewhat above me, and therefore
need to be the holier-than-thou, then you could come back and save the
less-abled...perhaps me.... but give up on me Alex, I'm never going be
a Scientologist....I'm too much of an individual already. Got it? I had
to fight and claw my way to get as far as I did. I was never pampered
as a child.... my Dad was tough you see. And I'm not buying into
anyone's bs, especially not Hubs, he was insane....and I can see that,
clearly.
He was like Hitler....I've been to the Holocaust museum in DC and
Hitler got rid of the handicapped too. My blonde hair and blue eyes
wouldn't have saved me..... and the fact that I'm a twin might have
kept me alive long enough for Hitler to do some nasty experiments on
me.... right?
Many of you in here are completely hung up on labels too.
>
> Pretty weird stuff, Scientology, isn't it?!
No kidding.
>
> Scientology does good works in its own way, you can leave by just
> stopping attending, the money goes uplines, and you just cant be
> auditied for 2 week if you take an asprin.
BS on most of this.... Audits are for the IRS....let them audit
Scientology.
>
> If you are interested in understanding, truely just go to the churchs
> web site and read. Dont worry, you can read the pages without losing
> you soul or sanity. Read what the church says it is and read our
> philosophy and code of honor.
>
> http://www.scientology.org/p_jpg/wis/wiseng/33/33-hon.htm
>
> http://www.whatisscientology.org/
>
You do understand that I've been buddies with Phil Scott for a while
now, right? I've read a LOT about this already before I ever posted
here. Including a few of the links you posted, plus more, I read
voraciously Alex....education is a very good thing.
Most of the Scientologist's pages that I come across...the ones that
are still in.....they sound like they *are* on some kind of drugs....at
least on Cloud 9. They sound like bot's on a good day. They don't sound
like real people to me.
> You dont have to agree. You can read it and think its worthless if you
> want. But your questions show that you dont really understand what
> scientology is trying to be and do.
My opinion is my own..... and I'll keep it, thanks. Like I said before.
I don't care what you think of my questions.... your opinion doesn't
carry *any* weight with me.
>
> And then consider: are we living up to our possiblities? No. Are we
> inherently evil?
Evil....yes.... money grubby....yes... power hungry.....yes.... a
religion....no.... hiding behind a tax exemption....yes....
Trying to shut people up....yes..... not succeeding well
recently....yes.....
Attracting their own critics....yes
Taking advantage of young people on Sea Org....YES
Trying to cover up their involvement in fair gaming.....yes
Trying to discredit doctors and medicine....YES
Trying to discredit the whole industry of psychology, etc. because they
snubbed Hubs and because he needed treatment badly himself, he even
died with the drugs in his system, YES!!!!
Should I go on?
--
Becky
Beckyboo
alexr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Becky
>
> I do not feel embarassed to associate with a person with a disability.
>
And let me follow up this by saying....I called bs on this because.....
YOU posted about me being deaf. You looked that information up and then
posted it here on purpose.
Then you changed the subject line in a thread to "Becky plays the Deaf
Card".
If you hadn't brought it up, you would never know I was
deaf......EVER..... cause you wouldn't have heard it from me....
(pardon the pun). : /
--
Becky
Chip Gallo
One question to ask at any Scientolgy org(anization):
Are your facilities accessible to people in wheelchairs? In other words,
are you ADA compliant?
That means rest rooms, exterior entrances, auditing rooms, course rooms,
etc. They may not have handicapped staff or public, but with the
renovating and new building going on, one would expect compliance with
local, state and federal laws.
Chip Gallo
Knowing How to Know is Knowing Where to Go:
http://Stop-Narconon.org/LeonaValley/briefing-book.pdf (74MB PDF)
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9363363/inside_scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/tomgorman/tommygorman.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.xenuTV.com
http://www.lermanet.com
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
http://whyaretheydead.net/
http://alley.ethercat.com/cgi-bin/door/door.cgi?11
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
http://www.torymagoo.org/
Pts 2
physical and mental / emotional.
A relatively healthy person can be recruited into the cult and spiral
down hill with time and exposure.
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
> In article <1158255311.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> True. In essence I trolled you.
>
> Your deafness is not handicap here, but naivete may be.
>
> You came on this group claiming friendship with Phil scott, a person I
> have known and worked with in the past, and for whom I have a dislike.
> You also have taken a critical and sarcastic position in regards to my
> religious beliefs. Thus in my mind, you became an appropriate target
> for a negative response from me.
>
> I seriously doubt that anyone on ARS would see your deafness as a
> negative aspect in their dealing with you and probably more the
> contrary: you would be admired for having overcome whatever effects it
> has had in your life.
>
> You are pointing out a weakness of mine, the enjoyment of teasing and
> provoking. Sometimes I go to far. My apologies if you feel I have.
>
> alex
For no particular reason, let me attempt to play 'interpreter'
here, because, from my vantage, it's you, Alex, who is missing
(whether deliberately or not) the point.
What I'm hearing is that Becky takes a personal offense not at
your opinions, or even at your jokes, but, at a specific
exercise of the Scientology religious practice you are
practicing.
If I understand you right, you got your nose out of joint by her
association or affiliation with Phil Scott, towards whom you
feel a personal antipathy, and, you object to her stated
opinions on your 'Church'.
So far; so good?
Reacting 'in kind' may not be the most admirable or 'high
toned' way to go; but, usenet isn't for the faint of heart (or,
shouldn't be) and, personal antipathies and even (gasp)
dogpiling and 'guilt by association' etc. are par for the
course.
You don't even have to te a Scientologist or OSA to get the cold
shudders at the thought of Phil setting paradigms, even if you
*like* him (which I do.)
No; I don't think it's your nasty and confrontational reaction
that Becky finds objectionable. She doesn't seem like much of a
shrinking violet.
What she *does* seem to find offensive is that, rather than
dealing with 'her' and 'her positions' on usenet, however
rudely, you instead went off and 'investigated' her to find
better tomatoes to throw.
Naturally, that's a Scientology ritual, and it's predictable
that you would do so, since it's just bringing 'Ron's Word' into
your daily life.
'Noisy Investigation' is supposed to 'shudder' your enemies into
silence; and, if you can't crack the opponent from what he
himself says, it's perfectly Scientological to go find some
'lurid blood sex crimes' to 'expose'.
Why you think that revealing that she was deaf would qualify
there is beyond me, unless, like most 'noisy investigation' the
point is supposed to be the 'intimidation factor' of how much
you're able to 'dig up' on your 'enemy'.
Anyway; that's what Becky seems to find offensive, and almost
anyone but a Scientologist would; even if it *is* a religious
ritual.
Hope this helps.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Beckyboo
Zinj, Go raibh maith agat, Grazie, Mucho Gracias, Danke schön etc.,
etc.
Now here's your mission should you choose to accept it.
Have the above translated as follows:
Into sign language, morse code, Spanish, Spanglish, Pig Latin, German,
Dutch, oh hell, all the UN languages... and don't forget.....
Hubbardish. Okay? Then comprehension will commence.
No using Babblefish, that's cheating.
I want you to hire all the most expensive translators...okay?
Then send the bill to Alex.....
You have Paypal Alex? Yes? Good, you are going to need it....now you
found my stores, you said you are very comfortable....I bet that nice
house would look great with some flags in front of it....go shopping.
I'll send you my bill too.
:-)
Hell hath no fury like...... a..... woman...... mmmmmmm
--
Becky
Jommy Cross
msg <1158208923....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
>long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
>card".....
>
>/Quote/
>I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
>number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
>But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
>like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
>/end Quote/
>
>
>Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
>an embarassment?
<snip>
I wasn't ever a Co$ customer, though I seem to be some kind of Freezoner
now.
That's only in the sense that anyone can be a FZ/Indie $cieno/
Fluffentologist if they decide they are.
In <9DXHJTH73708...@frog.nyarlatheotep.org>
I described exactly what kind of $cieno I am.
When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
prejudices of society at large, imho.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Beckyboo
Jommy Cross wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 21:42:03 -0700, "Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote in
> msg <1158208923....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> >long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> >card".....
> >
> >/Quote/
> >I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
> >
> >number of working limbs or neurons they have.
> >
> >But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
> >
> >like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> >/end Quote/
> >
> >
> >Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> >an embarassment?
> <snip>
>
> I wasn't ever a Co$ customer, though I seem to be some kind of Freezoner
> now.
I also find it interesting that there's so much confusion..... and
disagreement, no one is really sure what is what.....you are some kind
of Freezoner? Why are you confused? When will you find out? Have they
not established all the guidelines yet or written the book? Or have you
not paid enough to get all the top secret information yet?
>
> That's only in the sense that anyone can be a FZ/Indie $cieno/
> Fluffentologist if they decide they are.
>
> In <9DXHJTH73708...@frog.nyarlatheotep.org>
> I described exactly what kind of $cieno I am.
I'll take a look at that as soon as I get a moment....thanks.
>
> When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
> observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
> chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
> in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
Did you mean they are always embarassing or always being embarassed by
others?
This pains me...to a great extent...probably in the same way that it
pains most of you watching me stumble over trying to learn about
Sci-fi. But, there's some differences and I'll point them out.
1) I try hard not to make assumptions like you do.... I ask
questions.... and try to learn...I read about you and your groups. Alex
made so many assumptions about me that it was scary at best. He assumed
that Phil Scott influenced me...that Phil made up my mind for me...he
did no such thing. I make up my own mind, I always have. Phil knows
that. Then Alex set out to decimate Phil in my eyes....was that fair?
NO....
2) I caught the discussion that Ramona and Alex were having....and
several others discussing Christians....and truly, they have no idea
about Christians either...but this is not alt. christians.... but I
certainly hope they don't plan to make the movie about Christians
either, cause there would be way more than just tech errors!
If you think you have to just sit in a wheelchair to have people
discuss you in the third person, then you don't have a clue either
about what my particular situation is all about.... ok? Or any
handicapped person. I never wanted to discuss this in this group
either, but Alex forced me to....please let that be noted.
That is why I kept bringing up the deaf and DUMB comment because that
IS how society still thinks. Some people even talk louder and
louder..... oy vey.... I lip read and I have some residual hearing, but
screaming is just going to annoy me.... like it annoys everyone else.
And Alex's major concern was....how is Beckyboo going to get audited?
Cripes!
But here's another clue, most people think that because I can't hear,
that I lost my brain along the way. They talk down to me. And, I deal
with this constantly.....and not just with strangers either.....my
family doesn't understand completely.....yet... and probably never
will.
Whatever Alex said about Sci-fi and you in your Freezoner and Ramona
with LDS, there's still this whole strange mentality going on about
people with disabilities and your 'churches'.....
I don't get it.....still.
And, someone brought up a very good point, something I was discussing
with a friend last night. Are the buildings ADA compliant? This is
another thing that someone should be looking into....because all public
buildings have to be, especially new construction. I do not know if
churches fall into the same category as public buildings, or if they
get an exemption, but it would certainly be worth looking
into.....wouldn't it?
>
> That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
> physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
> prejudices of society at large, imho.
>
I find it interesting and sad that your churches have to refer to
degraded beings to begin with.
Here's another thought I have right now....Alex decided that he was
against me just because I said I knew Phil...how mature is that?
And this..... he said I took a negative view of HIS religion.....if he
was paying close attention he would have noticed that I make fun of
*my* own religion too! I kid about the nuns all the time. I actually
have 2 religions.... that's what Orange and Green means. And being that
in Belfast is a tough thing...trust me.... I have a religion to spare
and I'll gladly lend one to anyone here who needs one. I was baptized
both...for protection....so we wouldn't get blown up by bombs. Yep,
that's right....the troubles in Belfast haven't been so bad for a while
but they are still there underneath....always brewing....especially
when one comes from a family like mine. Religious persecution is
something I've been living with my whole life..... so it's not like I'm
clueless on this subject matter completely.
NOW, that's enough about me....
--
Becky
Piltdown Man
Muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote...
<snip>
> Actually, I don't think deafness is regarded as a "disability" by most
> people these days. There are just too many smart deaf people, and too
> many deaf sexy movie actresses for that.
This is a no doubt unintentional but perfect example of the bizarre
associations many people attach to the label "disability". If someone is
deaf, they lack an ability that most people do have, namely hearing. That's
why it's called a disability. Where on earth does the notion come from that
it's got anything to do with being considered smart, or with being
considered sexy? "Oh, Stephen Hawking can't walk, can't feed himself, can't
go to the toilet by himself, and he can't talk without lots of electronic
trickery -- but he's very smart, so we can't consider those things a
disability".
Piltdown Man
Jommy Cross <jommycross@[127.1]> wrote...
<snip>
> When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
> observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
> chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
> in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
I don't know if it's still around, but in the UK, BBC Radio 4 used to have
a program about disability issues with the title: "Does he take sugar?"
Ramona
Oh Really!?? NOw you are making assumptions about me, my experience,
my knowledge based on very limited information that you might have
about me.
>..but this is not alt. christians.... but I
> certainly hope they don't plan to make the movie about Christians
> either, cause there would be way more than just tech errors!
Again, you make assumptions of my knowledge just as Alex made
assumptions about you. Pot/kettle.
Ramona
Beckyboo
Black?
I read what you wrote about Christians.... and drew my conclusions
based on that. If you have another white paper on Christianity
somewhere else, or you were a Christian and have more information that
I am unaware of....then sure, let's discuss.
But several times you pointed out to Alex you were not a Christian....
you have a ton of information on being a Mormon though that I would
never dispute.
But some, if not most, of your statements about Christians were off.
That's why I made this statement Ramona.
I'll stick to what I said. But if that hurts your feelings..mmmm...
Alex made assumptions without me writing a thing.... you see the
difference?
I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
mind.
Have a good day.
--
Becky
Ramona
glint of your life, you assumed based on some statements.
>If you have another white paper on Christianity
> somewhere else, or you were a Christian and have more information that
> I am unaware of....then sure, let's discuss.
>
> But several times you pointed out to Alex you were not a Christian....
> you have a ton of information on being a Mormon though that I would
> never dispute.
>
> But some, if not most, of your statements about Christians were off.
> That's why I made this statement Ramona.
homosexuality? Or my statement that Jesus DID say something about
divorce and remarriage, yet save Catholicism (only by playing the
annulment card) divorce and remarriage is now church sanctioned despite
his clear words against. Perhaps it was my words on the four crusades?
Oh wait, I vaguely recall posting about a S. Baptist friend who calls
me when she is having faith issues since she knows I will know the
right verse to direct her and put her at ease since I know that is what
she wants and expects from me as a friend. Perhaps what offended you
was that I was educated at a parochial school but rejected Christianity
based on the facts that I found. Perhaps what impacted your reasoning
was that we converted to a cult, mormonism, so we must not have
understood Christianity enough. Perhaps you were offended that I
believe, if Jesus did exist, that having enough loaves and fish were
not *poof magically given by Jesus, but that he shared and in doing so
inspired the 5,000 to share with one another. While you may not
consider that miraculous, I consider it more miraculous.
Now had you stated that I know very little about scientology, I would
have agreed with you. I've been here under a year and came because of
friend started telling me that she found Dianetics (specifically engram
development) to be something that made sense to her. Based on my
previous cult experience and just a vague "feeling" about CO$ I came
here and around for information. In college, she had also had a
personality test, which not surprising, she was told that she would
need to take a course. Like most college students, she didn't have
money and walked out the door. Like we were when we joined the
different brandname, she was in a vulnerable position but finacially in
a very appealing state by CO$ standards. I knew I needed to work
quickly and a.r.s., xenu.net, and yes even the main org link were quick
sources for material. I gave her brief synopsis of Hubbard (his psych
medicine use and his false history) the levels including the space
cooty story complete with Xenu/xemu to reboot her thinking.
>
> I'll stick to what I said. But if that hurts your feelings..mmmm...
The point was that you felt just fine using false assumptions to
discuss me, but when Alex did the same you wigged out. Again
kot/kettle. I haven't been following the Beckyboo/Alex conflict, but I
did come across something that was very disturbing to me. I have not
verified so if I am wrong please correct my statement. Alex posted
personal information about you here? While he may have found that
easily through a google search, I still find it an invasive act.
Welcome to Fair Games light and so sorry you had to experience that.
That is one of the issues that most disturbs me about CO$. The cult
seems to promote such behavior as acceptable since one is defending the
church *spit. I see it as just another attempt to silence free speech.
> Alex made assumptions without me writing a thing.... you see the
> difference?
So, you came to A.R.S. because Alex was posting about you and you found
out?
>
> I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
> mind.
You did this by speaking your mind based on very little (almost
non-existent) knowledge of me, which is precisely the complaint you had
with Alex. That was my point. It doesn't excuse Alex's behavior
posting private information though.
>
> Have a good day.
Thank you and you as well.
Let's both dust off and get to the reason for being here, scientology.
What brings you to A.R.S.?
Ramona
>
> --
>
> Becky
Beckyboo
Ramona wrote:
> >
> > But several times you pointed out to Alex you were not a Christian....
> > you have a ton of information on being a Mormon though that I would
> > never dispute.
I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet because it really seems
for the most part off topic to me.... but will try to answer your
questions to clear some of this up.
I was never offended.....I don't get offended by any statements about
any religions....I don't take it personally. Do you understand? I don't
care what you or anyone else says about the Catholic church, the
Mormons, or Sci-fi... you can say they are great, you can say they
suck, doesn't matter one iota to me.
I said you made statements about Christians that were off... perhaps
you were making statements about Southern Baptists? but to make broad
sweeping statements about Christianity, and to make it sound like those
beliefs apply to all Christian churches is a great disservice. There's
a great difference between what one practices and another, and there
may be a common denominator, but the differences are greater than the
single common denominator. There are extreme right wing Christians,
like the dear Rev. who protests soldier's funerals...he protested my
nephew's funeral in May of this year, he died in Afghanistan in a
chopper accident. The dear Rev. didn't care that my nephew was Lutheran
either.
After divorce, remarriage in the Catholic church still is not
sanctioned (unless you get an annullment)...that's only one point I'll
make okay? I'm not going to argue this point by point.
I haven't been following the Beckyboo/Alex conflict, but I
> did come across something that was very disturbing to me. I have not
> verified so if I am wrong please correct my statement. Alex posted
> personal information about you here? While he may have found that
> easily through a google search, I still find it an invasive act.
> Welcome to Fair Games light and so sorry you had to experience that.
> That is one of the issues that most disturbs me about CO$. The cult
> seems to promote such behavior as acceptable since one is defending the
> church *spit. I see it as just another attempt to silence free speech.
> > Alex made assumptions without me writing a thing.... you see the
> > difference?
> So, you came to A.R.S. because Alex was posting about you and you found
> out?
I posted after Phil in a motorbike group....my name was being sporged
in OTHER groups...posts were showing up in my regular groups under my
name and it wasn't me. Whoever did that was causing tons of trouble in
my regular groups. It was a mess. I traced the person who was doing
it...it took lots of time and effort but I did find them....in this
group. Then I came here and posted, but not before talking to Phil and
Tory.... I also emailed Arnie about the situation.
We, me and my mother, post to newsgroups because we are trying to find
a guy who we believe has culpability in my sister's death....she was
killed 4/20/06 in a motorcycle accident, that's why I was in a
motorbike group. He's pretty famous....owns a motorcycle school...he
was with her at the time, but disappeared. We know where he is but he's
wealthy, so he can hide figuratively..... not literally.... He's all
lawyered up and hired security too. Whoever sporged me in the motorbike
groups threw me....and my mother off our main reason for posting to
begin with.... they disrupted our agenda completely.
Shortly after I showed up here, someone, Alex? posted all my personal
information, my regular business...address...phone numbers...my
pictures, my mother's pictures....calling her a bull dyke... Then Alex
dug more and found my eBay business and posted that too.
> Let's both dust off and get to the reason for being here, scientology.
> What brings you to A.R.S.?
>
Ok....deal....dusting off...
--
Becky
Ramona
Beckyboo
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158332256....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> spirit.
>
> I find inspiration in the message I suppose and assume Jesus meant to
> deliver: Unconditional love for ones fellow humans. Much of the rest can
> be discarded, and the one priciple can be a good basis for life. Of
> course I am certainly not an example of such pricipled living....
>
> > Perhaps what offended you
> > was that I was educated at a parochial school but rejected Christianity
> > based on the facts that I found. Perhaps what impacted your reasoning
> > was that we converted to a cult, mormonism, so we must not have
> > understood Christianity enough. Perhaps you were offended that I
> > believe, if Jesus did exist, that having enough loaves and fish were
> > not *poof magically given by Jesus, but that he shared and in doing so
> > inspired the 5,000 to share with one another. While you may not
> > consider that miraculous, I consider it more miraculous.
>
> with a glance, as proof of the existence of scientology OT's.
>
> The more subtle effect created is sometimes the more profound and
> then here. I will admit to tagging on to that with a post showing a link
> to her ebay store, and mentioning her deafness.
>
> In retrospect, trolling her, was transparent and not an action that
> speaks well for me, or my positions.
>
> > > I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
> > > mind.
> > You did this by speaking your mind based on very little (almost
> > non-existent) knowledge of me, which is precisely the complaint you had
> > with Alex. That was my point. It doesn't excuse Alex's behavior
> > posting private information though.
>
You are a liar Alex.... now I don't believe one word you say.... That
is not all you did... There is way more than one Beckyboo. Scientology
teaches you to lie, right? Or says it's okay to lie when fair
gaming....true?
You are a liar Alex.....
--
Becky
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158332256....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> spirit.
That does not make me christian, even in spirit. I have also
emotionally supported friends, though ultimately it was their decision,
to have abortions. I am not an abortionist either.
>
> I find inspiration in the message I suppose and assume Jesus meant to
> deliver: Unconditional love for ones fellow humans. Much of the rest can
> be discarded, and the one priciple can be a good basis for life. Of
> course I am certainly not an example of such pricipled living....
>
> > was that I was educated at a parochial school but rejected Christianity
> > based on the facts that I found. Perhaps what impacted your reasoning
> > was that we converted to a cult, mormonism, so we must not have
> > understood Christianity enough. Perhaps you were offended that I
> > believe, if Jesus did exist, that having enough loaves and fish were
> > not *poof magically given by Jesus, but that he shared and in doing so
> > inspired the 5,000 to share with one another. While you may not
> > consider that miraculous, I consider it more miraculous.
>
> with a glance, as proof of the existence of scientology OT's.
(superhuman abilities) are a given. If that is the claim and
scientology pretends itself as a science, then follow the rules of
science and test/verify those claims. The followers of Jesus
attributed those abilites to him, not the inverse.
>
> The more subtle effect created is sometimes the more profound and
> miraculous.
I don't consider an individual that inspires mass generosity the
slightest bit subtle, but I agree that it is both profound and
miraculous. But that is the example that most strikes me against
scientology. Again back to Jenna Elfman's example to the children with
AIDS fundraiser. Instead of inspiring mass kindness, she instead is
inspired by Hubbard that taught that one should not aid or be
charitable to others as somehow inhibiting them.
> Someone else was posting about becky, first on the motorcycle group and
> then here. I will admit to tagging on to that with a post showing a link
> to her ebay store, and mentioning her deafness.
I am not familiar with the situation but do ask: Why would you even do
that?
Ramona
>
> In retrospect, trolling her, was transparent and not an action that
> speaks well for me, or my positions.
>
> > > I'm not here to make friends or enemies either.... Just to speak my
> > > mind.
> > You did this by speaking your mind based on very little (almost
> > non-existent) knowledge of me, which is precisely the complaint you had
> > with Alex. That was my point. It doesn't excuse Alex's behavior
> > posting private information though.
>
> Googled Beckyboo. That is all.
>
> alex
Jommy Cross
in msg <1158221159.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Actually, I don't think deafness is regarded as a "disability" by most
>people these days. There are just too many smart deaf people, and too
>many deaf sexy movie actresses for that.
>
>being witty.
They're based on my observation of how people with disabilities are
treated. I wish it were otherwise, but to the extent you're disabled many
people seem to regard you as more of an object than a human.
>
>As far as I know, the person (?) who made the comments was never a
>Scientologist. He's just momentarily being a clod. (There is an
>unwritten universal law *that requires everyone to behave like a clod
>for a tiny fraction of time, every so often*. Obviously, this was this
>person's turn at it.)
I'd be happy if it was only a tiny fraction of the time.
Jommy Cross
msg <1158290830.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Jommy Cross wrote:
<snip>
>> In <9DXHJTH73708...@frog.nyarlatheotep.org>
>> I described exactly what kind of $cieno I am.
>
>I'll take a look at that as soon as I get a moment....thanks.
I'll save you some time, but spoil the joke for you. I was talking to our
friendly Indie Scientologist when I said:
'"In fact, I've decided I'm a $cientologist. The only statement of
Hubbard's I hold to is "The source of life is a static of peculiar and
particular properties.". The rest of it, to the last HCOB, is patently
drug-addled sci-fi. And yes, I *do* spell the word with a dollar sign.
'"Further, I don't want to hear any sniping from bigots about how I'm not a
*real* $cieno as I continue to point out that Ron was mad, bad and
dangerous to give money or credence to."'
So that's not much of a $cieno, is it?
>
>>
>> When I wrote 'the disabled are always embarrassing' I was describing my
>> observation of society in general. I don't know if you've ever had the
>> chance to sit in a wheelchair while people stand over you and discuss you
>> in the third person but, trust me, it's not a great day out.
>
>Did you mean they are always embarassing or always being embarassed by
>others?
I meant a lot of people are embarrassed by the disabled. Obviously, some
disabilities are harder to deal with than others.
<snip>
>> That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
>> physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
>> prejudices of society at large, imho.
>>
>
>I find it interesting and sad that your churches have to refer to
>degraded beings to begin with.
<snip>
Well, yeah. But that's paranoid ufo nut cults for you.
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158424231.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It sounds as if although you are not christian in label, you are in
> > > spirit.
> > I am offended. I love a friend enough to support her in her belief.
> > That does not make me christian, even in spirit. I have also
> > emotionally supported friends, though ultimately it was their decision,
> > to have abortions. I am not an abortionist either.
> > >
>
> have exhibited virtuous behavior
Perhaps I have studied too much Christian history to find much of it
virtuous.
> that is similar to the teaching of a
> religion that apparently you have issues with.
>
> Perhaps I should suggest you are less than virtuous?
>
> "Western Culture", European and American, is derived from Christian
> principles.
Or Jewish ones that Christians through supercessionism claim as their
own.
> To suggest you have acted in a manner characteristic of
> Christian teachings, implies that you have acted in the best of the
> tradition of our culture.
>
> You are offended!
The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known
story of Hillel:
"On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before
Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that
you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."[1] Thereupon
he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand.[2]
When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the
entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, "What is
hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah
while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."[3]
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/ahavas-yisroel/08.htm
*Of Note is that Hillel lived in the first century BCE (before the
common era.) Hmm, do you know of anybody that perhaps lived a century
later that might have been inspired by Rabbi Hillel and that the same
quote you attribute to him and the religion derived from him? Here's a
hint, I'm Jewish. Can you now understand the offense?
>
> I scared my cat laughing at that one!
>
> I suggest you are offended that I, (a scientologist) attempt to
> communicate with you.
Naw, that you are a scientologist doesn't even impact me. L'chaim
y'all.
Ramona
>
> alex
rai...@yahoo.com
Hmm. The comment about "embarassing" seems to be the personal position
of whomever it is you are quoting. I do not recall it being stated one
way or the other in my time in Scientology and the Sea Org. My wife and
I have a handicapped son who was born during our time in the Sea Org -
I never felt embarassed nor did anyone make me feel that way.
Now I don't think that Scientology is "pro" the handicapped - I think
the main reason for that is that handicapped people show, without a
doubt, that Scientology "tech" is worthless. Our son is deaf/blind and
it certainly never helped him any. And of course, most people with
disabilities, especially those with cognitive ones, are not going to
have any money.
Now if we ever want to rag on Christian Science who are absolutely
disgusting when it comes to the disabled..
Mick
Beckyboo wrote:
> Copied from another thread that was getting very, very
> long......included things that Alex posted about me playing "the Deaf
> card".....
>
> /Quote/
> I take this to mean "anyone who argues with Hubbard", regardless of the
>
> number of working limbs or neurons they have.
>
> But the disabled are always embarrassing, so $cienos probably flee them
>
> like almost everybody else, as Alex's comment indicates.
> /end Quote/
>
>
> Seriously? You were all led to believe that anyone with a disability is
> an embarassment?
>
> Someone please explain this to me? Thanks!
>
> And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> tests? At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> bizarre? That my religion is making me take a lie detector test? A
> religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> get out, I can't....but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
>
> Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
>
> Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
>
> Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
>
>
> --
>
> Becky
Beckyboo
rai...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Becky,
>
> Hmm. The comment about "embarassing" seems to be the personal position
> of whomever it is you are quoting. I do not recall it being stated one
> way or the other in my time in Scientology and the Sea Org. My wife and
> I have a handicapped son who was born during our time in the Sea Org -
> I never felt embarassed nor did anyone make me feel that way.
>
> Now I don't think that Scientology is "pro" the handicapped - I think
> the main reason for that is that handicapped people show, without a
> doubt, that Scientology "tech" is worthless. Our son is deaf/blind and
> it certainly never helped him any. And of course, most people with
> disabilities, especially those with cognitive ones, are not going to
> have any money.
>
>
>
Hi Mick,
Thanks for sharing your story. I wish I could agree with you but I'm
not seeing that it's just one personal postion in Sci-fi from what I'm
reading, and not just on ARS. Maybe not stated, but definitely brewing
underneath. And, it's an interesting concept to look at in what you
brought up.... Sci-fi can try to brush the disabled under the rug
because it shows their "tech" really is worthless. :-)
I do understand your point in the money vs. no money earning capability
Sci-fi may look upon with the disabled.
Good luck with your son! Helen Keller is definitely one of my hereos.
:-) I read her story when I was little, even before I lost my own
hearing. Radcliffe grad, wasn't she?
You might find some support in a group called The Say What Club. ;-)
Yes, that's a real online support group. Cute name, isn't it? Google
them (if you don't already belong)..... it's a moderated group with a
huge membership of mostly late deafened people. But many on there are
deaf/blind too. And many parents belong as well.
You'd be amazed at their accomplishments, and they share their
struggles and everyday sorrows too. Also, if you need a special
computer (or other help) for your son, let me know. I have a very close
friend who is a retired NASA engineer and is blind also, and he can get
help steer you in the right direction to possibly find some
assistance.
--
Best,
Becky
barbz
> Alex wrote:
>> In article <1158580057.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> rai...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Hi Becky,
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. The comment about "embarassing" seems to be the personal position
>>>> of whomever it is you are quoting. I do not recall it being stated one
>>>> way or the other in my time in Scientology and the Sea Org. My wife and
>>>> I have a handicapped son who was born during our time in the Sea Org -
>>>> I never felt embarassed nor did anyone make me feel that way.
>>>>
>>>> Now I don't think that Scientology is "pro" the handicapped - I think
>>>> the main reason for that is that handicapped people show, without a
>>>> doubt, that Scientology "tech" is worthless. Our son is deaf/blind and
>>>> it certainly never helped him any. And of course, most people with
>>>> disabilities, especially those with cognitive ones, are not going to
>>>> have any money.
>>>>
>>>> Mick
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Mick,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing your story. I wish I could agree with you but I'm
>>> not seeing that it's just one personal postion in Sci-fi from what I'm
>>> reading, and not just on ARS. Maybe not stated, but definitely brewing
>>> underneath. And, it's an interesting concept to look at in what you
>>> brought up.... Sci-fi can try to brush the disabled under the rug
>>> because it shows their "tech" really is worthless. :-)
>> because it cant heal the blind?! Blindness and deafness and various
>> mechanical disabilities are something that is manifest in a BODY.
>>
>
> Alex, do try to keep up....I didn't say that.... someone else said
> that...and you are mixing up me with someone else saying that I said
> something someone else said that I didn't say...now you are saying I
> said it and I didn't say it and so on and so forth...
>
> <sigh>
>
> --
>
> Becky
>
Get your wogs in a row, Alex.
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
Eldon
two-edged sword for Scientology.
Look up the story of Raul Lopez, the victim who was brain damaged in a
traffic accident and ripped off several years ago. He'd already had
professional occupational therapy, and presumably had progressed as far
as he could. But he was still disabled. But oh, he had received a large
insurance settlement.
Along came Scientology and cleaned him out with the false promise that
auditing could help, plus an Ostrich farm investment scam.
It goes back to Hubbard's original claims in Dianetics that his miracle
tech would fix anything and everything, even conditions known to be
caused by genetic and birth defects, disease and physical injuries.
But it won't, so Scientology tends to avoid those "difficult cases"
unless there's easy money to be made.
Just show them the money and they'll make all sorts of exceptions.
zeeorger wrote:
> LRH makes a lot of statements, which when strung
> together, forms the overall viewpoint/mindset of all
> scientologist's towards who, how and when they will
> "help" someone.
>
> "scientology makes the able more able" - This limits
> scientology to those that are 'able'.
>
> "we will handle those [degraded beings] once we have
> made it." - scientology is for those aware enough to
> merit it.
>
> The task of 'clearing the planet' is so large that we do
> not help those who can not help in return. (equivalent
> to medical triage - help those who will help us, dump
> the rest).
>
> In scientology there is term called "criminal exchange".
> The criminal is defined as one who takes things without
> giving anything in return. The corollary to this datum is
> that "giving something for nothing creates criminals".
> So nothing is ever given without expecting something
> in return, by force if need be.
>
> Propitiation, defined as giving something to another in
> the hopes that you will not get harmed - it is considered
> to be extremely 'low toned' (emotionally degraded)
>
> Sympathy, defined as going into agreement with another
> who is down in the dumps is also considered to be very
> 'low toned' - hence scientologists have no sympathy.
>
> "you are _entirely_ responsible for the condition you
> are in <period>" - This comes from the viewpoint that
> you are an 'Operating Thetan' (akin to GOD) - so it can
> only be YOU who put you in the state you are in. If you
> are disabled, it is because to chose to be in that state.
> (this is PHD level scientology ethics)
>
> "We don't owe scientology to anyone".
>
> There is an LRH policy called "Illegal PCs" a.k.a. the
> "A to J" types. These are people who are not allowed
> to be audited. It excludes those from the media, press
> demonstrations, those who want to do scientific tests,
> those who are not there on their own free will, ...
>
> The insane, any psychiatrists and those who have been
> treated by psychiatrists, are not allowed near scientology.
> These people are considered brain-damaged. Psychiatrists
> are considered pure evil.
>
> ... there are some exceptions. There are people who are
> disabled who are scientologists. The numbers are very low.
> They are even lower for those on staff or in the Sea Org.
> It is very difficult to audit or get audited if you are missing
> an arm or are unable to walk on you own.
>
> In a way being a scientologist is a bit like being in the
> army (they only want able bodied people) to do battle
> against perceived imaginary enemies.
>
>
> > And, this "religion" that you were in.....you had to take lie detector
> > tests?
>
> Yes, they are called security checks, sec-checks for short.
>
> There is a heavy emphasis on uncovering 'sins' (called 'overts'
> in scientology) ...
>
> The basic theory runs as follows:
>
> You do something wrong - this is an overt (sin). This overt
> (sin) causes you to distance yourself from the general area
> and the people you have comitted an overt (sin) on. This
> separation then creates a "me v.s. them" and you commit
> more overts (sins) against "them" ... It also causes you to
> "not see" what others are doing. The general behaviour of
> those who have commited overts is called 'withhold' or
> what is commonly known as "guilty behaviour". The two
> terms often put together in one word "O/W" (short for
> Overt/Withhold).
>
> The scn solution to this "dwindling spiral" is to have you
> confess your sins. This works up to a point. But scientology
> takes it to extremes:
>
> If you are not as productive as you should be, you get
> sec-checks. If you are trying to leave (putting distance
> between you and those you have sined upon) you get a
> sec-check (even if the place stinks). Anytime something
> major goes wrong in your unit, department or org, the entire
> crew gets sec-checked (you should have seen it comming,
> you did not see it comming, so you must have major sins).
> ...
>
> The ultimate solution is to chuck scientology.
>
>
> > At what point did any of you start to say this is a tiny bit
> > bizarre?
>
> All the way in. :-)
>
> I left the Sea Org when I realized the RTC (most church
> management) was nuts. A lot of us left the church in the
> 1980's. But I was still a "scientologist".
>
> I quit being a scientologist on my own. For me it was the
> equivalent of a reverse self-induced psychotic break. Only
> then did it become possible to be willing to google for people
> like David Mayo, Vaughn Young, ... and read what others had
> to say and what they went through.
>
>
> > ... That my religion is making me take a lie detector test?
>
> I gave up on sec-checks when I realized scientology ethics
> was not working as it should. The reason why is complex
> to explain - you have to understand the mechanics of mind
> control as it is used within scientology.
>
> > ... A
> > religion that isn't doing any good works, isn't helping anyone out, is
> > taking all my money, no accounting of where it's going....if I try to
> > get out, I can't.
> > ...but for God's sake stay the hell away from anyone
> > with a disability? And don't take an aspirin.
> >
> > Nothing in that sounded goofy to anyone at any point?
> >
> > Forgive me if I sound a tiny bit....mmmm....baffled to put it mildly
> > here. But I am baffled right now. Was there something inside you
> > nagging you all the time that this just doesn't add up?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for helping me understand more.
> >
> > Becky
>
>
> The short answer is - scientology is a mind control operation.
> Its purpose was (still is) to abuse people for their energy, their
> money, to wield the power of fanatics ...
>
> You are getting hypnotized without your consent. Auditing
> involves controlled communication and controlled attention.
> You get stuffed with endless datums that are 'near truths'
> together with 'total absurdities' ... you can sometimes see
> that something is not right, but by then you keep trying to
> compute your way out (which is not allowed in scientology
> either) and your mind jams up, or you keep going back to
> the Org and try to "fix it" and you run into more people that
> are even more "screwed into their heads" ... scientology
> was designed to introvert you into your own mind. It is
> very very nasty. It creates schizophrenia.
>
>
>
> Z
Zinj
al...@null.edu says...
<snip>
> You can not, by your say so, undo my previous christianity, and in fact
> it is unchristiian of you to try to do so.
Nobody can 'remove' early influences, although their influence
can vary from 'nil' to 'full', by its own tenets, Scientology is
not only 'unchristian', but *anti-Christian*. It is
antithetical; diametrically opposed; in a practically point-for-
point opposition to *every one* of the core tenets of every
flavor of Christianity. By design.
Although, also by design, it does attempt to disguise its 'anti-
christianity' behind mealy-mouthed 'creeds' and 'codes' and a
claim to being 'compatible'.
There's nothing 'Christian' about saying 'Thou Shallt Not Kill -
Unless you really want to', which is typical of the actual
subtext behind Scientology weaslewordism.
'Never fear to hurt another in a just cause'
'Avoid harmful lies'
etc.
I often get frustrated by critics who read the various
Scientology Creeds and actually fall for the similarity,
although any actual reading reveals the self-serving 'escape
hatches' in every platitude.
If you're judged 'unchristian' Alex, it's because you openly
*embrace* the Scientology antithesis.
By that measure, whether you 'celebrate Christmas with a
Christmas tree' becomes irrelevant.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
And all you wogs, don't let him.
The little duck fakir wants to shoot down wogs like ducks in ponds,
plus wants them in a row. So duck you wogs and web out!
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/fun/parody/dm-duck-fakir.html
Oh, and while you wogs get completely out of line, keep DM and Alex in
a row.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
jerald
The last part of your post says it all. Yes any fool can do it. (and
it looks like one has) But why?
jerald
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158601054.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > May I just point out that this is also not alt. deaf or alt. eBay.
> > Beckyboo's store...but that didn't stop you from exposing me? Nor alt.
> > us flag. org.... nor alt. usflagdepot. com
> >
> > Nor alt. beckyboo. twins .jpg pictures.... but that popped up too? Nor,
> > alt. let's make fun of Becky's mother?
> >
> > May I ask you too why you thought my mother was a bull dyke and how she
> > could have had me if she was one? And, if she's so ugly....why did you
> > think I was cute? Huh Alex? I look just like my mother.... that still
> > confuses me.
> >
> > You attacked me and my mother, you exposed us and now you are wondering
> > why I'm not exactly happy with you. Get a clue Alex.
> >
> > --
>
> Becky.
>
> I have never commented on your mother.
>
> I have never said you were cute. (although you would qualify as at least
> that)
>
> I have never posted photos of you or links to them.
>
> The only thing I have ever posted about you that was not directly from
> this group, is a link to your ebay store, which is public information,
> and the fact that you were deaf, which you do not deny and is again
> public information from your ebay store.
>
> I was not the one who posted links to your flag site. You are confused
> or possibly influenced by individuals who would suggest otherwise.
>
> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
> Before you go accusing me of things I have not done, you should check
> your facts.
>
> I have been chastised for posting "outside" information about you. I
> admit that it is not considered curteous to do such. I have in fact
> indicated that I understood that. I will not though apologize. I only
> posted what any fool with google could have found by entering your
> screen name and waiting 0.01463 seconds to get >1,263,029 results. You
> are all over the net.
>
> Now either post your "evidence" to back up your accusations or move on.
>
> alex
Gerry Armstrong
>In article <alex-027D4C.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote:
>
>> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
>> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
>> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
>I have in the past 6 months, approximately 8 times, posted under a nym
>not associated with alex. It was in five different threads and concerned
>advanced materials. I did acknowledge it to a poster who called me on it.
>
>In years past I had posted with a different name, which I no longer use.
>I would rather not mention it as I seem to make a fool of myself well
>enough that I don't need to dredge up my past for assistance.
I would rather that you *did* mention it, as it would clear the air,
and because you have *not* made a fool of yourself well enough.
>
>None of these postings were concerning Becky.
Good. Only include your different names for posts then that concern
anything other than Becky.
>
>alex
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Barbara Schwarz
Alex schrieb:
> I post only as alex or alexrsingh(at)hotmail.com, sometimes via google,
> sometimes via usenet directly. I am not using any other names on this
> group. Or for that matter anywhere else on usenet.
>
> Before you go accusing me of things I have not done, you should check
> your facts.
>
> I have been chastised for posting "outside" information about you. I
> admit that it is not considered curteous to do such. I have in fact
> indicated that I understood that. I will not though apologize. I only
> posted what any fool with google could have found by entering your
> screen name and waiting 0.01463 seconds to get >1,263,029 results. You
> are all over the net.
>
> Now either post your "evidence" to back up your accusations or move on.
>
> alex
She is a fanatic, Alex. I didn't even know who she was when she came
out of the bushes and posted a thread against me that I should watch my
back. I never did anything to her. She is a typically disturbed
Scientology hater.
Her real name is Shirley Streufert. She seems to be a close friend of
Phil Scott.
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
Barbara Schwarz
--
Eugenics promoter and American enemy Tilman Hausherr and habitual,
sexual harasser, forger and habitual offender Korey Jerome Kruse
(Vivaldi, Simaktu and other sockpuppets) scribbled a defamatory
misleading Wikipedia article about me. Kruse just came out of jail.
http://www.alarmgermany.org/tilman.htm
Another lying abuser who stalks me from thread to thread is Peat
Stapleton (Eru Avatar), alsimak_three @ yahoo.com, from Redding,
California, a dead beat with several social security numbers, self
confessed pimp and child rapist, and former inmate with a psychiatric
history, who runs astrology scans.
Jommy Cross
<alex-143E70.0...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>In article <AVIMPRLE38...@anonymous.poster>,
> jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>snip
>
>
>> >> That Alex thought (wrongly) that Hubbard must have been referring to
>> >> physical disability in his term 'Degraded Being' simply reflects the
>> >> prejudices of society at large, imho.
>> >>
>
>
>snip
>
>
>I never thought that "degraded being " referred to the physically
>disabled.
>
>In fact I was arguing exactly the opposite.
>
>Somewhere someone has mixed me up with something someone else said.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:59:12 GMT, Alex <al...@null.edu> wrote in msg
<alex-B319BD.1...@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>In article <1158172368.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The LDS also have an alien connection. Heavenly Father came from near
>> the planet KOLOB. While scientology places those mentally impaired as
>> degraded though,
>
>I'm not sure this is true. I see them as usually having a bodily defect
>of some kind. Although it is true that scientology does not currently
>concern itself much with the less able.
<snip>
So who did you mean had "a bodily defect of some kind"? Please clarify this
ambiguous statement.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Ramona
Alex wrote:
> In article <1158529082.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,> > > In article <1158424231.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It sounds as if although you are not christian in label, you are in
> > > > > spirit.
> > > > I am offended. I love a friend enough to support her in her belief.
> > > > That does not make me christian, even in spirit. I have also
> > > > emotionally supported friends, though ultimately it was their decision,
> > > > to have abortions. I am not an abortionist either.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Ha! That is rich! You are offended that I have suggested that you may
> > > have exhibited virtuous behavior
> > Perhaps I have studied too much Christian history to find much of it
> > virtuous.
> > > that is similar to the teaching of a
> > > religion that apparently you have issues with.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should suggest you are less than virtuous?
> > >
> > > "Western Culture", European and American, is derived from Christian
> > > principles.
> > Or Jewish ones that Christians through supercessionism claim as their
> > own.
> >
> > > To suggest you have acted in a manner characteristic of
> > > Christian teachings, implies that you have acted in the best of the
> > > tradition of our culture.
> > >
> > > You are offended!
> > The Talmud in tractate Shabbos 31a relates the following well-known
> > story of Hillel:
> > "On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before
> > Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on the condition that
> > you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot."[1] Thereupon
> > he chased him away with the builder's cubit that was in his hand.[2]
> > When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the
> > entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, "What is
> > hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah
> > while the rest is commentary; go and learn it."[3]
> > http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/ahavas-yisroel/08.htm
> >
> > *Of Note is that Hillel lived in the first century BCE (before the
> > common era.) Hmm, do you know of anybody that perhaps lived a century
> > later that might have been inspired by Rabbi Hillel and that the same
> > quote you attribute to him and the religion derived from him? Here's a
> > hint, I'm Jewish. Can you now understand the offense?
>
> If you are Jewish, certainly I can.
>
> You are Jewish, converted to LDS, and then left LDS?
>
> I'm sorry I kind of would never have suspected that one!
>
> Not saying its not true, just fairly UNIQUE!
Yes, there are Jewish converts in the lds cult just as there are
multiple religions represented in CO$.
>
> I meant no offense.
None taken by this agnostic. But also noteworthy is the fact that
there are many atheists that are of high moral character. A religious
label does not make a person more likely to be moral or amoral, though
morality is assumed a byproduct of religion. I don't believe that to
be true. I think the term morality is the equivalent to citizenship
and survival of the species.
>
> In the spirit of the above story, I enjoy people challenging my views.
> Being on ARS and saying I am a scientologist makes me a target. And I
> respond in kind.
So now I ask, are you in the CO$ (public or staff) or are you FZ or
otherwise independent from the org? Based on some of your writings I
get the sense of you as heretical if in the org. I come from a long
line of heretics so I mean no insult.
>
> I am not offended by sincere expressions by others that I may have some
> trait THEY consider virtuous, even if it does not fit in my definition.
>
> I believe that