Scientology Vs "The Real World"
Mistmagoo55
SCIENTOLOGY VS THE REAL WORLD
You know...many people have welcomed me to the "real world".....
Many ex-Scientologists
Many Critics....
and Many People, who have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology at all
ever.
I have to say that as someone recently out of Scientology, it is TOTALLY
shocking to find out how many people.............really EVERYONE is on my side,
now that I am out.
I know the thoughts IN Scientology: "Well, that is just why we have to fight
harder. We are the only ones with the REAL truth. and of course the big, bad
world is trying to suppress this truth....so we must just fight harder.
Horrible people like Tory are out there making this ' Road to Truth' that much
harder for us."
Ok...so let's just ask a FEW questions...as we know those OSA volunteers are
reading this. See if you can find their answers in other threads. They will
rarely answer here..but will somehow bring up their responses somewhere else.
Sort of like "Where's Waldo"....Scientology style. OK...so here are my
questions:
1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees something as
wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth?? (Please take a
moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And please try something
new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of her adult life to
helping Scientology is suddenly turned from a highly respected person into a
"criminal" and a suppressive person in two months? Do you REALLY agree with
this?
3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in constant war with
the world??
OK...those are my questions....if you see any responses that belong here (the
Where's Waldo routine) please post them here.
And to any lurking Scientologists...here is the truth:
While IN Scientology there is a feeling of security and that you MUST be doing
the right thing. Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards together.
Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is suppressive to talk
to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke! But don't forget...that IS a
Constitutional right you have...and I have too. And guess what?>?? I used
it....and now I am told I am a declared SP! Think about that one. Real hard.
Do as you like...but know one thing: It feels GREAT once you are out.
Freedom begins once you start using that constitutional right.
And it is Sooooo great to have your life ...to be able to do what you know and
want to do, unconditionally.
I invite you to come try it......:)
It isn't bad at all to be declared...in fact, some of my best friends are!
LOVE TO ALL
Tory/Magoo~dancin in "the real world"~
michaelpattinson
You are FREE!!
I have never felt better since I left the criminal cult in 1997.
Suddenly the aching needs for "sessions" evaporated, my own self-
determinism has gradually returned and I feel ALIVE once more.
I know it is difficult for you to realize that the ultimate execution
(lol) is now yours (the SP declare). I have sued and $cn wouldn't give
me any SP declare...moo......I wanted to frame it!
There is not only 'Life after $cn", but you will find it really IS life
and can be very free and enjoyable.
I have decided to start to post here now and to have my voice heard too.
I look forward to being in touch with you.
Keep on dancin' in the real sunlight of freedom.
Love,
Michael.
In article <20001025180019...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
He...@no-spam-cotse.com
interested me just now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mistmagoo55" <mistm...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 7:00 AM
Subject: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
> SCIENTOLOGY VS THE REAL WORLD
>
>
>
> You know...many people have welcomed me to the "real world".....
>
> Many ex-Scientologists
>
> Many Critics....
>
> and Many People, who have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology at all
> ever.
>
> I have to say that as someone recently out of Scientology, it is TOTALLY
> shocking to find out how many people.............really EVERYONE is on my
side,
> now that I am out.
>
> I know the thoughts IN Scientology: "Well, that is just why we have to fight
> harder. We are the only ones with the REAL truth. and of course the big, bad
> world is trying to suppress this truth....so we must just fight harder.
> Horrible people like Tory are out there making this ' Road to Truth' that much
> harder for us."
>
I dare say some Scientologists might think this. I think it would be a mistake
though.
> Ok...so let's just ask a FEW questions...as we know those OSA volunteers are
> reading this. See if you can find their answers in other threads. They will
> rarely answer here..but will somehow bring up their responses somewhere else.
> Sort of like "Where's Waldo"....Scientology style. OK...so here are my
> questions:
>
Well, I'm not a OSA volunteer - I'm just a plain old Scientologist. But I'll
have a go at answering.
>
> 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees something as
> wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth?? (Please take a
> moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And please try
something
> new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the majority of people once
believed which later turned out to be false (see the history of Science).
I think that I would avoid mentally positing Scn against "the big, bad world"
(quoted from above) and "the majority of the world." The majority of the world
doesn't know anything about the subject. Also I don't see people as being bad.
I like most people; I'm glad they are there.
I use the Scientology I know to help the people around me. It's not a war.
I also don't even mind the critics too much. I supect that they are helping to
concentrate Scientologists' minds into providing better and smoother service.
> 2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of her adult life to
> helping Scientology is suddenly turned from a highly respected person into a
> "criminal" and a suppressive person in two months? Do you REALLY agree with
> this?
I think it might be helpful to think about what would happen if we were talking
about other groups.
Let's say Sally worked in a large butcher's shop for many years. She was very
friendly with the other staff and they went on social outings and played tennis
on Sunday afternoons.
At some point she has a road-to-Damascus type conversion to vegetarianism and
decides not to work there any more.
What would happen with her old friends from the shop?
I don't think there would be a problem. Particularly if she kept up her
interest in the social events and the tennis afternoons. If she didn't, then
without any shared interests they might drift apart.
If she talked fervently about vegetarianism and said people shouldn't buy and
eat meat then she might well get some resistance from them. However if she also
picketed outside her old place of business, persuaded new trainees not to work
there and gave out flyers, then _at the very least_ her old friends would have
less interest in playing doubles with her.
We could also tell this story in reverse - have her start off as a member of
the vegetarian society who later gets a job in a butcher's shop and sneers at
the beliefs of her old friends.
My grandmother was a life-long Christian. When she got old she was unable to
get to her church and she sometimes complained that hardly any of her old
friends and contacts from the church came to see her. She could no longer talk
about the current goings on in the church, and she and they had no other
interests in common. One or two people came to visit occasionally. However if
she had picketed outside the church and promoted atheism or Satanism or even
Catholicism, I suspect that the ranks would have closed against her and she
would have been considered with some disfavor.
>
> 3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in constant war with
> the world??
Rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!
>
> OK...those are my questions....if you see any responses that belong here (the
> Where's Waldo routine) please post them here.
>
> And to any lurking Scientologists...here is the truth:
>
> While IN Scientology there is a feeling of security and that you MUST be doing
> the right thing.
Speak for yourself. There is a feeling of security, but _I_ only think I'm
doing the right thing if it really does seem to be the right thing. I also only
think the organisation is doing the right thing if it seems to be the right
thing. If it doesn't I write it up and work on getting it changed.
>Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards together.
In my opinion it would be agreement plus the applicability of the basic
philosophy to real life and the workability of individual processes.
This IMO makes it stronger than a house of cards.
> Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is suppressive to talk
> to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke!
Nothing wrong with asking questions.
However I believe that most international organisations stipulate that only
specific people within their organisations should talk to the media. The fact
that this extends to individual parishoners (unlike say at Apple where it
applies to the staff rather than the computer users) only reflects the
difficult conditions that the church has had to operate under. I think it's
hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the world, but I do think that
they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of dirty tricks have been
tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated. Partly becasue of this
they try to monitor what goes to the media from Scientologists.
>But don't forget...that IS a
> Constitutional right you have...and I have too. And guess what?>?? I used
> it....and now I am told I am a declared SP! Think about that one. Real hard.
>
> Do as you like...but know one thing: It feels GREAT once you are out.
>
I'm not speaking about your specific case here, but I jumped staff a few times
and I also felt great for a while. The reason was that I didn't have to take
any more responsibility. This was both responsibility for mistakes I'd made and
also responsibility for running my area in the future.
However the releases didn't last, and I later felt much better (and more
stably) after I'd gone back and cleaned it up.
> Freedom begins once you start using that constitutional right.
>
> And it is Sooooo great to have your life ...to be able to do what you know and
> want to do, unconditionally.
>
Good luck to you!
> I invite you to come try it......:)
>
Thanks, but no thanks.
> It isn't bad at all to be declared...in fact, some of my best friends are!
>
> LOVE TO ALL
>
>
> Tory/Magoo~dancin in "the real world"~
Freddie T
p.s. Jeesh, writing a letter like this takes a lot longer than casually
lurking. And it's a bit more stressful.
Arnie Lerma
>
>Well done Tory!
>You are FREE!!
>I have never felt better since I left the criminal cult in 1997.
>Suddenly the aching needs for "sessions" evaporated, my own self-
>determinism has gradually returned and I feel ALIVE once more.
>I know it is difficult for you to realize that the ultimate execution
>(lol) is now yours (the SP declare). I have sued and $cn wouldn't give
>me any SP declare...moo......I wanted to frame it!
>There is not only 'Life after $cn", but you will find it really IS life
>and can be very free and enjoyable.
>I have decided to start to post here now and to have my voice heard too.
>I look forward to being in touch with you.
>Keep on dancin' in the real sunlight of freedom.
>Love,
>Michael.
>
Hi Michael, welcome back online
just want you to know your message is getting
through. Tory meet New OT8 Michael Pattinson,
just goes to show, the reason the "bridge to OT" is
blocked by miscavige is that it leads to here...
Michael Pattinson reading:
Pattison sued Scientology and this is his first amended complaint.
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/pattinson1.htm
Pattinson on SCIENTOLOGY - A 'NEW OT8' Celebrity Painter Speaks Author
http://www.lermanet.com/persecution/pattinson.html
>
>
>
>
>
>In article <20001025180019...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> mistm...@aol.com (Mistmagoo55) wrote:
>>
>> SCIENTOLOGY VS THE REAL WORLD
>>
>> You know...many people have welcomed me to the "real world".....
>>
>> Many ex-Scientologists
>>
>> Many Critics....
>>
>> and Many People, who have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology
>at all
>> ever.
>>
>> I have to say that as someone recently out of Scientology, it is
>TOTALLY
>> shocking to find out how many people.............really EVERYONE is
>on my side,
>> now that I am out.
>>
>> I know the thoughts IN Scientology: "Well, that is just why we have
>to fight
>> harder. We are the only ones with the REAL truth. and of course the
>big, bad
>> world is trying to suppress this truth....so we must just fight
>harder.
>> Horrible people like Tory are out there making this ' Road to Truth'
>that much
>> harder for us."
>>
>> Ok...so let's just ask a FEW questions...as we know those OSA
>volunteers are
>> reading this. See if you can find their answers in other threads.
>They will
>> rarely answer here..but will somehow bring up their responses
>somewhere else.
>> Sort of like "Where's Waldo"....Scientology style. OK...so here are my
>> questions:
>>
>> 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees something
>as
>> wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth??
>(Please take a
>> moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And please try
>something
>> new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
>>
>> 2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of her adult
>life to
>> helping Scientology is suddenly turned from a highly respected person
>into a
>> "criminal" and a suppressive person in two months? Do you REALLY
>agree with
>> this?
>>
>> 3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in constant
>war with
>> the world??
>>
>> OK...those are my questions....if you see any responses that belong
>here (the
>> Where's Waldo routine) please post them here.
>>
>> And to any lurking Scientologists...here is the truth:
>>
>> While IN Scientology there is a feeling of security and that you MUST
>be doing
>> the right thing. Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards
>together.
>> Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is suppressive
>to talk
>> to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke! But don't
>forget...that IS a
>> Constitutional right you have...and I have too. And guess what?>?? I
>used
>> it....and now I am told I am a declared SP! Think about that one.
>Real hard.
>>
>> Do as you like...but know one thing: It feels GREAT once you are out.
>>
>> Freedom begins once you start using that constitutional right.
>>
>> And it is Sooooo great to have your life ...to be able to do what you
>know and
>> want to do, unconditionally.
>>
>> I invite you to come try it......:)
>>
>> It isn't bad at all to be declared...in fact, some of my best friends
>are!
>>
>> LOVE TO ALL
>>
>> Tory/Magoo~dancin in "the real world"~
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
Slave chains forged of lies are stronger than the finest steel
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
yduzitmatter
These are interesting examples; however, one thing you failed to mention
is
what happens to a person who is declared by scientology - no one is
supposed
to talk to them - they are to be disconnected from. If there is a case
of a family member being declared then, in effect, scientology is saying
that
one must disconnect from family.
You also don't address the issue of the attacks that are launched
against critics simply because they are critics. Scientology has sued
Time Magazine for its article - it tried to ruin Paulette Cooper.
Scientology has done
many horrible things to people who have taken a stand against its
dangerous and unethical practices. In effect - causing many people, who
might have otherwise never even known about Scientology, to become
critics. Scientology has "pulled it in" by acting like a school yard
bully and threatening people with lies, law suits, harassment, and
disrupting families. This is what we are against - the abusive
behaviour of Management towards everyone and anyone who dares criticize
its policies.
Think about it for a minute. Look at the history of what Scientology
has done - criminal convictions in the US for stealing files from the
IRS, criminal conviction in Canada for breach of the public trust for
stealing files from Government and police Agencies. Is this a religion
or a crime syndicate? From outside looking in it is the latter.
Y
Brent Stone
...<snip>
>I know now and have known in the past people who did that. And either we drift
>apart beause we have no other shared interests, or we keep up our friendship
>because we do.
>
>However this situation _is_ different. If a former member was picketing a
>Christian Church as a satanist (or a butcher's shop as a vegetarian) and
>persuading people not to join it, it is entirely possible that the vicar (or
>the butcher) would instruct his or her flock (or staff) not to talk to the
>person trying to cause trouble. They would try and protect their group.
I know of no cases of this actually happening, and of no organizations with
this kind of ~policies~. In either of these cases, I would expect the people
to ~talk~ to the former member about their change of heart, and look at the
reasons for it long before they just stopped communicating with them.
In the case of the CoS the people leaving are not criticizing the ~beliefs~
of the organization, but the actions. I know of no critics who have taken
to belief in Xenu as the savior.
A closer comparison might be if a member of the Catholic Church started
protesting the abuse of children by priests, or if the butcher shop worker
were to protest against the shop handling the meat unsafely. In the case
of the Catholic Church, this has happened, and I know of no excommunications
for it. The Catholic Church has made changes in policies and actions to
change the way they do things. In this case, they thought that the critics
were correct. If they had thought that the critics were wrong, they would
have addressed the issues and tried to come to an understanding.
Do you think that any of the arguments of critics are valid?
>There are all kinds of Scientologists. Some like myself are quite interested in
>its public image and in the nature of the attacks. Others don't really care to
>know. They have other interests.
What do you think about the nature of the "attacks"? Is there any validity in
what the critics are saying?
>> >> Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards
>> >> together.
>> >
>> > In my opinion it would be agreement plus the applicability
>> > of the basic philosophy to real life and the workability
>> > of individual processes.
>>
>> This is good, however I would caution against using the
>> workability of one process as justification for the
>> "realness" of another.
>
>Absolutely. I agree.
>
>>
>> > Nothing wrong with asking questions.
>>
>> According to HCO Policy Letter 5 March 1965:
>>
>> "If it is not in an HCO Policy Letter, it is not policy."
>>
>> What HCO Policy Letter or Bulletin authorises:
>>
>> "Scientology Policy Directives"?
>>
>This is away from the title of the thread. And I could answer it far better if
>I had access to a full Scientology library. If you want a good answer I would
>recommend writing a polite letter to the Executive Director International.
>
>However I'll tell you my opinion:
>
>We used to have isses that were junior to HCOPLs called Board Policy Letters
>but these were all scrubbed in the mid-80s. SPDs have a similar junior status
>and are 'directives" which direct rather than set policy. I've seen a few and
>they weren't very exciting. An interesting issue I did see was in the
>technical counterpart of the SPDs. I think they are called Inspector General
>for Tech bulletins. Anyway this issue reported that people were shaking their
>hands before doing a can squeeze - but that this was just something that had
>grown up out of tradition and there wasn't any LRH reference which advised
>doing this.
>
>(snip)
>
>
>Freddie T
- Brent
Keith
<8t7ohc$6n4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> wrote:
>I have never felt better since I left the criminal cult in 1997.
Oh, so you were a member of a criminal organization? So tell us
what criminal acts did you do to further this criminal organization?
Did you rob banks, extort money from business owners or are you just another
"victim"?
That was a neat trick suing the President of the United States and the
government because you claim to have taken a ride in JT's plane.
OOPS, you were "kidnapped" and then took a ride on JT's plane. I bet a lot
of fags would love to be kidnapped by JT and taken on a ride in his plane.
You seem to be the luckiest fag in the world.
That lawyer of yours, Graham Berry, he certainly did a good job of producing
evidence in your case and boy he really knows how to sue for civil torts. Good
thing he was tied up in your case, because I'm sure he would have destroyed
the tobacco companies.
--
Best Regards,
Keith (Use Reply-to for email)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you discover free software for Windows? Strongsignals DOT COM is a
great place to start: http://Strongsignals.com "Where would Christianity be
if Jesus got eight to fifteen years with time off for good behavior?" NY
State Senator James Donovan, speaking in support of capital punishment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeoMorto
<<However I believe that most international organisations stipulate that only
specific people within their organisations should talk to the media. >>
Only in regards to the corporate activities of the organization. I cannot
represent myself as an official spokesperson for my employers but I can
certainly talk to the media.
>>The fact
that this extends to individual parishoners (unlike say at Apple where it
applies to the staff rather than the computer users) only reflects the
difficult conditions that the church has had to operate under.>>
Actually your example would have been better suited to, for example, a Roman
Catholic parishioner talking to the media, discussing the faith, passing
comments on the performance of the local bishop or priest. All of which would
not get that parishioner excommunicated.
>> I think it's
hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the world, but I do think that
they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of dirty tricks have been
tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated.>>
Please cite your actual sources for this. This is a common "undertsanding"
within the cofs but the actual facts are somewhat at odds with what you have
been told.
For example - would you categorize the FBI raid in 1976 as a "heavy attack"?
After all the church's offices were raided, lots of commotion and agents etc.
That it was in response to espionage done by the church, infiltration into
government offices and agencies of course is something that most scientologists
ignore.
Or how about Germany? The church has been subject to some "heavy attacks"
there has it not?
Or did the fact that the cofs in Hamburg was busy conducting financial scams
left and right before the attacks ever happened have anything to do with it? Or
the fact that two of the best and biggest contributors to scientology were
actually nailed for criminal tax evasion perhaps a slight indicator that
perhaps the government was reacting to what the church was busy committing?
Or France? Several people get convicted of hounding a parishioner to his death
and then you feel a little attacked?
The stories of infiltration are, for the most part, apocryphal and started with
Hubbard who, of course, never offered a shred of evidence about anything he
ever claimed.
>> Partly becasue of this
they try to monitor what goes to the media from Scientologists>>
Nonsense - pure and simple.
Management does not trust scientologists, Period.
Upper management of the Sea Org thinks that you are a) stupid b) out ethics and
c) stupid.
Believe me I sat in enough product conferences to know how public
scientologists are viewed.
I applaud your well thought out response and I certainly hope that you continue
to contribute to the forum here. A fresh viewpoint is always welcome.
ars:- perhaps the most malignant newsgroup on Usenet.!
He...@no-spam-cotse.com
Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
> <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in message
> news:972520525.3...@webmail.cotse.com
> >
> > Well, I'm not a OSA volunteer - I'm just a plain old
> > Scientologist. But I'll have a go at answering.
>
> Thanks for doing this. I enjoy reading a scientologist's
> views on issues expressed here.
>
>>> 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees something as
>>> wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth?? (snip)
> > Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the
> > majority of people once believed which later turned out to
> > be false (see the history of Science). (snipped)
>
> I'd say that new theories prove to be totally false more
> often than old ones. Newton's theories were not totally
> discarded by Einstein.
You're right. But it's incidental to the point of my reply.
> One of the more effective arguments by critics is to call
> upon these Operating Thetans to demonstrate the new powers
> they claim they have. (e.g. being able to leave their body
> and read a sign they have never seen before.) To date,
> nobody has been able to prove these super human abilities.
A few points. Firstly, there is a difference between a stable and an unstable
paranormal ability. The latter being appreciably more difficult to demonstrate.
Secondly, the OT levels proper only _start_ at OT8 - the preceding levels after
Clear being known as pre-OT levels. Finally I would refer you to chapter two (I
think) in an LRH book called History of Man; and to an excellent essay on the
same subject by Homer Smith:
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm20.memo
Oh,one more point just occurs to me. If you are still interested you might have
a look at some of the data on the time lines posted by The Librarian and then
revisited by CL a few months ago.
> Many critics (including many psychologists) agree that
> something can be gained by the lower levels of scientology.
Well, that's nice! I don't suppose you could tell me which psychologists?
> For me, even these levels are not worth the cost. I can get
> the same gain by talking to a priest (with the added
> security of knowing my "secrets" are not taken down and
> read by other members of the organisation).
No problem. Good for you.
> >> 2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of
> >> her adult life to helping Scientology is suddenly
> >> turned from a highly respected person into a
> >> "criminal" and a suppressive person in two months?
> >> Do you REALLY agree with this?
> >
> > I don't think there would be a problem. Particularly if
> > she kept up her interest in the social events and the
> > tennis afternoons. If she didn't, then without any shared
> > interests they might drift apart.
>
> In this case it is not just drifting apart. Adherents to
> Scientology are instructed not to talk to anyone the
> organisation believes are a threat to it (SPs). The
> organisation therefore protects itself from being proven
> wrong. The adherents live in blissful ignorance.
If you look back at the context you snipped, you'll see that in my example the
lady had simply stopped working at the butcher's shop. A parallel in
Scientology could be that she had decided she didn't want to do any more
services.
It does happen.
I know now and have known in the past people who did that. And either we drift
apart beause we have no other shared interests, or we keep up our friendship
because we do.
However this situation _is_ different. If a former member was picketing a
Christian Church as a satanist (or a butcher's shop as a vegetarian) and
persuading people not to join it, it is entirely possible that the vicar (or
the butcher) would instruct his or her flock (or staff) not to talk to the
person trying to cause trouble. They would try and protect their group.
There are all kinds of Scientologists. Some like myself are quite interested in
its public image and in the nature of the attacks. Others don't really care to
know. They have other interests.
He...@no-spam-cotse.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
> These are interesting examples; however, one thing you failed to mention
> is
> what happens to a person who is declared by scientology - no one is
> supposed
> to talk to them - they are to be disconnected from. If there is a case
> of a family member being declared then, in effect, scientology is saying
> that
> one must disconnect from family.
I'm sure it's a very difficult situation. I'm sure that other religions which
excommunicate their members have similar problems.
I knew one family who had a member declared suppressive for a while (he got
reinstated later). I don't know them very well but I do know that the family
continued living together.
It's possible that they split the house down the middle and had different
halves of the kitchen and the fridge, but I suspect that they merely avoided
talking about Scientology during that time.
> You also don't address the issue of the attacks that are launched
> against critics simply because they are critics. Scientology has sued
> Time Magazine for its article - it tried to ruin Paulette Cooper.
> Scientology has done
> many horrible things to people who have taken a stand against its
> dangerous and unethical practices. In effect - causing many people, who
> might have otherwise never even known about Scientology, to become
> critics. Scientology has "pulled it in" by acting like a school yard
> bully and threatening people with lies, law suits, harassment, and
> disrupting families. This is what we are against - the abusive
> behaviour of Management towards everyone and anyone who dares criticize
> its policies.
> Think about it for a minute. Look at the history of what Scientology
> has done - criminal convictions in the US for stealing files from the
> IRS, criminal conviction in Canada for breach of the public trust for
> stealing files from Government and police Agencies. Is this a religion
> or a crime syndicate? From outside looking in it is the latter.
> Y
Alright, but I think that things are getting better.This next section is a kind
of rehash of something I wrote in an earlier thread. In the early eighties and
during certain periods before that it was very easy to get declared.
Particularly if you had a position of authority.
A number of reasons for the harsh ethics and unreasonable responses to attacks
have been argued for - one of the most interesting to me is the idea that a lot
of the problems stemmed from covert infiltration. Variations of this idea have
been suggested by a number of diverse people:
Bill Robertson; by the Ace of Clubs (fantastic prose style by the way, if
you're reading - one of the best I've ever read); in the time line put out
by "The Librarian" (and revisited recently by CL); the rumor line; and finally
by David Miscavige (in the satellite broadcast announcing the deal with the
IRS).
To summarise, the theory is that the church was infiltrated by its enemies;
this caused a lot of problems with things like false reports, sabotage and
plenty of injustices. The damage was not just in what those people did, but in
the ripples that were created - the mis-training of outer-org executives who
then went back and messed up their areas. Also because of the subsequent
paranoia and witch hunts.
Of course the different people above have divergent views whether the plants
within the church have been fully cleared out and the degree to which the
damage has been repaired.
Hardly anybody knows for sure, but once more I try to go by my own observations:
1. Justice is working better than it used to. Since the late eighties it has
been much more difficult get somebody declared. One of my friends was something
of a rogue (he was a reg in the mid-80s) and eventually had a lot of people
baying for his blood. He very nearly got declared, but it was too difficult.
There is a long form to go through to check that no gradient steps - like
warnings and suspensions - have been missed. Also a review of the good things
the person has done. Finally the declare proposition was disapproved (more than
once I think) and he escaped with being routed off staff (fired).
I don't know for sure but I think that previously missionaires could more or
less declare people at their discretion. Now, sensibly, the final decision
is with someone up lines and its a laborious business.
2. I've written about this more fully before, but the three orgs I know
something about are doing well, much better than previously. This is
important.
3. I evaluate the upper management terminals such as David Miscavige, Ray
Mitthof and Guillaume Lesevre by things that people tell me about them,
things I read and whenever I see them on video at org events. I like 'em.
They seem sincere to me.
Freddie T
Phineas Fogg
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in message news:972520525.3...@webmail.cotse.com...
You use Scientology to seduce people into indoctrination into Scientology,
that is your idea of "help".
LRH and church leadership, the military style organization, etc., it all points
to the fact that Scientology views itself in a war. I was a Sea Org member.
We didnt' complain about the crowded living conditions, the poor food, the long hours,
etc, only because we were told that there is a war to be won and so we had no right
to question why we had to endure such hardships.
Yes, I'm afraid Scientology is a psychological war machine, through and through,
right down to the militaristic uniforms of the Sea Org, the militaristic ranks held, right
down to "chits", a Naval thing. Militarism pervades every facet of Sea Org life.
>
>
> I also don't even mind the critics too much. I supect that they are helping to
> concentrate Scientologists' minds into providing better and smoother service.
Such as charging thousands to OT7s for sec checks, which are for no reason
other than income for Scientology. They certainly don't result in "case gain" for
the recipient. There is a word for this: extortion.
>
>
> > 2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of her adult life to
> > helping Scientology is suddenly turned from a highly respected person into a
> > "criminal" and a suppressive person in two months? Do you REALLY agree with
> > this?
>
> I think it might be helpful to think about what would happen if we were talking
> about other groups.
>
> Let's say Sally worked in a large butcher's shop for many years. She was very
> friendly with the other staff and they went on social outings and played tennis
> on Sunday afternoons.
>
> At some point she has a road-to-Damascus type conversion to vegetarianism and
> decides not to work there any more.
>
> What would happen with her old friends from the shop?
>
> I don't think there would be a problem. Particularly if she kept up her
> interest in the social events and the tennis afternoons. If she didn't, then
> without any shared interests they might drift apart.
>
> If she talked fervently about vegetarianism and said people shouldn't buy and
> eat meat then she might well get some resistance from them. However if she also
> picketed outside her old place of business, persuaded new trainees not to work
> there and gave out flyers, then _at the very least_ her old friends would have
> less interest in playing doubles with her.
Here is what is wrong with your above statements. Scientology picketers are warning
others of Scientology abuse, the OSA, and so many other things, none of which are being
perpretated by your average butcher shop, and so the comparison is rediculous.
Scientology abandonment of friendship with exSceintologists is policy. You think a butcher
shop has executive directives issue by the FDA to abandon friendships with newly converted
vegetarians? Get real.
>
> We could also tell this story in reverse - have her start off as a member of
> the vegetarian society who later gets a job in a butcher's shop and sneers at
> the beliefs of her old friends.
>
> My grandmother was a life-long Christian. When she got old she was unable to
> get to her church and she sometimes complained that hardly any of her old
> friends and contacts from the church came to see her. She could no longer talk
> about the current goings on in the church, and she and they had no other
> interests in common. One or two people came to visit occasionally. However if
> she had picketed outside the church and promoted atheism or Satanism or even
> Catholicism, I suspect that the ranks would have closed against her and she
> would have been considered with some disfavor.
Friendships may wane naturally over time, as they do in the real world.
But Scientologists abandon you suddenly and completely and view you with enmity
and contempt, which is per Scientology policy.
Christian churches forgive, Scientology churches attack.
Your comparison is faulty to the inth degree.
> > 3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in constant war with
> > the world??
>
> Rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!
"Rhetorical hypebole at its finest!" is rhetorical hyperbole at its finest.
She speaks the truth, which is support by hard evidence. You have offered nothing
to refute it, which is typical of a Scientologist when faced with something damning for
which you cannot refute, and so all you can do is conjure up an empty label.
That is all Scientologists ever do. They can not debate with substance. They are the puniest,
stupidest group of people I have ever encountered. So much so it really boggles my mind.
And you are the shining example. You are proof that Scientology makes people dull
and stupid, but you can't see beyond yourself to know this, and that is what is sad.
Those that do see are the lucky ones who managed somehow to free themselves
from the shackles of the guppy minded group think of Scientology.
People who are trying to sell Scientology are engaging in nothing but sales pitch.
They remind me of a vacuum cleaner sales person.
And just like any vacuum cleaner, Scientology sucks.
>
> >
> > OK...those are my questions....if you see any responses that belong here (the
> > Where's Waldo routine) please post them here.
> >
> > And to any lurking Scientologists...here is the truth:
> >
> > While IN Scientology there is a feeling of security and that you MUST be doing
> > the right thing.
>
> Speak for yourself. There is a feeling of security, but _I_ only think I'm
> doing the right thing if it really does seem to be the right thing. I also only
> think the organisation is doing the right thing if it seems to be the right
> thing. If it doesn't I write it up and work on getting it changed.
Indoctrination is group hypnosis, and you are one of its victims.
>
> >Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards together.
>
> In my opinion it would be agreement plus the applicability of the basic
> philosophy to real life and the workability of individual processes.
>
> This IMO makes it stronger than a house of cards.
>
> > Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is suppressive to talk
> > to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke!
>
>
> Nothing wrong with asking questions.
>
> However I believe that most international organisations stipulate that only
> specific people within their organisations should talk to the media. The fact
> that this extends to individual parishoners (unlike say at Apple where it
> applies to the staff rather than the computer users) only reflects the
> difficult conditions that the church has had to operate under.
The difficult conditions that they operate under are conditions wholly brought
upon it by itself. There you go with the typical Scientological seige mentality.
Clay demo: "I am a victim of demogogic thinking".
>I think it's
> hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the world,
When there is a ton of evidence to support this? Get your head out of the sand.
>but I do think that
> they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of dirty tricks have been
> tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated. Partly becasue of this
> they try to monitor what goes to the media from Scientologists.
> >But don't forget...that IS a
> > Constitutional right you have...and I have too. And guess what?>?? I used
> > it....and now I am told I am a declared SP! Think about that one. Real hard.
> >
> > Do as you like...but know one thing: It feels GREAT once you are out.
> >
>
> I'm not speaking about your specific case here, but I jumped staff a few times
> and I also felt great for a while. The reason was that I didn't have to take
> any more responsibility. This was both responsibility for mistakes I'd made and
> also responsibility for running my area in the future.
They must be happy that you are so indoctrinated. You are the perfect little rondroid.
Hubbard is smiling upon your decieved little soul, er....thetan.
But you have many body thetans left to remove, so better grease that wallet of yours.
And spread those cheeks wide cause your are going to get poked royally.
> Freddie T
>
> p.s. Jeesh, writing a letter like this takes a lot longer than casually
> lurking. And it's a bit more stressful.
Hardened plants live in a more stressful world, it is called the real world.
Greenhouse plants live in a cushy world, not much stress, but take them
out of the greenhouse and they die.
Better get yourself back to that Scientological greenhouse before you wither much more.
Phineas Fogg
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
>>
> No, but even in this single thread I've had to deal with someone who thought
> that criticizing the potentialities of the state of OT was an effective
> argument against Scientology. That goes directly to the issue of belief. I
> think that if I spent one hour with a search engine I could find a huge number
> of posts - from both ex-Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike criticizing
> our beliefs.
And if you looked, you would also find people critizing christian beliefs,
muslim beliefs, all manner of beliefs. So what?
> Having said that, I also think the critics are mostly fixated on making
> themselves right and that perhaps because of this they aren't capable of seeing
> the huge benefits of Scientology, and the various improvements in the Church
> that have taken place over the years.
Maybe because these mythical "huge benefits" exist only in the minds of
individual scientologists?
Beck
yduzitmatter
Your answers are well thought out and concise. I appreciate that - it
is
refreshing to see a response from someone who is not just attacking and
writing hateful spew.
I have a few questions that I would like to see addressed:
1. Re: The Purification Rundown: Doctors to whom I have shown the
Rundown to are appalled by the mega doses of vitamins prescribed -
particularly Niacin and Vitamin A - large doses of Niacin can be (and
have)
caused liver damage; Large Doses of Vitamin A can cause serious Birth
Defects. In addition to this exposure in a sauna of more than half an
hour is dangerous. This Rundown has never been proven scientifically -
in fact most doctors would never recommend such treatment. Why is it
still being used when the potential for harm far out weighs any possible
benefit?
2.The Introspection Rundown: This rundown as administered by Scientology
is extremely dangerous to a person's mental health. There is no benefit
from isolating someone who is already close to a breakdown. It just
doesn't make any sense.
3. RPF - this program is essentially enslavement - it causes severe
mental and emotional stress - not to mention the physical stress of lack
of sleep, and poor diet. This is a program designed to break a person's
spirit so that they are no longer capable of thinking for themselves but
return to the fold doing what they are told etc. This program was
started by L.Ron Hubbard as a response to his paranoia that people were
not loyal to him.
All of these programs as run by Scientology are all designed for one
thing - loyalty to the group. This seems to me to indicate that any
disloyalty to the group will result in heavy ethics - and no justice.
These are hallmarks of a cult - group loyalty first and foremost,
paranoia that someone may be doing the wrong thing or making the group
look bad.
Y
ptsc
>2. I've written about this more fully before, but the three orgs I know
>something about are doing well, much better than previously. This is
>important.
Which orgs?
You of course don't need to answer if you don't want to.
ptsc
ptsc
>However this situation _is_ different. If a former member was picketing a
>Christian Church as a satanist (or a butcher's shop as a vegetarian) and
>persuading people not to join it, it is entirely possible that the vicar (or
>the butcher) would instruct his or her flock (or staff) not to talk to the
>person trying to cause trouble. They would try and protect their group.
Except people generally do NOT just up and leave their church and start
picketing it for no reason. Generally Scientology does not start ripping people
off, fair gaming them, and forcing their friends to "disconnect" because they
are picketing, contarywise, people are picketing because they have been declared
SP, fair gamed, and had their friends disconnect from them!
ptsc
barb
Indeed. Wait until the answers come pouring down on your head!
I have one brief thing to point out. Responsibility does not take a
vacation when you leave staff. It morphs into another form for running
your own life.
Did you take the garbage out?
Remember to pay the phone bill?
Did you hurt the checker's feelings when she dropped your jar of
pickles?
Do you volunteer for a cause you believe in?
See? All still there, only it's all yours. Your life is your
responsibility. You can see people here every day who have given that
up. They're sleeping under bridges and pushing shopping carts full of
garbage bags full of who knows what.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
barb
You are addressing what happens inside the scientology organization. You
neglected to address the actions the "church" undertakes against anyone
who protests them.
You think it's getting 'better,' do you? I don't agree. From my point of
view, it's getting worse as the cult surely feels the flow of raw meat
being shut off.
In this country, if you don't like something, you have the right to
protest it. Of all the things I've protested, only Scientology seems to
think it has the right to stop me.
It is the only entity I've protested that
Followed me home
DA'ed me with a flier intended for my neighbors, full of utter
falsehoods
chased me in cars
sent people to my parent's house
Now, do you think this is correct behavior? Is this the action of a
"peaceful religious group?" that the organization is so fond of
portraying itself as?
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
yduzitmatter
lot more research which has come out in _favour_ of taking
supplements.<<
I do not disagree that taking supplements is a good idea - what I
heartily disagree with is anyone who says megadoses are OK. Megadoses
of anything
can be harmful - too much alcohol, too much sin, too many rich foods,
all
are bad for a person.
The Purif needs to be independently reviewed and studied - verifiable
proof is important - this would be a good thing but Scientology will
never do it. The idea that radiation is run out through the skin
is not provable - that red rash is from Niacin not radiation. Liver
damage is serious - short of a transplant there is no cure - too high
a risk to take don't you think?
>>And the saunas used aren't that hot.<<
The temperature is not the problem it is the humidity. Exposure over a
long period is dangerous - even if you are drinking water and eating
salt tablets - there comes a point at which the body can not replenish
what is
being taken out - and for everyone that point is different.
That brings yup the other thing I have problems with in scientology -
the tech is supposed to work the same for everyone - applied the same
way. Since every single person on the planet is different and will
respond
differently to the same stimuli then how can the tech ( applied exactly
the same to each person) work? It can't because it does not take in the
variables of each individual person or their life experiences - the very
idea that we have engrams and implants - do not enter into my argument
here - it is just not possible for every single person on the planet to
be treated by the same method and the same treatment. It is illogical
and unscientific. Ask any cop who has had to take eye-witness accounts
of an accident - he will tell you that everyone saw something different
even though they witnessed the same event. This is not failure to
duplicate
but rather, an insight into how people view things differently due to
their particular circumstances - where they were, what they were doing
at the time the accident occurred.
This is the reality of the human spirit - not everyone will respond the
same and that is a great thing. Robotic responses are not real - they
are induced and manufactured - life is not about all being the same but
about rejoicing in our differences.
Y
mimus
>Going OT is a long, gradient road.
Very, very, very long.
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
Terra Xenu
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/26/00 8:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39F8498C...@home.com>
Really?? Let's look at the statistics for me:
I have been in Scientology 30 YEARS and helping the "church" most of those
years. I had ZERO warnings or suspensions....and was now told over the phone
that one month ago I was declared an SP. That means I was "out" for 2
months....and BOOM! DECLARED SP. Did they look at all the good things? Did they
send me any warnings or try to talk to me? NO! So to say it is better....for
whom?
Magoo
. Finally the declare proposition was disapproved (more
>than
>> once I think) and he escaped with being routed off staff (fired).
>>
>> I don't know for sure but I think that previously missionaires could more
>or
>> less declare people at their discretion. Now, sensibly, the final decision
>> is with someone up lines and its a laborious business.
>>
>> 2. I've written about this more fully before, but the three orgs I know
>> something about are doing well, much better than previously. This is
>> important.
LA org..which LRH said was to be THE entry point for new people in LA has been
a complete ghost town for the last 4-5 years. They brought John Woodruff up, an
very successful mission holder in Orange County and even he could not get it
goin.
Clearwater (the "Mecca of Perfection") is a ghost town. I was there for two
months and in that time saw one OT I knew on the streets. It used to be
bustling.
So.....somehow I do not think things are way better.
>>
>> 3. I evaluate the upper management terminals such as David Miscavige, Ray
>> Mitthof and Guillaume Lesevre by things that people tell me about them,
>> things I read and whenever I see them on video at org events. I like 'em.
>> They seem sincere to me.
I haven't seen Ray in a few years...have you? I am worried about him. As for
the rest.....glad you like um. Any execs who would allow children to
disconnect from their parents....needs to be held accountable, and that is all
I will say about that.
Magoo/Tory (the new big SP)
JimDBB
>Date: 10/26/00 9:11 AM Central
>Freddie:
>
>Your answers are well thought out and concise. I appreciate that - it
>is
>refreshing to see a response from someone who is not just attacking and
>writing hateful spew.
>I have a few questions that I would like to see addressed:
>1. Re: The Purification Rundown: Doctors to whom I have shown the
>Rundown to are appalled by the mega doses of vitamins prescribed -
>particularly Niacin and Vitamin A - large doses of Niacin can be (and
>have)
>caused liver damage; Large Doses of Vitamin A can cause serious Birth
>Defects. In addition to this exposure in a sauna of more than half an
>hour is dangerous. This Rundown has never been proven scientifically -
>in fact most doctors would never recommend such treatment. Why is it
>still being used when the potential for harm far out weighs any possible
benefit?
It is good that you brough this up. I know of more than one person who has
suffered serious liver damage from doing the 'Purification' Rundown. One is a
dentist who can no longer get health innsurance because of this.
I don't think that the cult will be promoting the 'Purification' much
longer as the lawsuits pile up.
JIMDBB
realpch
<snip>
>
> You are addressing what happens inside the scientology organization. You
> neglected to address the actions the "church" undertakes against anyone
> who protests them.
>
> You think it's getting 'better,' do you? I don't agree. From my point of
> view, it's getting worse as the cult surely feels the flow of raw meat
> being shut off.
>
> In this country, if you don't like something, you have the right to
> protest it. Of all the things I've protested, only Scientology seems to
> think it has the right to stop me.
> It is the only entity I've protested that
> Followed me home
> DA'ed me with a flier intended for my neighbors, full of utter
> falsehoods
> chased me in cars
> sent people to my parent's house
>
> Now, do you think this is correct behavior? Is this the action of a
> "peaceful religious group?" that the organization is so fond of
> portraying itself as?
> --
> Barb
> Chaplain, ARSCC
Hey Barb! And that's just the stuff you KNOW about!
: )
Peach
exsc...@my-deja.com
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
<snipped a bunch>
I've enjoyed your comments & find them well thought out.
I'd like to comment on the following - hopefully I didn't snip out too
much:
>
> However this situation _is_ different. If a former member was
picketing a
> Christian Church as a satanist (or a butcher's shop as a vegetarian)
and
> persuading people not to join it, it is entirely possible that the
vicar (or
> the butcher) would instruct his or her flock (or staff) not to talk to
the
> person trying to cause trouble. They would try and protect their
group.
I was a Scientologist, and people picketed my org & I am a Methodist &
people picketed my church. Here are some differences I observed:
-At the Methodist Church, no one tried to prevent anyone from talking to
the picketers. At the Scientology Org we were told to not talk to them,
and not even to read the signs the picketers held, as they were
enturbulating. (Both sets of picketers held "enturbulating" signs.)
-At the Methodist Church, none of the "security people" tried to handle,
take pictures, video tape, etc the picketers (I don't even think we have
security people). All of this was done by the DSA at the Scientology
Org.
-At the Methodist Church no one passed out "DA" information on the
picketers, or even implied that these people were "bad" or had "crimes".
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't - it didn't seem that important. At
the Scientology Org this also was done by the DSA, so that "everyone
knew" that these picketers were "bad".
-At the Scientology Org, the DSA got information about where the
picketers lived, and went & picketed their home(s). This was not done
at the Methodist Church. I don't think anyone much cared where they
lived or who they were.
-At the Scientology Org, by all of the above actions, I felt as if my
religion was being attacked & that the picketers were really scummy to
attack a religion. I had no idea why they were REALLY picketing.
At the Methodist Church I found that the people picketing did not agree
with some of our Churches policies(*), and were expressing this. As a
result, I didn't feel attacked.
My conclusions? In my Methodist Church, I am much more free to
communicate with others (Grade 0?), and can choose not to communicate -
rather than being told when to communicate or not. I can also examine
what policies these people didn't agree with & determine for myself if I
think they should be changed, and work to change them, or if they're
fine the way they are, or if I want to leave the church because of them.
There is no need in a Church (or butcher shop) to "protect" the people,
other than perhaps a precautionary call to the police (which many
picketers do before they arrive at a Scientology Org). Scientology
seems to impose this fear on its followers (my observation/opinion), so
they feel they need to be protected.
Anyway - just wanted to give you a point of view of someone who's been
picketed.
exscnmem
* - in case you're wondering - my Church accepts homosexuals as members
(although not as pastors & cannot get married), and these people did not
agree with this policy. They felt that homosexuals should be excluded
from the Church, and wanted to warn people about going into this
particular Church because of this policy.
Raptavio
Nice to see a new Scientologist come into the fray with openness and a
positive attitude.
In article <972520525.3...@webmail.cotse.com>,
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
> There are a few posts I'd like to answer when I have more time, but
this one
> interested me just now.
I look forward to future posts of yours!
It's important for Scientologists to realize there are people in their
ranks who do make these kinds of errors in thinking.
It's also impotant to realize that some of these people hold positions
of authority within CofS.
> > Ok...so let's just ask a FEW questions...as we know those OSA
volunteers are
> > reading this. See if you can find their answers in other threads.
They will
> > rarely answer here..but will somehow bring up their responses
somewhere else.
> > Sort of like "Where's Waldo"....Scientology style. OK...so here are
my
> > questions:
> >
>
> Well, I'm not a OSA volunteer - I'm just a plain old Scientologist.
But I'll
> have a go at answering.
>
> > 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees
something as
> > wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth??
(Please take a
> > moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And please
try
> something
> > new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
>
> Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the majority of
people once
> believed which later turned out to be false (see the history of
Science).
This is true. However there are a lot of things that a vocal and
prominent minority believed which later turned out to be false as well.
And the number of things in this latter category vastly outnumbers the
number of things in this former category.
> I think that I would avoid mentally positing Scn against "the big,
bad world"
> (quoted from above) and "the majority of the world." The majority of
the world
> doesn't know anything about the subject. Also I don't see people as
being bad.
> I like most people; I'm glad they are there.
Diogenes index here. You're right; the majority of the world does not
know about the existence of Scn. However, among that subset of the
world that does know about Scn, it seems the bulk of them are either
neutral or negative towards Scn.
> I use the Scientology I know to help the people around me. It's not a
war.
To some people within CofS it is. Certainly CCHR sees their fight as a
war.
> I also don't even mind the critics too much. I supect that they are
helping to
> concentrate Scientologists' minds into providing better and smoother
service.
I would like to see evidence of this. Truly. The primary effect I see
critics having on Scientologists is reinforcement of xenophobia.
Yes, but they wouldn't call her a criminal, counter-picket her house,
create files about her, distribute fliers with false information, et
cetera. The CofS has been known to do that.
> We could also tell this story in reverse - have her start off as a
member of
> the vegetarian society who later gets a job in a butcher's shop and
sneers at
> the beliefs of her old friends.
See above.
> My grandmother was a life-long Christian. When she got old she was
unable to
> get to her church and she sometimes complained that hardly any of her
old
> friends and contacts from the church came to see her. She could no
longer talk
> about the current goings on in the church, and she and they had no
other
> interests in common. One or two people came to visit occasionally.
However if
> she had picketed outside the church and promoted atheism or Satanism
or even
> Catholicism, I suspect that the ranks would have closed against her
and she
> would have been considered with some disfavor.
See above.
> > 3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in
constant war with
> > the world??
>
> Rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!
Yes.
However, this does not mean the statement should be completely
dismissed. There is some derision within CofS towards 'the wog world'
and the CofS is in conflict with several nations' governments - Spain,
France, Germany - and has been in conflict with the US and Canadian
governments in the past as well.
> > OK...those are my questions....if you see any responses that belong
here (the
> > Where's Waldo routine) please post them here.
> >
> > And to any lurking Scientologists...here is the truth:
> >
> > While IN Scientology there is a feeling of security and that you
MUST be doing
> > the right thing.
>
> Speak for yourself. There is a feeling of security, but _I_ only
think I'm
> doing the right thing if it really does seem to be the right thing. I
also only
> think the organisation is doing the right thing if it seems to be the
right
> thing. If it doesn't I write it up and work on getting it changed.
When's the last time you did? And why?
> >Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards together.
>
> In my opinion it would be agreement plus the applicability of the
basic
> philosophy to real life and the workability of individual processes.
>
> This IMO makes it stronger than a house of cards.
You may be right. Time will tell.
> > Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is
suppressive to talk
> > to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke!
>
> Nothing wrong with asking questions.
I'm afraid there is, if you ask the wrong questions.
Or if you say the wrong thing.
If you were, for example, to say, "I think Hubbard had a bad idea when
he came up with the Fair Game policy. People shouldn't be treated that
way just for being in a lower condition," or "I think CofS is wrong for
having every expulsion come with an automatic SP declare," on this
newsgroup, and OSA knew your identity, you could expect that you would
be encouraged to not post such things from OSA. If you continued, you
could find yourself ordered to stop.
> However I believe that most international organisations stipulate
that only
> specific people within their organisations should talk to the media.
The fact
> that this extends to individual parishoners (unlike say at Apple
where it
> applies to the staff rather than the computer users) only reflects
the
> difficult conditions that the church has had to operate under. I
think it's
> hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the world, but I do
think that
> they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of dirty tricks
have been
> tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated. Partly becasue
of this
> they try to monitor what goes to the media from Scientologists.
There is no evidence of persistent attempts to 'infiltrate' the Church,
and I would like it if you would cite any of your alleged 'dirty
tricks' against the Church.
> >But don't forget...that IS a
> > Constitutional right you have...and I have too. And guess what?>??
I used
> > it....and now I am told I am a declared SP! Think about that one.
Real hard.
> >
> > Do as you like...but know one thing: It feels GREAT once you are
out.
> >
>
> I'm not speaking about your specific case here, but I jumped staff a
few times
> and I also felt great for a while. The reason was that I didn't have
to take
> any more responsibility. This was both responsibility for mistakes
I'd made and
> also responsibility for running my area in the future.
>
> However the releases didn't last, and I later felt much better (and
more
> stably) after I'd gone back and cleaned it up.
So you're on staff? Neat. What org?
> > Freedom begins once you start using that constitutional right.
> >
> > And it is Sooooo great to have your life ...to be able to do what
you know and
> > want to do, unconditionally.
> >
> Good luck to you!
>
> > I invite you to come try it......:)
> >
>
> Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> > It isn't bad at all to be declared...in fact, some of my best
friends are!
> >
> > LOVE TO ALL
> >
> >
> > Tory/Magoo~dancin in "the real world"~
>
> Freddie T
>
> p.s. Jeesh, writing a letter like this takes a lot longer than
casually
> lurking. And it's a bit more stressful.
But your opportunities are so much greater if you participate. This is
an opportunity to reexamine your beliefs, and maybe learn some things
about your Church that you didn't know.
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
Mistmagoo55
>From: Arnie Lerma ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net
>Date: 10/25/00 8:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8t7u0...@edrn.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <8t7ohc$6n4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, michaelpattinson says...
>>
>>Well done Tory!
>>You are FREE!!
>>determinism has gradually returned and I feel ALIVE once more.
>>I know it is difficult for you to realize that the ultimate execution
>>(lol) is now yours (the SP declare). I have sued and $cn wouldn't give
>>me any SP declare...moo......I wanted to frame it!
>>There is not only 'Life after $cn", but you will find it really IS life
>>and can be very free and enjoyable.
>>I have decided to start to post here now and to have my voice heard too.
>>I look forward to being in touch with you.
>>Keep on dancin' in the real sunlight of freedom.
>>Love,
>>Michael.
>>
>
> Hi Michael, welcome back online
>just want you to know your message is getting
>through. Tory meet New OT8 Michael Pattinson,
>just goes to show, the reason the "bridge to OT" is
>blocked by miscavige is that it leads to here...
>
>Michael Pattinson reading:
>
>Pattison sued Scientology and this is his first amended complaint.
>http://www.lermanet.com/cos/pattinson1.htm
>
Plesae e -mail me at mistm...@aol.com and maybe we can get together before I
leave.
Doitsoon!
Best!
Tory/Magoo~dancin in the new freedoms~
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/25/00 10:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ug3fvssf52caph650...@news.strongsignals.com>
>
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:57:51 GMT, michaelpattinson
> <8t7ohc$6n4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> wrote:
>
>>I have never felt better since I left the criminal cult in 1997.
>
> Oh, so you were a member of a criminal organization? So tell us
>what criminal acts did you do to further this criminal organization?
>Did you rob banks, extort money from business owners or are you just another
>"victim"?
>
> That was a neat trick suing the President of the United States and the
>government because you claim to have taken a ride in JT's plane.
>OOPS, you were "kidnapped" and then took a ride on JT's plane. I bet a lot
>of fags would love to be kidnapped by JT and taken on a ride in his plane.
>You seem to be the luckiest fag in the world.
>
>That lawyer of yours, Graham Berry, he certainly did a good job of producing
>evidence in your case and boy he really knows how to sue for civil torts.
>Good
>thing he was tied up in your case, because I'm sure he would have destroyed
>the tobacco companies.
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>
>Keith (Use Reply-to for email)
>-----------------------------------------------------------
ahhhh another "brilliant" OSA volunteer with his or her sharp retorts. Have a
cream soda as you think of your next sharp thing to say.
How delightfully religious...isn't it? OH! And I am sure the gay community
just loves these terrific examples of Scientology "think".
Again, how religious.....or is it? Oh that's right...religions are supposed to
show compassion. OOOPS...guess you lost out here kids. Try again....the world
is watching.
Tory/Magoo ~dancin in the rain~
yduzitmatter
of the people on this forum have any clue about. <<
That nmay be true, however- it is also true that PC FOlders are read by
more people than just the auditor and, in the past, information
gathered from the PC FOlder has been used to extort promises of silence.
This is a violation of personal privacy don't ya' think?
>>I think it's a good thing. If we look at the history of psychiatry
over the past 50 years we can see that there have been some serious
abuses and that these are carrying on today.<<
As in anything - there are those who abuse their authority and these
people need to be stopped- I agree with this 100%; however:the goal
of the CHHR and of Scientology is to rid the world of Psych's. All
psychiatrists and psychologists are not bad - not by a long shot
many, in fact, recognize the spiritual side of humanity and try to
incorporate this into their practises.
In 50 years Psychiatry and Psychology has changed dramatically as
more information is learned about human beings and how the mind
works. The physical as well as the spiritual side. Scientology is
still using the same basic principles as written down by Hubbard
50 years ago. This goes against all the principles of science - new
discoveries lead scientists to disregard disproved theories and move
forward.
Your arguments regarding pickets etc. do make sense but there are
some factors that you left out. People do not picket churches on
a whim - merely for annoyance- they picket because they really feel
that something is terribly wrong. People who have been stalked by
PI's, lied about, Dead Agented (false information spread in fliers
in their neighbourhoods and elsewhere),had their homes picketed,
or have experienced abuse at the hands of Scientologists - either
as members of an Org ( sent to the RPF, had personal info spread
around from their PC Folders,been Declared ) or they have had
family members hurt, disconnected from them, or otherwise been
handled feel strongly that these things NEED to be talked about
and exposed. This is the reason why people picket and take a
stand against your church. Your church also has decalred that any
one who critisizes it is a criminal and crimes must be exposed at
any cost. These are not actions of a caring church but actions
of a bully.
Y
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/27/00 8:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <972649016.3...@webmail.cotse.com>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Raptavio" <lordmagnu...@my-deja.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 5:59 AM
>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>
>
>
>> It's important for Scientologists to realize there are people in their
>> ranks who do make these kinds of errors in thinking.
>>
>> It's also impotant to realize that some of these people hold positions
>> of authority within CofS.
>
>our own history in the Church we definitely know that sometimes the wrong
>people can get into positions of authority. To some degree it is a problem
>that
>comes with expansion.
>
>For the current situation with Tory to exist at all, obviously some fairly
>serious mistakes were made and missed.
You know...I bought that line for 30 years...."there was 'someone' who snuck in
who was bad and it is because of THEM that things are screwed up. HA! Keep
reading...and make sure you read ALL sides. There lies the truth, in full.
>
>(snip)
>
>> > > 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees
>> something as
>> > > wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth??
>> (Please take a
>> > > moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And please
>> try
>> > something
>> > > new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
>> >
>> > Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the majority of
>> people once
>> > believed which later turned out to be false (see the history of
>> Science).Hey..I am talking about your "religion". Let's not skip on past it.
>>
>> This is true. However there are a lot of things that a vocal and
>> prominent minority believed which later turned out to be false as well.
>> And the number of things in this latter category vastly outnumbers the
>> number of things in this former category.
>Ahhh so you are with the catagory that believes all the rest of the people who
DO know about Scientology bur feel there is something wrong with it, are wrong?
>You're quite right but it is incidental to the point I was making.
Hmmmm you have pointed out I am wrong at each step...but then say I am right
but that is incidental?
Yup...this is a Scientologist I am speaking with...this I know to be true.
>
>> > I think that I would avoid mentally positing Scn against "the big,
>>> bad world" (quoted from above) and "the majority of the world." The
>majority
>of
>> >the world doesn't know anything about the subject.
OK pal...let's get real here. Since I have left EVERY single person I have told
I have left the church of Scientology has either had some personal horror story
of their own and told me why they are THRILLED either they or their family
member is out......or they either by reading or watching others mishandled have
their own opinions against this group. The mishandlings in the Burbank Hilton
Hotel a few weeks ago was a perfect example. No one seemed to care either way,
until OSA came and did their strong arm routine. AFter we got comm from all
sides how they could not believe this was occurring within ANY "church".
It may not be "the whole world" and in fact I am glad you pointed that out. So
now I have corrected what has occured in the 8 cities I have been in, and the
four states, in the 3 months I have been out.
Also I don't see people
>as
>> being bad. I like most people; I'm glad they are there.
So do I darlin...and I am happy you like people too. That is not the issue
here. The issue I have is how your organization TREATS people. Such as myself,
who they have now declared a big bad suppressive person....having never given
ONE warning....ONE communication about this or ANYTHING. And even if they did
give me warnings...just the nature of declaring a PERSON something so horrible
as they make it is inhumain and certainly not religious in nature. AT ALL>
>
>> Diogenes index here. You're right; the majority of the world does not
>> know about the existence of Scn. However, among that subset of the
>> world that does know about Scn, it seems the bulk of them are either
>> neutral or negative towards Scn.
>
>Errors of various kind have been made. But even so, I have a pretty strong
>certainty that most of the people who might be negative just don't understand
I know this one too...and that is exactly how I felt for 30 years. They must
just not know. But you know what??? A hell of a lot of people out of
Scientology know more than many Scientologists I know...and they still ain't
buyin it. And no...they don't have MU's. They just aren't "in" it....like you
are and I was. So they can SEE.
>
>what we actually do.
>
>Scientology services are far more pleasant and interesting than most of the
>people on this forum have any clue about.
Very few people have any issues about the actual tennants of Scientology. It
is what OSA does behind Scientologists backs that pisses the rest of the world
(who are aware of this group) off.
>
>However if the only information I had was from the critical books, snide
>newspaper comments about cults and the horror stories on ars, I can't think
>I'd
>be very impressed either. \
Well again..this is EXACTLY what I believed for 30 years...so I totally
understand your beliefs. I wish I could tell you it is true. I am sorry to
tell you it is not. You will have to do your own loooking and find out for
yourself, when you are ready. The actual REAL "DATA" (court documents, info
from people who worked right with Hubbard or even wrote lots of the stuff,
videos of people telliing true stories of what went down)...are all on the net.
You just have to get the courage to LOOK
.
And this I know is almost impossible...because just like in the Truman
show...you probably cannot see there IS a wall. But IF you look....and keep
looking, you will see. It is a very hard reality to face up to. Very very hard.
In fact, shit.....don't look. It is much easier to stay in your show and enjoy
what you enjoy.
If ever you feel there is something else...at that point start your quest.
Meantime....enjoy the fight! It took me years and years of fighting to even
conceive that MAYBE there was SOME truth to something being yelled at me.
>
>
>> > I use the Scientology I know to help the people around me. It's not a
>war.
Yeah;..I like this new line. I have heard it over and over since I have been
home. I love the way Scientology will find a "line" and BOOM! You hear it all
over. So now it is that there is no war. I see. OK>...well, you may call it
what you want...but when OSA is working very hard to seperate parents from
kids, getting people thrown in jail, spreading horrible rumors about people,
getting best friends to hang up on a 30 year old friend...having NEVER told me
what they told them...........
Honey...you can call it what you want, but you are going to have people pissed
on both sides. That ain;t church work...nope.
>
>> To some people within CofS it is. Certainly CCHR sees their fight as a
>> war.
Hell if you are here on ARS, you are an OSA volunteer.....and as a
volunteer...you are part of the many things (including this) to stop people.
You call it what you want. Why don't you START practicing your religion more,
and do less of this. IF you showed the world you did GOOD things...your image
might just change. This won''t do it, EVER.
>
>I don't think so. The concept of something like a "war against psychiatry" is
>
>figurative and is carried on within the law. Here's an example from another
>religion: the Salvation Army.
Oh pulllleeeezzzeeee. The Salvation Army is NOT a religion like Scientology is
saying it is a religion.
>
>CCHR is a mostly volunteer activity. They try to get out some information
>about
>psychiatric abuses, and they help people who have been abused.
>
>I think it's a good thing. If we look at the history of psychiatry over the
>past 50 years we can see that there have been some serious abuses and that
>these are carrying on today. I don't always click on the articles about
>psychiatry posted to ars - but some of them are very
Nice try...but no cigar.
>
>
>> > I also don't even mind the critics too much. I supect that they are
>> > helping to concentrate Scientologists' minds into providing better and
>smoother
>> > service.
This tells me one of two things:
a) You are TOTALLY brainwashed and cannot read what the critics are saying...as
many of them are stronger against Scientology than ex-scios. or
b) you are just another poor bullshit artist, trying to spin what might be a
nice idea...and wishing it were true.
Sure...go for it...telll the critics they are helping bring about bettter
service with in the church. If the service is so good, how come there are OT
7's leaving in droves?
How come the orgs are much emptier?
Rings of BS>..sorry.
>>
>> I would like to see evidence of this. Truly. The primary effect I see
>> critics having on Scientologists is reinforcement of xenophobia.
>
>It would be nice if Scientology was more accepted in society. I think it
>would
>be better for everyone in various ways. On one level it's not too nice to
>have
>people picketing outside one's org and it probably makes a number of
>Scientologists feel upset. On the other hand I think there are historically a
>
>few benefits to religious persecution. It tends to make the members a bit
>more
>committed as there is the danger that if they don't support their local
>church
>it won't be there. Your reference: the history of many,possibly all, of the
>major present-day religions.
>
>I would imagine that having the LMT in town must make the orgs in Clearwater
>pretty keen to pick up on bad indicators and get people winning, as they must
>
>fear that otherwise those people will be following Mr Magoo down the road.
Yup...come on friends..one and all! There is not only lots more wins outside of
the church.............but IF you want any of the serivices...they are all
(ALL) out here, and much cheaper or free. And no, they aren't the huge squirrel
virsions you have been told they are. INfact, there is more squirrel shit being
done IN the church than out, at this point. See the Barnes video on the LMT
site for information on this.
>
>I might be totally wrong about this - I'm only speculating.
>
>But here's a new idea for ars.
>
>How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some nice
>things to say about LRH, Scientology and the Church?
Yeahhhh...there's a concept! How about that. And how about you look and read
what they say and realize they are saying it for a reason. Don't just bat it
back...read it. Go to Clambake and SEE and read what they are saying! And then
read some more. Go on...try it! And keep trying to convince them. I bet if YOU
got OSA to stop hurting people and doing all of their nasty stuff
(disconnection,stopping freedom of speach with the net nanny, lying about
people and spreading hatred, picketing people's homes, hurting their
businesses, following people all around etc etc) the critics just MIGHT start
saying nice things about your group. But until that STOPS>>..you ain't got a
chance in Hell.
>
>Maybe the staff and management would then feel more relaxed about uncircling
>the wagons and providing an easier environment for all.
Hey....read what I said above. THAT is what your management and staff can look
at and insist happens. That IS what is destroying Scientology, whether you like
it or not.
>
>I must say that it sounds like a good idea to me and actually it shouldn't be
>
>too hard to get broad agreement amongst the ars critics on implementing
>something so obviously sane.
It has nothing to do with obviously sane...it has to do with what I wrote
above. These critics care, and they aren't affraid to speak out. Have OSA
change, simple and the world WILL be a better place.
>
>(snip)
>
>> > If she talked fervently about vegetarianism and said people shouldn't
>> buy and
>> > eat meat then she might well get some resistance from them. However
>> if she also
>> > picketed outside her old place of business, persuaded new trainees
>> not to work
>> > there and gave out flyers, then _at the very least_ her old friends
>> would have
>> > less interest in playing doubles with her
True..they might not be playing tennis with me, but they also would not be
doing the following things stated below:
>>
>> Yes, but they wouldn't call her a criminal, counter-picket her house,
>> create files about her, distribute fliers with false information, et
>> cetera. The CofS has been known to do that.
>>
>Organised pickets are a relatively new phenomenon for the orgs. I think, that
>
>just as with ars, they are still working out what the best tactics are. Some
>of
>the things they try won't work or will be counter-productive.
>
>I would be in favor of (in reverse order) ignoring the pickets; chatting with
>
>them; or as I read about at at least one picket, bringing them cups of tea. I
>
>thought that was a great idea.
>
>I guess my actions would probably depend on the behavior of the pickets.
>
>> > > 3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in
>> constant war with
>> > > the world??
>> >
>> > Rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!
PLease define.
>> Yes.
>>
>> However, this does not mean the statement should be completely
>> dismissed. There is some derision within CofS towards 'the wog world'
>> and the CofS is in conflict with several nations' governments - Spain,
>> France, Germany - and has been in conflict with the US and Canadian
>> governments in the past as well.
>
>I hope and trust that the situation will change for the better in these
>European countries. You mention the cleaned up situations with the U.S. and
>Canada. We also had problems (now resolved) in the 60s and 70s with the
>governments of the United Kingdom and Australia.
>
>The ideal scene from my point of view is simple. Plenty of Scientology
>centers
>where people can take well delivered Scientology courses and give and receive
>
>auditing (and they shouldn't be too expensive and they should be fairly laid
>back). There would be happy, winning Scientologists who in turn help their
>environments and the people around them.
Go for it. But handle OSA first. They are destroying your church from the
inside out.
>
>If anyone inside the orgs is doing anything that gets in the way of that they
>
>should knock it off. If anyone else thinks that people shouldn't have the
>right
>to study Scientology they should look a little bit more carefully at their
>real
>motives.
>
>(snip)
>
>>> I also only think the organisation is doing the right thing if it seems
>to
>be the
>> >right thing. If it doesn't I write it up and work on getting it changed.
I wrote it up for 10 YEARS>...you write it up. I pass the baton to you. Go for
it!
>
>> When's the last time you did? And why?
>
>I choose not to say right now, M'lud.
>
>(Hey sports fans: note here how Freddie deftly segues into the excellent
>Claire
>Swazey defence.)
You lost me there..and perhaps a few others. Inside jargan.
>
>>
>> > >Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards together.
>> >
>> > In my opinion it would be agreement plus the applicability of the
>> basic
>> > philosophy to real life and the workability of individual processes.
>> >
>> > This IMO makes it stronger than a house of cards.
>>
>> You may be right. Time will tell.
>
>Yup.
>
>> > > Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is
>> suppressive to talk
>> > > to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke!
>> >
>> > Nothing wrong with asking questions.
>>
>> I'm afraid there is, if you ask the wrong questions.
>>
>> Or if you say the wrong thing.
>>
>> If you were, for example, to say, "I think Hubbard had a bad idea when
>> he came up with the Fair Game policy. People shouldn't be treated that
>> way just for being in a lower condition," or "I think CofS is wrong for
>> having every expulsion come with an automatic SP declare," on this
>> newsgroup, and OSA knew your identity, you could expect that you would
>> be encouraged to not post such things from OSA. If you continued, you
>> could find yourself ordered to stop.
>
>That's right. And you could then decide to ignore the order if you so chose.
>People do. No problem.
>(No one has ever spoken to me about anything I've written by the way)
All I can say is when we were on OT 7 and had hit a point of NO MORE! WE ain't
doing this ANY more..it as such a secret...we literally just quietly left.
There are SO many people who have quietly left...they are in complete fear to
speak there minds. What is THAT all about>???
>
>(snip)
>
>>> I think it's hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the world,
>but
>I do
>> >think that they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of dirty
>tricks
>>> have been tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated. Partly
>because
>>> of this they try to monitor what goes to the media from Scientologists.
Yeahhh..here's another great line the church puts out: they have been
infiltrated. MY favorite one is an IAS briefing we heard about recently where
they are telling people Bob Mintona and Stacy Young are "other planet beings
brought here to destroy Scientology". COME ON!!! Now That one is a bit far
fetched...don't ya think?? How far will they go? There ain't much farther
darlin.
>
>> There is no evidence of persistent attempts to 'infiltrate' the Church,
>> and I would like it if you would cite any of your alleged 'dirty
>> tricks' against the Church.
>
>Here is a slightly improved version of something I wrote to someone earlier
>on
>this subject:
>
>"One interesting idea is that various problems stemmed partly from covert
>infiltration. Variations of this idea have been suggested by a number of
>diverse people:
>
>Captain Bill Robertson; The Ace of Clubs (fantastic prose style); in the time
>
>line put out by The Librarian (and updated recently by CL); the rumor line;
>and finally by David Miscavige (in the satellite broadcast announcing the
>deal
>with the IRS).
>
>These sources provide a lot of data on this. The basic idea is that the
>church
>was not only attacked from the outside but was also infiltrated by its
>enemies;
>this caused problems with things like overly-harsh corrective ethics actions;
>
>false reports; sabotage; the circling the wagons effect; and lots of
>injustices. The damage was not just in what those people did, but in the
>atmosphere that was created and which rippled outwards - for example in the
>mis-training of outer-org executives who then went back and messed up their
>areas. Also in the subsequent paranoia and witch hunts.
>
>Of course the different people I mention above have divergent views on
>whether
>the plants within the church have been fully cleared out and the degree to
>which the damage and the group engrams were able to be repaired.
>
>(snip)
>
>> > However the releases didn't last, and I later felt much better (and more
>> > stably) after I'd gone back and cleaned it up.
>
>> So you're on staff? Neat. What org?
>
>
>No, sorry. I'm sure it would be nice to have a real live staff member to
>bait,
>but I'm just a common or garden variety public Scientologist who goes to the
>events once in a while. My days on staff were many, many moons ago.
>
>
>(snip)
>
>> > p.s. Jeesh, writing a letter like this takes a lot longer than
>> casually
>> > lurking. And it's a bit more stressful.
Then go to your church and do some church like things. Why waste your time
here.....garden variety. Right! Hi kids. I see you....:)
>>
>> But your opportunities are so much greater if you participate. This is
>> an opportunity to reexamine your beliefs, and maybe learn some things
>> about your Church that you didn't know.
Go for it! Take it from one who spent 30 years trying to learn.....save your
money and try Buddhism. It is free, and has similar concepts. Plus they are
much nicer. And no, I am not a Buddhist, but I know some very nice ones.
>
>Well, I do really like reexamining my beliefs. It's one of the best things
>that
>happens during auditing. I also try to get various viewpoints on the subjects
Start a savings account..and make sure you create a savings for yourself and
your family.
>
>that interest me (like booking a decent hotel with a fabulous breakfast
>buffet).
>
>I also love finding out things about the Church I didn't know. That's why
>I've
>been reading this group on and off since 93/94. I would also recommend, for
>any
>serious student of the subject who is already reading ars, the back issues of
>
>Ivy. Unfortunately some of the contributors do occasionally talk about
>confidential issues, but I just skim over those bits as best I can. However
>I
>think Anthony's open editorial policy is excellent and the magazine contains
>a
>lot of theta.
Good luck Freddie. Good luck to you. May you enjoy your lilfe. Don't waste it
slaying dragans. Find things you love and do them.
Tory/Magoo~dancin in the sunlight~
>
>
>Freddie T
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
yduzitmatter
to the criticism. I suspect that a more important factor is that the
goals of Scientology are a bit of a red flag to many people with their
own failed dreams of spiritual freedom<<
Failed dreams of spiritual freedom?? I have no failed dreams of
spiritual
freedom - I am indeed very happy with my spiritual life - I am also
free to think and do as I please. Scientology promises much and delivers
so little - for the cost of the courses and the drills and the sec
checks etc. etc.
You also missed the point about what OSA is doing without the
knowledge of publics. It is not your spiritual beliefs that we
criticize but the actions of the Management - the harassing, the
dead agenting, the lies, the insidious litigation, the attempt
to stop free speech, the entire idea of RPF and family disconnect ions.
These things are not spiritual and serve no other purpose than
to try and instil fear through intimidation.
If you saw what we see when we criticize these actions you might
understand why we do what we do.
How is it that one man with a picket sign can cause so much
upset that staff hide publics away from them? How can words on
a sign be harmful? COuld it be that OSA does not want people
to read these words because it might cause people to ask questions?
Y
DeoMorto
pretty strong certainty that most of the people who might be negative just
don't understand
>
>>
What do you base this observation or certainty on exactly?
It seems there is a certain dichotomy between what critics say the cofs does
and what you say that it does. Would that be a fair statement?
Now - have you ever investigated for yourself what the cofs does as an
organization and, presumably, with your support?
Do you, for example, support Buttnor in Toronto going to see the aging parents
of a critic and harassing them?
You can do a search on my handle and find my postings on this newsgroup and see
where I have spoken out for the right of any scientologist to be judged by his
or her own actions not because they belong to a group that has acted badly.
However that same defense relies on the innate belief that most scientologists
are well intentioned individuals who just want to improve their own lives.
But a remarkably small number of those scientologists who post here seem
willing or even half-heartedly willing, to even look and speak out against
things done on their behalf. Actions that if they were asked to do them
themselves they would refuse to do.
Why is that?
Can you really post here and claim that the Lisa McPherson tragedy was anything
other than a wholesale screw up by the cofs?
Up until now I have not, in any publication of any kind, seen one word of
apology from the organization that watched her die.
I do not contend (unlike others) that they killed her. I merely say that
because the staff who were there lacked any sort of backbone or genuine concern
for Lisa that they did not take steps that any semi-caring individual would
have done for anyone else.
The church that you support has
a) been convicted of criminla libel in Canada
b) seen its leadership sentenced to jail in the USA for spying
c) seen members convicted in France for driving a parishioner to suicide
d) been convicted of criminal acts in Canada
These are actions that have been done, publicly reviewed and convicted.
Your church has also harassed critics personally, gone to their homes and tried
to get their jobs terminated.
Perhaps when you investigate the things I have laid out here - then let me hear
you condemn the actions of your church that you yourself would not stoop to do
- then you and I and you and a great many critics will be a lot closer to
agreement than you may think is possible.
ptsc
>The church that you support has
>a) been convicted of criminla libel in Canada
Brief correction, they were found liable in a civil trial, Hill v. Manning. I
am not aware of a criminal libel conviction. (I also disagree with the whole
basis behind the idea of criminal libel but that's not to the point.)
>b) seen its leadership sentenced to jail in the USA for spying
>c) seen members convicted in France for driving a parishioner to suicide
>d) been convicted of criminal acts in Canada
The criminal convictions (of the church and individual Scientologists) were for
breach of the public trust.
>These are actions that have been done, publicly reviewed and convicted.
ptsc
DeoMorto
>I
>am not aware of a criminal libel conviction. (I also disagree with the whole
>basis behind the idea of criminal libel but that's not to the point.)
thank you for correcting the information, it is appreciated.
wynot
>How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some nice
>things to say about LRH, Scientology and the Church?
>
>the wagons and providing an easier environment for all.
>
>too hard to get broad agreement amongst the ars critics on implementing
>something so obviously sane.
LRH lied constantly about his life history, lied about his
'research', and cobbled most of Dianetics/Scientology from outdated
psychiatric techniques and misunderstood concepts of eastern
religions. He was an alcoholic who abused women and children.
The concept of 'Engrams' is pure Freudianism, and has been relegated
to medical history by the good people who study the human mind; the
'wins' you gain from 'handling' them are totally illusory.
Your 'church' has a continuous history of totalitarian behaviour
from the day of it's founding to the present.
The above are 'stable data', proven from Government records,
personal recollections of those who worked with Hubbard, and an
educated reading of Dianetic/Scientology literature (particularly
"DTMSOMH").
A standard part of a diagnosis of insanity is the belief that
reality is something different from what it actually is. Another
strong indication of insanity is the belief that reality does not
exist (the two beliefs are obviously contradictory to sane people).
The teachings of Dianetics/Scientology require you to believe both
these things.
But I'll give it a go anyway - Hubbard did have neat red hair...
'til next time;
wynot
Pickets are the one thing that
Scientology hates the most because they can't lie to their members about it,
at least to the ones who see it.. They can't demonstrate their OT abilities and
' postulate' people away using Tone 40, which invalidates them. This is a
direct confront to their great powers and is what they hate the most and all
the lies they tell their members is only a picket away from revealing itself.
Dave Bird
cotse.com writes:
>> >How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some nice
>> >things to say about LRH,
He made good plant fertiliser when roasted.
Now, your turn: find some good things to say about Carlo Gambino
and the Gambino crime family.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Starshadow
<t...@ibexbsc.com> wrote in message
news:ni0pvs0b7n0ls2qcl...@4ax.com...
> In <rotlvs0bs61ghmofv...@4ax.com>, wynot
> <wy...@soulgarage.net> wrote:
>
> ... snipt ...
> >But I'll give it a go anyway - Hubbard did have neat red hair...
>
> hiding out in the desert, his wig was either an overused dust mop, or a
> clown wig that he rescued from a dusty circus ring, after the elephant
> act had finished.
>
I think this was the young Ron--he had nice red hair.
The hiding Ron had grey hair, and he hid it under a wig that he seemed to
think fooled someone. It might've, had he straightened the thing up once in
a while.
Maybe...
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow (SP4, KoX) (Yes, I have an @home account now. )
(stars...@starshadow.net still works)
"Feminism--the radical notion that women are people, too"
Raptavio
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
about
> appears to be of mostly fairly mild >>stuff that stems from
responses to the
> criticism. I suspect that a more important factor is that the
> >> goals of Scientology are a bit of a red flag to many people with
their own
>
> > Failed dreams of spiritual freedom?? I have no failed dreams of
> > spiritual freedom - I am indeed very happy with my spiritual life -
I am also
> > free to think and do as I please.
>
into the
> category I mentioned above. Of course there _are_ other possible
factors as I
> mentioned in the bit you snipped. I'm sure I'll be delineating a few
of them
> later; but do feel free to protest if you don't think they apply to
you
> personally.
>
> >Scientology promises much and delivers so little - for the cost of
the courses
> and the drills and the sec
> > checks etc. etc.
>
don't think
> it matters, Yduzitmatter ((C)Dr Seuss).
>
> Oops, desert is ready.
>
> Freddy
Um, freddy, that was yduz, not me :)
Raptavio
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 5:59 AM
>
>
> > It's important for Scientologists to realize there are people in
their
> > ranks who do make these kinds of errors in thinking.
> >
> > It's also impotant to realize that some of these people hold
positions
> > of authority within CofS.
>
> I think that LRH once said that, "We build a world with broken
straws." From
> our own history in the Church we definitely know that sometimes the
wrong
> people can get into positions of authority. To some degree it is a
problem that
> comes with expansion.
>
> For the current situation with Tory to exist at all, obviously some
fairly
> serious mistakes were made and missed.
Diplomatically put, and I cannot say I disagree with you, sir.
> > > > 1) Do you honestly think if the majority of the world sees
> > something as
> > > > wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth??
> > (Please take a
> > > > moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And
please
> > try
> > > something
> > > > new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
> > >
> > > Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the majority of
> > people once
> > > believed which later turned out to be false (see the history of
> > Science).
> >
> > This is true. However there are a lot of things that a vocal and
> > prominent minority believed which later turned out to be false as
well.
> > And the number of things in this latter category vastly outnumbers
the
> > number of things in this former category.
>
> You're quite right but it is incidental to the point I was making.
Well you seem to be saying "Just because the world thinks we're wrong
doesn't mean we're wrong". My response is "yes, but it's a lot likelier
than the alternative."
> > > I think that I would avoid mentally positing Scn against "the big,
> >> bad world" (quoted from above) and "the majority of the world."
The majority
> of
> > >the world doesn't know anything about the subject. Also I don't
see people as
> > being bad. I like most people; I'm glad they are there.
>
> > Diogenes index here. You're right; the majority of the world does
not
> > know about the existence of Scn. However, among that subset of the
> > world that does know about Scn, it seems the bulk of them are either
> > neutral or negative towards Scn.
>
> Errors of various kind have been made. But even so, I have a pretty
strong
> certainty that most of the people who might be negative just don't
understand
> what we actually do.
Well, I like to think that after seven years of study and analysis I
have an inkling.
I'd caution you to not reason that "I know it's good; they say it's
bad; therefore, they don't understand." It's fallacious reasoning.
Better to examine the specifics of the reasons why we are opposed to
certain CofS actions and examine if they have merit or not.
> Scientology services are far more pleasant and interesting than most
of the
> people on this forum have any clue about.
I think most of the people on this forum consider that to be irrelevant
to the point.
I'm sure Scientology services are pleasant, stimulating, even
rewarding. If they weren't, Scientology wouldn't exist.
That said, it's not the services, it's the other policies and practices
that most of us take issue with.
> However if the only information I had was from the critical books,
snide
> newspaper comments about cults and the horror stories on ars, I can't
think I'd
> be very impressed either.
You presuppose that those are the only sources most of us have gained
information. That's untrue.
> > > I use the Scientology I know to help the people around me. It's
not a war.
>
> > To some people within CofS it is. Certainly CCHR sees their fight
as a
> > war.
>
> I don't think so. The concept of something like a "war against
psychiatry" is
> figurative and is carried on within the law. Here's an example from
another
> religion: the Salvation Army.
The Salvation Army doesn't fight anyone. They fight poverty, which is
an abstract concept. Psychiatrists are real people, not an abstract
concept, and the way they fight is far closer to a real "war".
> CCHR is a mostly volunteer activity. They try to get out some
information about
> psychiatric abuses, and they help people who have been abused.
>
> I think it's a good thing. If we look at the history of psychiatry
over the
> past 50 years we can see that there have been some serious abuses and
that
> these are carrying on today. I don't always click on the articles
about
> psychiatry posted to ars - but some of them are very interesting.
CCHR says flatly that they oppose psychiatry. Not abuses within the
profession, but the profession itself. I can cite from CCHR's website
if you like.
> > > I also don't even mind the critics too much. I supect that they
are
> > > helping to concentrate Scientologists' minds into providing
better and
> smoother
> > > service.
> >
> > I would like to see evidence of this. Truly. The primary effect I
see
> > critics having on Scientologists is reinforcement of xenophobia.
>
> It would be nice if Scientology was more accepted in society. I think
it would
> be better for everyone in various ways. On one level it's not too
nice to have
> people picketing outside one's org and it probably makes a number of
> Scientologists feel upset. On the other hand I think there are
historically a
> few benefits to religious persecution. It tends to make the members a
bit more
> committed as there is the danger that if they don't support their
local church
> it won't be there. Your reference: the history of many,possibly all,
of the
> major present-day religions.
I still find it interesting you call it religious persecution. We're
not on your case because you believe in thetans or engrams or Xenu or
body thetans or Incident One or anything like that. We're on your case
because CofS's mechanisms are often employed to hurt, defraud, and
destroy people - usually its perceived enemies, sometimes its own loyal
parishioners. That's not an attack on your religion, unless it's
integreal to your religion to hurt other people (and I don't believe it
is).
> I would imagine that having the LMT in town must make the orgs in
Clearwater
> pretty keen to pick up on bad indicators and get people winning, as
they must
> fear that otherwise those people will be following Mr Magoo down the
road.
I think that'd be a great response. What I see in Clearwater is OSA's
agents accusing the picketers of being criminals and child
pornographers. What I see in Toronto is revenge pickets and harassment
of picketers' families.
> I might be totally wrong about this - I'm only speculating.
>
> But here's a new idea for ars.
>
> How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some
nice
> things to say about LRH, Scientology and the Church?
>
> Maybe the staff and management would then feel more relaxed about
uncircling
> the wagons and providing an easier environment for all.
My individual experience is that granting a little beingness along with
our criticisms lets a few Scientologists open out, but many remain
locked down and defensive as long as any criticism is uttered.
> I must say that it sounds like a good idea to me and actually it
shouldn't be
> too hard to get broad agreement amongst the ars critics on
implementing
> something so obviously sane.
Yes, well, getting all the ARS critics to agree to something is a
little like herding cats. We're not organized that way.
> > > If she talked fervently about vegetarianism and said people
shouldn't
> > buy and
> > > eat meat then she might well get some resistance from them.
However
> > if she also
> > > picketed outside her old place of business, persuaded new trainees
> > not to work
> > > there and gave out flyers, then _at the very least_ her old
friends
> > would have
> > > less interest in playing doubles with her.
> >
> > Yes, but they wouldn't call her a criminal, counter-picket her
house,
> > create files about her, distribute fliers with false information, et
> > cetera. The CofS has been known to do that.
> >
> Organised pickets are a relatively new phenomenon for the orgs. I
think, that
> just as with ars, they are still working out what the best tactics
are. Some of
> the things they try won't work or will be counter-productive.
Yes, but it's my contention that a more ethical organization would
simply not do some of the things CofS has done, for the simple reason
that those actions are immoral.
> I would be in favor of (in reverse order) ignoring the pickets;
chatting with
> them; or as I read about at at least one picket, bringing them cups
of tea. I
> thought that was a great idea.
I think it is. And I think encouraging that would allow for greater
communication and possibly for understandings to be reached on some
issues.
> I guess my actions would probably depend on the behavior of the
pickets.
Of the picketers you mean? I imagine that'd be reasonable. :)
> > > > 3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in
> > constant war with
> > > > the world??
> > >
> > > Rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > However, this does not mean the statement should be completely
> > dismissed. There is some derision within CofS towards 'the wog
world'
> > and the CofS is in conflict with several nations' governments -
Spain,
> > France, Germany - and has been in conflict with the US and Canadian
> > governments in the past as well.
>
> I hope and trust that the situation will change for the better in
these
> European countries. You mention the cleaned up situations with the
U.S. and
> Canada. We also had problems (now resolved) in the 60s and 70s with
the
> governments of the United Kingdom and Australia.
You have current problems with the UK, I might point out. And some of
the US and Canada problems were 'resolved' with criminal convictions
against the Church and/or its agents.
> The ideal scene from my point of view is simple. Plenty of
Scientology centers
> where people can take well delivered Scientology courses and give and
receive
> auditing (and they shouldn't be too expensive and they should be
fairly laid
> back). There would be happy, winning Scientologists who in turn help
their
> environments and the people around them.
Cool. I'm all for that.
> If anyone inside the orgs is doing anything that gets in the way of
that they
> should knock it off. If anyone else thinks that people shouldn't have
the right
> to study Scientology they should look a little bit more carefully at
their real
> motives.
You saying you oppose the concept of "illegal PCs"?
> (snip)
>
> >> I also only think the organisation is doing the right thing if it
seems to
> be the
> > >right thing. If it doesn't I write it up and work on getting it
changed.
>
> > When's the last time you did? And why?
>
> I choose not to say right now, M'lud.
>
> (Hey sports fans: note here how Freddie deftly segues into the
excellent Claire
> Swazey defence.)
It's not a defense, it's a declaration that you don't want to make that
information public. And, as with Claire, I accept that unreservedly.
You don't owe me an explanation about anything.
> (No one has ever spoken to me about anything I've written by the way).
Of course ignoring the order would result in your being expelled and
declared - and then you get to be on the unfriendly end of the fair
game doctrine. This is not a good thing, and has intimidated many
Scientologists.
> >> I think it's hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the
world, but
> I do
> > >think that they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of
dirty tricks
> >> have been tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated.
Partly
> because
> >> of this they try to monitor what goes to the media from
Scientologists.
>
But that cites no evidence. No names, no dates, no physical evidence,
just the unfounded claim.
> > > However the releases didn't last, and I later felt much better
(and more
> > > stably) after I'd gone back and cleaned it up.
>
> > So you're on staff? Neat. What org?
>
> No, sorry. I'm sure it would be nice to have a real live staff member
to bait,
> but I'm just a common or garden variety public Scientologist who goes
to the
> events once in a while. My days on staff were many, many moons ago.
Hey now. I'm not baiting you.
Can I ask why you left staff?
> > > p.s. Jeesh, writing a letter like this takes a lot longer than
> > casually
> > > lurking. And it's a bit more stressful.
> >
> > But your opportunities are so much greater if you participate. This
is
> > an opportunity to reexamine your beliefs, and maybe learn some
things
> > about your Church that you didn't know.
>
> Well, I do really like reexamining my beliefs. It's one of the best
things that
> happens during auditing. I also try to get various viewpoints on the
subjects
> that interest me (like booking a decent hotel with a fabulous
breakfast buffet).
Nummers. :)
> I also love finding out things about the Church I didn't know. That's
why I've
> been reading this group on and off since 93/94. I would also
recommend, for any
> serious student of the subject who is already reading ars, the back
issues of
> Ivy. Unfortunately some of the contributors do occasionally talk
about
> confidential issues, but I just skim over those bits as best I can.
However I
> think Anthony's open editorial policy is excellent and the magazine
contains a
> lot of theta.
>
> Freddie T
What's Ivy?
Dave Bird
>From: "Dave Bird" <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>:
>> In article<972809761.3...@webmail.cotse.com>, Hello writes:
>> >> >How about if the critics started being kinder and tried
>> >> >to find some nice
>> >> >things to say about LRH,
>>
>>
>> He made good plant fertiliser when roasted.
>
>
>Thank you for trying Dave.
>But do you know something?
>I think you do even _better_ than that!
>I have faith in your inherent goodness and in your desire to improve the
>current situation.
Thank you for snipping the rest of my post. I have faith that you
you are not inherently a complete moron, but that some spark of human
intelligence remains. I ask you again to
"Find some good points of Carlo Gambino and the Gambino crime family"
Or, if you will not do that, say why it is inappropriate to do so.
I said this for a reason. I was trying to reach the deeply buried
but still dimly present spark of human consciousness somewhere in you.
Many people would respond "it is inappropriate, and insane, to ask
people to identify the few good points in a bunch of murdering
criminals. This does not make them any less murderous or less criminal.
The correct response is to (1) lock them up so they are forced to
cease their crimes, and (2) attempt to reform them so that they can
return to normal life without wanting to commit crimes."
___ |\ .---. _ :::\
( o ) |'_\ \ V / | | ..:/
-- _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ _| |_ ||
.`_____`. .`_____`. .`_____`. .`_____`. .` `.
|\ / \ /||\ / \ /| |\ / \ /||\ / \ /| |\ /\\/\ /|
||| @ @ |||||| 9 9 ||| ||| 6 6 |||||| o o ||| ||| x x |||
\_\ = /_/\_\ - /_/ \_\ o /_/\_\ ._. /_/ \_\ ._. /_/..
.-'-----'-. .-'-----'-. .-'-----'-. .-'-----'-. .-'-----'-.::.
(_ ___ _)(_ ___ _) (_ ___ _)(_ ___ _) (_ ___ _) |
| |T_W| | | Dipsy | | |LaLa | | |PO_| | | ElRon \rum|
| | | | | | | | | /|__|
jgs(___|___)m¢ (___|___) (___|___) (___|___) (____|____)
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/29/00 7:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <972866637.3...@webmail.cotse.com>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Bird" <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 1:14 AM
>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>
>> >> >How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some
>nice
>> >> >things to say about LRH,
>>
>>
>> He made good plant fertiliser when roasted.
>
>
>Thank you for trying Dave.
>
>
>But do you know something?
>
>I think you do even _better_ than that!
>
>I have faith in your inherent goodness and in your desire to improve the
>current situation.
>
LRH ro Scientology. Why don't you actually talk to your group leaders, and get
them to stop harrassing people, stop enforcing children disconnecting with
thier parents, and start insisting each of the members can utilize their right
to freedom of speech...that your church works so hard to stop?
Then I do believe you would not have to be asking and waiting for praise or
kind words. They would come flowing your way.
Meantime...the world gently awaits your actions to bring about peace.
Tory/Magoo~still dancin~
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/29/00 9:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <n7srreIsBO$5E...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Excellent example Dave!
Thanks for making it so "Clear".
:)
Tory/Magoo!
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/27/00 11:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <972707125.3...@webmail.cotse.com>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 12:39 PM
>
>
>appears to be of mostly fairly mild >>stuff that stems from responses to the
>
>criticism. I suspect that a more important factor is that the
>>> goals of Scientology are a bit of a red flag to many people with their
>own
>failed dreams of spiritual >>freedom.
>
>> Failed dreams of spiritual freedom?? I have no failed dreams of
>> spiritual freedom - I am indeed very happy with my spiritual life - I am
>also
>> free to think and do as I please.
>
>Me and you both. Good for you Raptavio! You apparently don't come into the
>category I mentioned above. Of course there _are_ other possible factors as I
>
>mentioned in the bit you snipped. I'm sure I'll be delineating a few of them
>
>later; but do feel free to protest if you don't think they apply to you
>personally.
>
>
>think
>>Scientology promises much and delivers so little - for the cost of the
>courses
>and the drills and the sec
>> checks etc. etc.
>
"Yah, yah, yah. Not true at all and not really your problem. I just don;t think
it matters"??? Really? COME ON! It doesn't matter? Why do you think there are
so many people off of the "Bridge to Total Freedom"? See the Barnes Video if
you don't think sec checks matter. As for the prices....no big deal, huh? Sure.
Go look in the empty orgs and tell me it doesn't matter. Clearwaterr is a ghost
town.....doesn't that matter...or do you need to go get your desert?
Tory/Magoo~still dancin~
Tommy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 12:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
> > >That's a good PR line, but much of the criticism you are talking about
> appears to be of mostly fairly mild >>stuff that stems from responses to the
> criticism. I suspect that a more important factor is that the
> >> goals of Scientology are a bit of a red flag to many people with their own
> failed dreams of spiritual >>freedom.
>
> > Failed dreams of spiritual freedom?? I have no failed dreams of
> > spiritual freedom - I am indeed very happy with my spiritual life - I am also
> > free to think and do as I please.
>
> Me and you both. Good for you Raptavio! You apparently don't come into the
> category I mentioned above. Of course there _are_ other possible factors as I
> mentioned in the bit you snipped. I'm sure I'll be delineating a few of them
> later; but do feel free to protest if you don't think they apply to you
> personally.
>
> and the drills and the sec
> > checks etc. etc.
>
> Yah, yah, yah. Not true at all and not really your problem.
Fraud is everyone's problem. It's the cry of the snake-oil salesman and
steam-doctor of old that "I'm not forcing anybody to buy my wares! Leave
me alone."
Tell it to the FDA these days and see what happens to you.
(n.b.) There's a reason there is a plate on each and every E-meter that
is the equivalent of disclaimers noting "For Entertainment Purposes
Only".
A plea to let one do one's fleecing in peace (because one isn't fleecing
you *personally*) has zero weight with me. I detest fraud and don't
believe that gullibility is license to steal.
> I just don't think
> it matters, Yduzitmatter ((C)Dr Seuss).
>
> Oops, desert is ready.
>
> Freddy
Bon' Appetit'.
Tommy
--
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
Raptavio
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Subject: Re:Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>
>
> Please accept my humble and groveling apologies.
>
> I'd been planning to go to the sports club in a few minutes; but
instead, as
> penance (and also partly because I've temporarily mislaid my
membership card),
> I'll get three of my strongest harem girls to flagellate me.
>
> Yours in sorrow,
>
> Freddie T
Well, OK. But only if I can watch.
El Roto
Raptavio <lordmagnu...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <972872878.3...@webmail.cotse.com>,
> <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Um, freddy, that was yduz, not me :)
> >
> > To the excellent and mostly highly esteemed Raptavio:
> >
> > Please accept my humble and groveling apologies.
> >
> > I'd been planning to go to the sports club in a few minutes; but
> > instead, as
> > penance (and also partly because I've temporarily mislaid my
> > membership card),
> > I'll get three of my strongest harem girls to flagellate me.
> >
> > Yours in sorrow,
> >
> > Freddie T
>
> Well, OK. But only if I can watch.
I think justice and the overall sense of fair play would not be best
served by Freddie's debasement at the hands of his harem. For the
matter to truly be settled, there is only one solution:
PICK ME, PICK ME!
Steve "Just Trying To Help" G.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>In article<972809761.3...@webmail.cotse.com>, Hello@No-spam-
>cotse.com writes:
>>> >How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some nice
>>> >things to say about LRH,
>
>
> He made good plant fertiliser when roasted.
>
> Now, your turn: find some good things to say about Carlo Gambino
> and the Gambino crime family.
It's nice they all had the same name?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
>In <rotlvs0bs61ghmofv...@4ax.com>, wynot
><wy...@soulgarage.net> wrote:
>
> ... snipt ...
>>But I'll give it a go anyway - Hubbard did have neat red hair...
>
>Huh? Judging by the pictures taken in his last days, when he was
>hiding out in the desert, his wig was either an overused dust mop, or a
>clown wig that he rescued from a dusty circus ring, after the elephant
>act had finished.
I'm not sure what pictures you're referring to, but in the pictures I
know of that was no wig. That was wigged out Ronni Goodbugger's real
hair.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Dave Bird
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 11:43 AM
>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>
>> >From: "Dave Bird" <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>:
>> >>
>> >> In article<972809761.3...@webmail.cotse.com>, Hello writes:
>
>
>> Thank you for snipping the rest of my post.
>
One good turn deserves another.
>
>
>>I ask you again to
>>
>> "Find some good points of Carlo Gambino and the Gambino crime family"
>>
>> Or, if you will not do that, say why it is inappropriate to do so.
>
>It's off topic Dave.
Why? there is very little difference between that crime corporation
and the misscavidge crime corporation. And the example has been raised
as a legitimate comparison in a discussion about Scientology. It is
not as if I expect you to endlessly debate and justify the merits
of a different crime family (which would be off topic)... merely to
do it once, to show that you can do. BTW you snipped an important bit,
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <m3urvs8epnq0tsha0...@4ax.com>, Gerry Armstrong
<arms...@dowco.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:14:25 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article<972809761.3...@webmail.cotse.com>, Hello@No-spam-
> >cotse.com writes:
> >>> >How about if the critics started being kinder and tried to find some
> >>> >nice things to say about LRH,
> >
> >
> > He made good plant fertiliser when roasted.
> >
> > Now, your turn: find some good things to say about Carlo Gambino
> > and the Gambino crime family.
>
> It's nice they all had the same name?
Having "The" in your name is way cool?
Cap.
(AKA Andrew "The Nondescript Vertebrate" Diseker)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOf4+BLztfgpKlX7qEQI5GgCeJk9YuV/zxo+9sGystiNSVIciRscAoNIG
fJQj5KJqNGh38y2zLe1Ofbwq
=f6AT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Operation: Nerdwatch - http://www.nerdwatch.com
Captain Nerd can be reached at: cpt...@nerdwatch.com
"By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes."
alan...@127.0.0.1
mistm...@aol.com (Mistmagoo55) wrote:
>
>SCIENTOLOGY VS THE REAL WORLD
>
>
>
>You know...many people have welcomed me to the "real world".....
>
> Many ex-Scientologists
>
>Many Critics....
>
>and Many People, who have absolutely nothing to do with Scientology at
all
>ever.
>
>I have to say that as someone recently out of Scientology, it is TOTALLY
>shocking to find out how many people.............really EVERYONE is on my
side,
>now that I am out.
>
>I know the thoughts IN Scientology: "Well, that is just why we have to
fight
>harder. We are the only ones with the REAL truth. and of course the big,
bad
>world is trying to suppress this truth....so we must just fight harder.
>Horrible people like Tory are out there making this ' Road to Truth' that
much
>harder for us."
>
are
>reading this. See if you can find their answers in other threads. They
will
>rarely answer here..but will somehow bring up their responses somewhere
else.
>Sort of like "Where's Waldo"....Scientology style. OK...so here are my
>questions:
>
>
>wrong...it really isn't and only you all know the real truth?? (Please take
a
>moment and think about this..."in a new unit of time". And please try something
>new other than religious bigotry or Minton Money etc.)
What the world thinks has nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong.
>
>2) How is it a 30 year member who has dedicated most of her adult life to
>helping Scientology is suddenly turned from a highly respected person into
a
>"criminal" and a suppressive person in two months? Do you REALLY agree with
>this?
I need 'uh lot more information.
>
>3) Is there not something wrong with a "church" that is in constant war
with
>the world??
absolutely not!!!
>
>OK...those are my questions....if you see any responses that belong here
(the
>Where's Waldo routine) please post them here.
>
>And to any lurking Scientologists...here is the truth:
>
>While IN Scientology there is a feeling of security and that you MUST be
doing
>the right thing. Agreement is ALL that is holding the house of cards together.
>Which of course is why no one can ask questions and it is suppressive to
talk
>to the media etc. Gawd forbid.....if you spoke! But don't forget...that
IS a
>Constitutional right you have...and I have too. And guess what?>?? I used
>it....and now I am told I am a declared SP! Think about that one. Real hard.
>
>Do as you like...but know one thing: It feels GREAT once you are out.
>
>Freedom begins once you start using that constitutional right.
>
>And it is Sooooo great to have your life ...to be able to do what you know
and
>want to do, unconditionally.
The state of "clear" is something no one has. It's just something that passes
through your mind, and then the "world" is back.
>
>I invite you to come try it......:)
>
>It isn't bad at all to be declared...in fact, some of my best friends are!
>
>LOVE TO ALL
>
>
>Tory/Magoo~dancin in "the real world"~
title:God http://www.alanfaircloth.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
yduzitmatter
>>In fact, the Church simply tries to defend itself against those people who are attacking it. If people don't picket and leaflet the church, the church doesn't picket and leaflet them. It's simple, and as long as everyone obeys the law I don't care too much. I want the orgs to be doing well and delivering great service. I'd also like the prices lower and things a little more laid-back.<<
1 Question here:
What is the difference between picketing the local Org and protesting
against the lies, ( Scientology is a proven science),
the unethical acts ( RPF),
the dangerous pseudo-medical practices (Purif),
the criminal convictions ,
the long history of harassment against anyone
particularly writers, who criticize the church ( Paulette Cooper comes
to mind among many others - TIME Magazine), and
Picketing a private home ( where family members may not be involved
in the criticism of Scientology)
Handing out flyers which lie about the person to neighbours,
calling people's employers and trying to cause serious problems for
them,
calling ALL critics criminal ( just because they are critics)?
Y
yduzitmatter
>>Luckily the church is in a better position than a dog as it can evaluate the effect of its behavior and then change it.<<
They have not changed in 50 years. There are still some serious
problems
with the way Scientology is sold on the street - what is sold is not
what the public gets.
The personality test is designed so that anyone who takes it has
problems that Scientology can fix.
Then comes course after course and then when they hit OTIII they learn
that
what they have been doing is for naught - BT's and all that don't ya
know
and so begins more courses, more expensive auditing, sec checks etc.
The Bridge to Total Freedom is a lie - the only thing being freed is
their money.
Y
Raptavio
<He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raptavio" <lordmagnu...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
> > <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'll get three of my strongest harem girls to flagellate me.
>
>
you'd
> like to come to lunch instead? I know the girls would love to have
you.
>
> And as a third gesture of goodwill, as soon as I can find the time -
probably
> within the next few days - I'll have a stab at your long recent
message in this
> thread.
>
> Freddie T
That'd be nice too. I do tend towards the verbose, don't I.
--
"It must be exciting to think that way, but a drag to have to deal with
the clinical diagnosis."
Dave Bird
cotse.com writes:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Bird" <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:09 AM
>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>
>>> "Find some good points of Carlo Gambino and the Gambino crime family"
>
> >>Or, if you will not do that, say why it is inappropriate to do so.
>
>
>> >It's off topic Dave.
>
>>Why?
>
>
You failed to answer the main point which was((((((((((((((((((((((
In article<wIfeXeBiGf$5E...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird writes:
>Why? there is very little difference between that crime corporation
>and the misscavidge crime corporation. And the example has been raised
>as a legitimate comparison in a discussion about Scientology. It is
>not as if I expect you to endlessly debate and justify the merits
>of a different crime family (which would be off topic)... merely to
>do it once, to show that you can do. BTW you snipped an important bit,
>where I wrote:
>>
>> I said this for a reason. I was trying to reach the deeply buried
>> but still dimly present spark of human consciousness somewhere in you.
>> Many people would respond "it is inappropriate, and insane, to ask
>> people to identify the few good points in a bunch of murdering
>> criminals. This does not make them any less murderous or less criminal.
>> The correct response is to (1) lock them up so they are forced to
>> cease their crimes, and (2) attempt to reform them so that they can
>> return to normal life without wanting to commit crimes.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>this is alt.religion.scientology.
non sequitur.
Ignores and fails to answer the point put.
Dave Bird
cotse.com writes:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Bird" <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:09 AM
>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>>> I ask you again to
>
>>> "Find some good points of Carlo Gambino and the Gambino crime family"
>
> >>Or, if you will not do that, say why it is inappropriate to do so.
>
>
>> >It's off topic Dave.
>
>>Why?
>
>
>Bec
Bec is not an English word, it is the French for "beak".
Yes, I know, I have snipped so much off your post that the main
point is gone and it no longer makes sense, then answered that.
Well it's what you do.
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 10/31/00 5:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <WRyHBRIVz0$5E...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 3=
Good one Dave! Keep right on it...you have it nailed!
:)
Magoo!
Kaeli
Now: is it likely they will change their policies on picketing private residences? Highly unlikely.
Saint Xine
Hi Kaeli,
Can you reset your linelenth? I have to scroll to the right to read
you on 1024 resolution.
Saint
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 11/1/00 2:13 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <973062830.3...@webmail.cotse.com>
>
>I just thought I'd let you in on a little secret.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <He...@No-spam-cotse.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:51 PM
>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>
>
>>
>> From: "Dave Bird" <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>>
>> >> I ask you again to
>>
>> >> "Find some good points of Carlo Gambino and the Gambino crime family"
>>
>> >>Or, if you will not do that, say why it is inappropriate to do so.
>>
>>
>> > >It's off topic Dave.
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Freddie T
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Also I'm getting more laughs doing it this way.
>
>
>
>
>For many years now, dear old Davey Bird, secret agent, has been a Scientology
>
>mole, working deep undercover. He's a very brave man and the time has come to
>
>thank him publicly for his huge contributions to the Church.
>
>
>
>See note way below fred's name
>
>
>Freddie T
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>P.s. I just had a nasty thought. I hope this isn't actually true, because
>otherwise I'm going to be in big trouble.
>
sure...and if you believe all of that...we have some terrific lagoon land to
sell you.
Quit lying! It is embarrassing.
You are only fooling yourself.
Wake up!
Tory/Magoo~dancin with the wolves~
Jommy Cross
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 08:47:10 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in msg
<973172830.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>I sometimes find myself chortling over particularly choice bon mots that I've
>posted. Also, I always take a novel with me anywhere that I might have to wait
>for a while. However I've found recently that I don't need to read as much
>as I
>can amuse myself by thinking of good points to make on ars.
>
>Probably the best thing is that I've been able to counter some of the lies
>posted about Scientology. And that's mainly just by writing about my own
>experiences. I feel really good about that.
I'm glad you feel good about it. Regrettably, that your experience differ
from other people's doesn't of itself make their experience lies, so I
think your mots could be bonner.
But I like you, Freddie, you're a revisionist $cieno and your organization
is going to need all the revisionists it can find if it's to survive.
The cosy picture you paint of the organization as a kind of high-priced
self-help group for the half-bright (the bright would get that stuff
cheaper) is certainly more appealing than the (often embarrassingly
well-documented) 'lies' of the critics.
dorsai666 and Safe tell me there's a system to let $cienos make suggestions
about where they think $cientology's going wrong. Perhaps you could help
out?
That one about 2.5% of the population needing compulsory 'therapy' or
disposal. Don't you think that hurts $cientology's image? As an SP
(according to $cientologists) I think I'd like a public statement about
that one getting deep-sixed. Whaddya think?
And that one about clears having perfect memory, playing chess like grand
masters and never getting colds? Isn't that about due for disappearance?
Found any OTs able to demonstrate Super Powers for us yet? Thought not, so
perhaps you could get to work revising that claim.
What about industrial doses of niacin being good for you? I'm sure your
organization could do without personal injury suits, so I'd ask management
to drop that real quick.
So, ready to help?
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Nick S
>Hi, Freddy
>
>On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 08:47:10 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in msg
><973172830.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>
>>Probably the best thing is that I've been able to counter some of the lies
>>posted about Scientology. And that's mainly just by writing about my own
>>experiences. I feel really good about that.
>
>I'm glad you feel good about it. Regrettably, that your experience differ
>from other people's doesn't of itself make their experience lies, so I
>think your mots could be bonner.
>
>But I like you, Freddie, you're a revisionist $cieno and your organization
>is going to need all the revisionists it can find if it's to survive.
>
>The cosy picture you paint of the organization as a kind of high-priced
>self-help group for the half-bright (the bright would get that stuff
>cheaper)
LOL ! (and a Bernie ROFL just for good measure)
The half-bright - reminds me of dear old Ronnie's endearing
classification - 'the not-so-bright' - those he he depended
on to make up the rank and file of the New Universe Corps.
What was the motto - 'We cum again and again and again..' ?
Where is that Red-Haired bitch anyway ??
NS
wynot
>The Church operates within the law. It's a safer better way to operate.
>That might not be mentioned much on ars - but that's the truth.
Do you really believe this to be true? After knowing about
operations Snow White and Freakout? Yeah, those were a long time
ago, but they were ordered by Hubbard, who based his orders on
policies your cult has never disavowed.
'til next time;
wynot
Pickets are the one thing that
Scientology hates the most because they can't lie to their members about it,
at least to the ones who see it.. They can't demonstrate their OT abilities and
' postulate' people away using Tone 40, which invalidates them. This is a
direct confront to their great powers and is what they hate the most and all
the lies they tell their members is only a picket away from revealing itself.
Travis Morien
:> Well ... there are of course a lot of things that the
:> majority of people once believed which later turned out to
:> be false (see the history of Science).
: I'd say that new theories prove to be totally false more
: often than old ones. Newton's theories were not totally
: discarded by Einstein.
Your first sentence is mere oppinion, can't knock that back, the second is
wrong. Apart from the fact that there is more to post-classical science
than Einstein, it would be quite true to say that pretty much everything
done by Newton is wrong in today's terms. Quantum, relativity, give rise
to the "macroscopic limit" where large bodies at slow speeds tend to act
in a way adequately described for most purposes by Newton's work. Saying
that Newton is a good enough approximation for most people's needs does
not make it correct, the real theories are now far more complicated, and
agree more closely with all observations of all systems.
: One of the more effective arguments by critics is to call
: upon these Operating Thetans to demonstrate the new powers
: they claim they have. (e.g. being able to leave their body
: and read a sign they have never seen before.) To date,
: nobody has been able to prove these super human abilities.
Well, there is that, but the widespread dissemination of all the
excercises, allowing all and sundry to see that it is just sci-fi crappola
from a third rate author works just as well.
then there is the exodus of people from all levels warning people that it
is all a scam.
: Many critics (including many psychologists) agree that
: something can be gained by the lower levels of scientology.
: For me, even these levels are not worth the cost. I can get
: the same gain by talking to a priest (with the added
: security of knowing my "secrets" are not taken down and
: read by other members of the organisation).
Which excercises? I have not seen anyone except Scientologists endorsing
anything connected with Scientology in any way whatsoever.
No study has ever supported Scientology in any way, there isn't any
evidence that it works, none of it.
ptsc
>> >The Church operates within the law. It's a safer better way to operate.
>> >That might not be mentioned much on ars - but that's the truth.
>> Do you really believe this to be true?
>I really do.
>Look at the things the Church does that get complained about around here - they
>are ~legal~ activities. Just think how happy the critics would be if we started
>breaking the law!
Actually we'd be thrilled if you'd STOP breaking the law.
Scientology has been convicted of breach of the public trust in Canada. They
also lost the biggest libel verdict in Canadian history.
Scientologists including L. Ron Hubbard's wife Mary Sue were sent to prison for
stealing government records.
Last year a French court found five Scientologists including a regional
president guilty of fraud.
In 1996 a Lyon France court convicted 14 Scientologists, including top
officials, guilty of fraud and manslaughter in the death of Patrice Vic.
Scientology France still uses the convicted killer Jean-Jacques Mazier as a
recruiter.
In the very same trial, three other Scientologists were convicted for their
failed attempts at witness tampering and for stealing.
There's a few apposite examples, but feel free to keep your head in the sand.
ptsc
Mistmagoo55
>From: He...@No-spam-cotse.com
>Message-id: <973172830.3...@webmail.cotse.com>
>
>Ho ho ho. It's time for more fun and games with the Freddie and Magoo show.
>
>Roll up folks; step inside and scroll all the way down:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> >P.s. I just had a nasty thought. I hope this isn't actually true, because
>> >otherwise I'm going to be in big trouble.
>
>land to sell you.
>
>Believe what Tory? The postscript makes it clear that I was joking about Dave
>
>being from OSA. And ~gasp~ the part about my being in big trouble was also a
>joke!!!!!
>
>How come? Because obviously there is no way I could get into trouble for
>saying
>something I had no knowledge about.
>
>Of course Dave Bird of all people isn't OSA - that would be ~absolutely~
>ridiculous!!!! Total nonsense!!! Utter balderdash!!! It's almost
>~certainly~
>NOT true.
>
>It's amusing (and of course, knowing what you and I know, predictable) that
>you
>are attempting to make me wrong for saying that Dave is OSA when you've said
>the same thing about me.
>
>I hope that helps. But don't worry, hardly anyone reads my posts. Dave's
>reputation is safe. Cheer up Dave! I'm sorry for any nasty sideways glances
>you got at the arscc club last night.
>
>
>> Quit lying! It is embarrassing.
>
>points
>about how some people have a hard time recognising humor in my last post to
>Wynot. But that certainly doesn't apply to you at all.
>> You are only fooling yourself.
>
>
>the way, that's a rhetorical question - no answer is required.
>
>> Wake up!
>
>I've been feeling particularly perky for the last two weeks actually. Posting
>
>successfully on ars turns out to be much easier than I had imagined.
>Certainly
>easier than when I tried it a few years ago.
>I sometimes find myself chortling over particularly choice bon mots that I've
>
>posted. Also, I always take a novel with me anywhere that I might have to
>wait
>for a while. However I've found recently that I don't need to read as much as
>I
>can amuse myself by thinking of good points to make on ars.
>
>posted about Scientology. And that's mainly just by writing about my own
>experiences. I feel really good about that.
>
Humble?
Dancin?
Bwahahahahahahah
Keep talkin....maybe you can sell some of it, and if not....you will be happy
you told your story.
Humor? Hmmmmmmm
Nice shot.
Ready???
well, I better not. It might be the wrong tone....and we wouldn't want that,
would we?
Yeah...we humorless critics are kind of a drag to you I am sure. People who
find slander offensive and talk about it, aren't really on the same train, are
they?
I mean you would rather just say it isn't true...and tell your "wins" about
your "religion". The fact that many of us have been bilked for thousands, and
some millions of dollars has no baring to you or how you feel...as you are busy
spreading your "wins".
The fact that your "church" lies,spreads hatred and misinformation about people
(and it just did about me and will be posted here soon)....is not of any
concern to you. But ya know "Freddie"....it kinda pisses some of us off.
But you keep telling how great it is...here on Alt religion Scientology. But I
have to ask you...if you really cared about your group...why not go DO
something with it?
Apply what your group so strongly promotes it believes in. IF you all just
spent half of the time you spend here really helping people (and I know a few
of you do that too, part of the time).....you might not have as bad a PR as you
do.
Remember that ol thingie ElRon said
The Senior Policy is:
Deliver What You Promised????
Well THAT one sure dropped out.....huh?
Maybe get that one in for starters.
Basic, simple....and something even you could work on Freddie.
Good luck to ya! Remember what I said earlier about not wasting too much of
your life trying to slay dragons.
I do wish you well.
Best
Tory/Magop~dancin in the moooooon light~
ptsc
>Scientology has a long and complex history. The truth about what has happened
>at different points is very difficult to establish. Take a look at Mr Scary 's
>original post blaming the church for anonymously threatening a band member.
>It's almost certainly nonsense as was pointed out by a couple of the more level
>headed critics. However when they said so another critic (PTSC) jumped in with
>a list of 17 reported death threats over the years. The idea that these might
>also have been invented or done by other critics wasn't mentioned. But I'd say
>that it's a reasonable supposition that at least ~some~ of these are false.
>And next year if someone else says they got an anonymous phonecall then there
>will be an updated 18 name list with Taz's name on top. Everyone will have
>forgotten the details. It will make the Church seem to be very wicked - but
>with no evidence at all.
So which ones are you calling liars? The Judge? The Court Reporter? Richard
Behar the journalist? Paulette Cooper? I'm wondering who is particularly not
credible in the list.
ptsc
Gregg
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 18:27:18 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "wynot" <wy...@soulgarage.net>
>>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>>Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 2:04 AM
>>Subject: Re: Scientology Vs "The Real World"
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 01:16:33 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >The Church operates within the law. It's a safer better way to operate.
>>> >That might not be mentioned much on ars - but that's the truth.
>>
>>> Do you really believe this to be true?
>>
>>
>>I really do.
>>
>>Look at the things the Church does that get complained about around here - they
>>are ~legal~ activities. Just think how happy the critics would be if we started
>>breaking the law!
>
>Interesting that you think so. On the other hand, since I live in San Jose
>where it's illegal to picket private residences, I have seen different. In
>fact, Ed Richardson in Hemet threatened not long ago that my home would be
>picketed again if I went out to picket in Hemet (I made sure to inform him
>at the time about it being illegal), and later that day told me that my home
>had been picketed again. Seems like orders for illegal actions come all the
>way from Gold.
>
>I also have pictures of some of the picketers I've had here. I never get
>the same ones again after I inform ~them~ that it's illegal -- they always
>tell me that the "church" wouldn't send them to do anything illegal too,
>but the "church" doesn't seem to be able to get them to come back again
>once I've informed them. I would guess it helps them to see their "church"
>in a different light once they know that the "church" has told them to do
>something illegal and they did it.
>
>Richardson's threats to burn down my home weren't exactly legal either.
>
>>>After knowing about operations Snow White and Freakout? Yeah, those were a
>>>long time ago, but they were ordered by Hubbard, who based his orders on
>>>policies your cult has never disavowed.
>>
>>
>>That's right. They were a long time ago. There have been a lot of changes since
>>then. It's now very clear policy that we only operate within the law. In
>>respect to those older (two or three decades ago) events, take a look at the
>>time lines posted by the Librarian and then updated by CL a month or two ago.
>>They contain a few interesting viewpoints on these stories. There's something
>>more on the Paulette Cooper story that you might not have seen at Bernie's web
>>site. Not only that but there is also a really interesting history of ars and
>>some of the funniest stories. It's grown a lot since I last visited:
>
>Someone ought to look at that "very clear policy" again. When were the
>convictions in Canada? How long ago was the liable against the Canadian
>official? Was Mary DeMoss invited into the Lisa McPherson Trust to scream
>and yell? Why were policies about locking people up against their will
>changed after Lisa's death? (The policy changes were to move those types
>of things to different locations where people won't see them, rather than
>doing that at the Ft. Harrison and other public locations).
>
>When were the last convictions in France? What's going on with Heber in
>Spain?
>
>Is it legal to have emeter sales removed from eBay auctions?
>
>This "we don't do that any more" policy just started yesterday? I think
>we've heard that story before. Maybe I should go picket the San Jose org
>tomorrow and see if what you're saying is true.
>
> - Brent
The policies which led to Co$ pat convictions are still in
place and enacted. This is part of the reason Co$ was raided and
banned by Greece in the 1997.
The old GO operations have simply been retitled as OSA
operations.
The training manual for DSA agents is virtually identical with
the GO manual. Not surprising as this is all Dept. 20 stuff.
Last year a Co$ organized libel campaign against Bonnie Woods
in England resulted in a court victory for the Bonnie and an abject
apology from Co$ lawyers.
In Canada picketers have been assaulted and stalked and
Criminal level harassment engaged in by CoS members.Relative of
critics have been terrorized in their homes. [This was reported in the
globe and Mail in Feb 1999.] Private homes have been scouted, picketed
and in one instance an attempted illegal entry by an OSA member
recorded on video tape. Intellectual Property Theft by an OSA
operative has been documented.
Co$ in Toronto was convicted of Breaches of the Public Trust
as were three of its members. Two of these felons Jacky Matz and
Janice Wheeler were never Declared or punished in the least by the
Co$. Co$ paid their legal fees and fines. Former Co$ members who
testified against the Criminal Cults and its Criminal agents were
Declared as SPs by the Co$.
Criminal Wheeler has been recorded on tape participating in a
Bonnie Woods style defamation campaign against me.
Most recently Co$ member Gwen Jones posted illegally obtained
private credit information of Ron Sharp and myself. The crime of
divulging private Credit info is.........Breach of the Public Trust.
Guess Co$ hasn't really change much at all, has it?
"Evil Incompetent Financial Genius and Spiritualist"
Gregg Hagglund SP7
Free Toronto
Kaeli
dors...@my-deja.com
Gregg,
Your suppositions and falsehoods are legion, along with with your
reversal of fact as shown and stated many times by parishioners,
including myself.
The actions of a few paranoid politicians in Greece and the policies of
the Church are completely unrelated. There is a a policy, which states
that the "laws of the land" must be followed. Fact. So don't go on
with your assumptions...
> The training manual for DSA agents is virtually identical with
> the GO manual. Not surprising as this is all Dept. 20 stuff.
Policy doesn't change, but individual actions by PEOPLE do. There is
nothing in policy which states one breaks the law. Where this has
occured in the past, those individuals were removed from their
positions as IS church policy.
>
> Last year a Co$ organized libel campaign against Bonnie Woods
> in England resulted in a court victory for the Bonnie and an abject
> apology from Co$ lawyers.
> In Canada picketers have been assaulted and stalked and
> Criminal level harassment engaged in by CoS members.Relative of
> critics have been terrorized in their homes. [This was reported in the
> globe and Mail in Feb 1999.] Private homes have been scouted, picketed
> and in one instance an attempted illegal entry by an OSA member
> recorded on video tape. Intellectual Property Theft by an OSA
> operative has been documented.
More generalities and falsehoods. You and several others have and are
being investigated...quite legal, and quite justified considering your
acts against us on monthly basis and in other public "forums".
Your relatives were contacted to ask if they could intervene in your
hateful acts. We found that your family DOES NOT condone your actions
and due to your history of similar irrational activity...have more or
less disconnected from you. Show the video. No such act exists (ie
illegal entry). Another fabrication in a long list of lies by you
Gregg. Nothing new.
The "intellectual property" is a name, properly registered by an
individual by the name of Peter Ramsay. Legal too.
> Co$ in Toronto was convicted of Breaches of the Public Trust
> as were three of its members. Two of these felons Jacky Matz and
> Janice Wheeler were never Declared or punished in the least by the
> Co$. Co$ paid their legal fees and fines. Former Co$ members who
> testified against the Criminal Cults and its Criminal agents were
> Declared as SPs by the Co$.
INDIVIDUAL acts which run counter to policy are censured when found.
As they had performed something illegal, they were tried. Because they
were acting on "behalf" of the church, albeit in error,...the Church
took responsibility for the legal costs. Policy is not changed but it
is more stringently enforced. As for the others who testified on
behalf of the AG...THEY WERE THE ONE'S PERFORMING THE ILLEGAL ACTS TO
BEGIN WITH! They had created their "own policy" and did not enforce
Church policy...this is all part of the trial documents. Another
fabrication by you Gregg, to engender alarm and further your lies.
> Criminal Wheeler has been recorded on tape participating in a
> Bonnie Woods style defamation campaign against me.
> Most recently Co$ member Gwen Jones posted illegally obtained
> private credit information of Ron Sharp and myself. The crime of
> divulging private Credit info is.........Breach of the Public Trust.
You cannot be defamed with truth. There is nothing libelous or
slanderous in using publicly accessible information and showing you for
what you really are. A complete failure.
But of course you knew that...
>
> Guess Co$ hasn't really change much at all, has it?
Policies haven't,...people have. Church management enforces the exact
application of those policies.
The one thing that hasn't changed is you. Nor has your policy of
harassment, lies, bigotry and perpetrating fraud in your personal life
and with the general public - as regard to my religion and your abysmal
background of failures, lies and deceit.
Dorsai666
>
> "Evil Incompetent Financial Genius and Spiritualist"
>
> Gregg Hagglund SP7
> Free Toronto
>
dors...@my-deja.com
Gregg,
Your suppositions and falsehoods are legion, along with with your
reversal of fact as shown and stated many times by parishioners,
including myself.
The actions of a few paranoid politicians in Greece and the policies of
the Church are completely unrelated. There is a a policy, which states
that the "laws of the land" must be followed. Fact. So don't go on
with your assumptions...
> The training manual for DSA agents is virtually identical with
> the GO manual. Not surprising as this is all Dept. 20 stuff.
Policy doesn't change, but individual actions by PEOPLE do. There is
nothing in policy which states one breaks the law. Where this has
occured in the past, those individuals were removed from their
positions as IS church policy.
>
> Last year a Co$ organized libel campaign against Bonnie Woods
> in England resulted in a court victory for the Bonnie and an abject
> apology from Co$ lawyers.
> In Canada picketers have been assaulted and stalked and
> Criminal level harassment engaged in by CoS members.Relative of
> critics have been terrorized in their homes. [This was reported in the
> globe and Mail in Feb 1999.] Private homes have been scouted, picketed
> and in one instance an attempted illegal entry by an OSA member
> recorded on video tape. Intellectual Property Theft by an OSA
> operative has been documented.
More generalities and falsehoods. You and several others have and are
being investigated...quite legal, and quite justified considering your
acts against us on monthly basis and in other public "forums".
Your relatives were contacted to ask if they could intervene in your
hateful acts. We found that your family DOES NOT condone your actions
and due to your history of similar irrational activity...have more or
less disconnected from you. Show the video. No such act exists (ie
illegal entry). Another fabrication in a long list of lies by you
Gregg. Nothing new.
The "intellectual property" is a name, properly registered by an
individual by the name of Peter Ramsay. Legal too.
> Co$ in Toronto was convicted of Breaches of the Public Trust
> as were three of its members. Two of these felons Jacky Matz and
> Janice Wheeler were never Declared or punished in the least by the
> Co$. Co$ paid their legal fees and fines. Former Co$ members who
> testified against the Criminal Cults and its Criminal agents were
> Declared as SPs by the Co$.
INDIVIDUAL acts which run counter to policy are censured when found.
As they had performed something illegal, they were tried. Because they
were acting on "behalf" of the church, albeit in error,...the Church
took responsibility for the legal costs. Policy is not changed but it
is more stringently enforced. As for the others who testified on
behalf of the AG...THEY WERE THE ONE'S PERFORMING THE ILLEGAL ACTS TO
BEGIN WITH! They had created their "own policy" and did not enforce
Church policy...this is all part of the trial documents. Another
fabrication by you Gregg, to engender alarm and further your lies.
> Criminal Wheeler has been recorded on tape participating in a
> Bonnie Woods style defamation campaign against me.
> Most recently Co$ member Gwen Jones posted illegally obtained
> private credit information of Ron Sharp and myself. The crime of
> divulging private Credit info is.........Breach of the Public Trust.
You cannot be defamed with truth. There is nothing libelous or
slanderous in using publicly accessible information and showing you for
what you really are. A complete failure.
But of course you knew that...
>
> Guess Co$ hasn't really change much at all, has it?
Policies haven't,...people have. Church management enforces the exact
application of those policies.
The one thing that hasn't changed is you. Nor has your policy of
harassment, lies, bigotry and perpetrating fraud in your personal life
and with the general public - as regard to my religion and your abysmal
background of failures, lies and deceit.
Dorsai666
>
> "Evil Incompetent Financial Genius and Spiritualist"
>
> Gregg Hagglund SP7
> Free Toronto
>
Tilman Hausherr
<8u1e90$i3c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>The actions of a few paranoid politicians in Greece and the policies of
>the Church are completely unrelated. There is a a policy, which states
>that the "laws of the land" must be followed. Fact. So don't go on
>with your assumptions...
There's also a policy that says that "purpose is senior to policy".
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
dtom...@my-deja.com
Brent Stone <bst...@kudonet.com> wrote:
would
> >suggest finding a copy of the statute to show him. After all, you
may be
> >mistaken.
>
> It really doesn't matter if he believes me, what matters is whether or
> not he's threatening and then having someone perform illegal actions
> against me. My telling him about the fact that residential pickets
are
> illegal, even if he doesn't believe me, is certainly enough notice
that
> it would be reasonable to check the laws.
>
> It appears to me that "church policy" is that they don't care whether
> it's illegal if they think they can get away with it.
>
> In any case, when I see the picketers, I hand them a copy of the laws.
> They tend to listen a bunch better that way. Unfortunately, I didn't
> think to have copies available while I was in Hemet. It was quite
> a surprise to me that I would be getting threats of illegal pickets
> against me while there.
>
> I have talked to others at the San Jose org (where the picketers are
> sent from) and they are well aware that it is illegal. At one picket,
> the cop I called also explained it to them. Since then, they keep the
> pickets short and have a "getaway car" parked out of sight nearby
> (the car used to be close, but it seems that they don't want me to
> see it and possibly get the license number now). They keep the
> pickets short enough that the police won't get here before they're
> gone (perhaps with spotters elsewhere to see if they're coming, or
> maybe just on the assumption that the cops won't show too quickly
> on this type of call).
>
> From the way they've changed their actions since the police talked
> to them, it sure looks to me like they are actively and knowingly
> continuing to break the law.
>
> Of course, they had always maintained that these were "individual
> members" who were doing this on their own, not at the direction of
> the organization. Since these "individual members" (different ones
> each time) show up with the same flyers and signs as the previous
> "individual members", it seems to me that the story is used to try
> to keep the organization from being accountable for their actions.
>
> The threats and actions directed from Gold kind of make the stories
> about the pickets not being directed by the organization into a
> provable lie, don't they. (Thanks again Ed Richardson for proving
> this for us)
>
> San Jose city codes are available online at http://www.municode.com/.
> The relevant sections are 10.09.010 and 10.09.015.
>
> So, have the people at Gold and at the San Jose org just not heard
> of the new policies not to do anything illegal?
>
> - Brent
>
>
Hey Brent,
I'm guess I'm gonna have to burst your bubble here. I've watched you
make this claim about San Jose for months, really make a case of it.
Just go on and on and on, so I checked it out. (I just had too, your
story just gets more colorful with each telling. Its like those old
Henry Weinhart's (sp) beer commercials where a few good ole boys
sit around the country store porch seeing who can tell the biggest
whopper.)
Everyone here knows that anything found on the net must be verified as
true. The front page on that site even tells you it has not been
checked.
I looked at the code:
A. It is part and parcel to a section having to do with protesting
health facilities (as in abortion clinics) and the Drs. and others who
work there (their homes).
I have to ask this because your "error" is "tremendous". Are you that
stupid that you didn't look at the over all context? Or did you simply
lie and omit this extremely, extremely critical fact?
IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER, THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.
B. Whomever has actually shown up at your residence, (because God only
knows how much of what you say is true about any of this since your
basic premise turned out to be PURE BULLSHIT) are not breaking the law
and are in fact excercising their first amendment right of free speech.
You and anyone else interested enough to actually check the "facts"
need only call the San Jose Police or an attorney practicing in the San
Jose area. (I mean really do it and then not lie that you did it or lie
about what they told you.)
I did, just ask for the watch sargent.
Apparently your actions in posting "your story" are sinking into the
soggy bog of "Defamation." By yourself you would just be another sad
sack drunk in front of his computer like the millions of other lonely
netizens spewing their personal hates, bigotries and perversions into
alt.... or a binary group. Unfortunately for you though, you are an
unindicted co-conspirator (alleged accomplice) to Henson who has been
arraigned as an alleged terrorist and extortionist (lets not forget
hate).
Please don't believe me, actually check it out with someone who knows.
I shouldn't worry about it though because "everyone" knows that no real
Scientologists are seeing this because (or at least according to the
bigots such as yourself) Scientologists are forced to use a net nanny
so none of them have actually seen your whining whispers of hate
bubbling forth in this sewer you call home.
But then again, you do hang out with Henson and who knows what he will
unwittingly drag you into this time. Speaking of which, when you picked
up the 1998 trial transcript that got Smelly the contempt of court fine
for posting the sealed portion on the net, did you and Holmes cough up
a few grand a piece to help ole Stinky out?
(Could you tell Henson to take a shower every morning or something, his
stale fragrance is legendary. I mean his smell could get him booked for
assault with a deadly weapon. I mean Riverside is contemplating a 4th
charge, I mean...oh don't get me started...ARS am I right or
what?????!!!! Help Henson out, help Henson buy a clue or at least take
a shower. Send some soap on a rope to his PAYPAL! :D)
It only seems fair, you and Holmes were as guilty as he for violating
the court order. Everyone in ARS knows it. Publicly you can claim no-
responsibility but in your heart you know what you did.
This is an observation only, You must not be a very happy person. Your
postings show you are wound too tight, sensitive to the point of being
neurotically compulsive. You should attend the church of your choice
and confess your sins or join a 12 step. Maybe they could help you find
constructive people and less self destructive activities to spend your
life on.
How depressing this must be for you, an "OSABOT" giving you the only
sane and from the heart advice you have heard in years.
D
ptsc
>Policy doesn't change, but individual actions by PEOPLE do. There is
>nothing in policy which states one breaks the law. Where this has
>occured in the past, those individuals were removed from their
>positions as IS church policy.
Lying cult scum. At your own org, the convicted criminals Jacqueline Matz and
Janice Wheeler were NOT removed from their positions. They still work there.
In fact your crime cult paid for their legal costs and fines. And your cult
itself is of course criminally convicted for breach of the public trust. Not
just the two convicted criminals who still work there, but the cult itself. You
belong to this criminally convicted organization. FACT.
ptsc
Brent Stone
Yes?
> I'm guess I'm gonna have to burst your bubble here. I've watched you
>make this claim about San Jose for months, really make a case of it.
>Just go on and on and on, so I checked it out. (I just had too, your
>story just gets more colorful with each telling. Its like those old
>Henry Weinhart's (sp) beer commercials where a few good ole boys
>sit around the country store porch seeing who can tell the biggest
>whopper.)
OK, let's burst a bubble. Go ahead.
> Everyone here knows that anything found on the net must be verified as
>true. The front page on that site even tells you it has not been
>checked.
Sure does, but they're not all that likely to make a huge mistake
with it. Then again, when I found it I also checked with the police
department to verify, so perhaps you think that they're wrong too.
> I looked at the code:
Good for you ... now we get to the part that "bursts my bubble", right?
>A. It is part and parcel to a section having to do with protesting
>health facilities (as in abortion clinics) and the Drs. and others who
>work there (their homes).
>
> I have to ask this because your "error" is "tremendous". Are you that
>stupid that you didn't look at the over all context? Or did you simply
>lie and omit this extremely, extremely critical fact?
>
> IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER, THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.
Well, lets look at it. Perhaps I can come up with a third alternative.
Section 10 is titled "PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE" and gives a
purpose of:
This title is passed and adopted in the exercise of the
police power of the city, and for the protection of the
welfare, peace and comfort of the inhabitants of said city.
Chapter 10.08 deals with "Public Access" and has four sections:
10.08.010 Obstructing pedestrians on public ways.
10.08.020 Obstructing entrances to places of public assembly.
10.08.030 Impeding access prohibited.
(This one deals with impeding access to
health care facilities)
10.08.040 Private right of action
(This one deals with enforcement of
10.08.030 above)
Then we come to Chapter 10.09 titled "TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING".
Here is what it says:
Chapter 10.09 TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING Sections:
10.09.010 Targeted residential picketing prohibited.
A. No person shall engage in picketing activity that is targeted
at and is within three hundred feet of a residential dwelling.
B. For purposes of this chapter, the term "residential dwelling"
means any permanent building being used by its occupants solely
for nontransient residential uses.
C. For purposes of this chapter, the term "targeted" picketing
means picketing activity that is targeted at a particular
residential dwelling and proceeds on a definite course or route
in front of or around that particular residential dwelling.
D. This chapter does not and shall not be interpreted to preclude
picketing in a residential area that is not targeted at a
particular residential dwelling.
10.09.015 Picketing before or about a residential dwelling prohibited.
A. It is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or
about a residential dwelling of any individual in the city of
San Jose.
B. Enforcement of this section shall be limited to those situations
where the picketing proceeds on a definite course or route in
front of a residential dwelling and is directed at that residential
dwelling.
C. This section does not and shall not be interpreted to preclude
general marching through residential neighborhoods.
D. This section shall be and remain in effect and operative during
that period of time that the enforcement of Section 10.09.010 is
suspended.
Now, reading those chapters of the code, can you see that Chapter 10.08
covers "public access" and has sections dealing with public ways, public
assembly areas and health care facilities.
Chapter 10.09 is the code on "targeted residential picketing" (a whole
different chapter of the code). This chapter deals with picketing a
residence. It says nothing at all about health care facilities, and
in fact would specifically ALLOW the picketing of a BUSINESS (such as
health care) even if the doctor lived there.
So, when you tell me that you have looked at the chapter on residential
picketing and "it is part and parcel to a section having to do with
protesting health facilities" I think you would have to agree that you
are misreading the various chapters of the code. Or, as you might say:
> I have to ask this because your "error" is "tremendous". Are you that
>stupid that you didn't look at the over all context? Or did you simply
>lie and omit this extremely, extremely critical fact?
>
> IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER, THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.
Well, I found a third alternative. Perhaps I wasn't the one misreading
the code. Now, If you'd like to claim a third alternative for YOUR
behavior here, you could always go for "someone I trusted lied to me
and I believed them" (we're giving dorsai that out, why not give it to
you too). If that is the case though, I'd suggest you do your own
research in the future, or you'll end up looking like dorsai does.
>B. Whomever has actually shown up at your residence, (because God only
>knows how much of what you say is true about any of this since your
>basic premise turned out to be PURE BULLSHIT) are not breaking the law
>and are in fact excercising their first amendment right of free speech.
Do you still think so?
BTW, I have been told at pickets of the local orgs that ~I~ am breaking
this same code when I picket there. Now, reading the code, do you think
that ~I~ am breaking the same law? Do you think that when I picket an
org I am picketing a "permanent building being used by its occupants
solely for nontransient residential uses"?
This brings up another question in my mind, too. When someone suggests
to me that I am breaking this code, not only are they aware of the code
and misreading it, but it seems that they are suggesting that people
~live~ at the orgs. As far as I know, the orgs are not registered as
residential dwellings, but I'll look into that.
> You and anyone else interested enough to actually check the "facts"
>need only call the San Jose Police or an attorney practicing in the San
>Jose area. (I mean really do it and then not lie that you did it or lie
>about what they told you.)
>
> I did, just ask for the watch sargent.
I don't believe that you did. I have talked to the police about this
and they have told me that the law is on the books and it is being
enforced.
From here, your post kind of loses it since your premise is wrong
and you just go on and on with the kind of nonsense that makes
you look pretty sick. Try to get some help, both with your "facts"
and your spewing of hate.
I'm going to make one comment on the rest of your post because you
seem to be quite confused over a court transcript. It seems that
the Court Clerk handed ~me~ a transcript from one of Keith's cases
on a floppy disk. Now the clerk knew that portions of the transcript
were sealed and not to be given to anyone but the parties to the case
and their lawyers, and knew that I was neither. I handed the disk
to Keith. Now if the court hands ~me~ a copy of a transcript, would
it be reasonable to believe that it would be the version with the
"sealed" information excluded? I certainly assumed so, but then
I never looked at it. I wasn't even near a computer where I could
have looked at it while I had it. It seems to me like this was a
simple error on the clerk's part. How do you figure that I was
an "unindicted co-conspirator"? And, while you're working on your
law reading skills, you might look up what the laws on calling
someone something like "unindicted co-conspirator" which has specific
legal meaning (ask Kendrick Moxon about it if you don't know what it
is) while knowing that no such thing is true.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, but you might want to look
it over and see if you can avoid the lies and liable in your future
posts.
- Brent
Jommy Cross
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:40:59 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in msg
<973215659.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
<snip>
>> Hi, Freddy
>
>Well, here we have a nice friendly greeting from Jommy. Good for you Jommy.
>This board's often far too negative.
>
>Freddie> >I sometimes find myself chortling over particularly choice bon mots
>that I've posted. Also, I always take a novel with me anywhere that I might
>have to wait for a while. However I've found recently that I don't need to
>read
>as much as I can amuse myself by thinking of good points to make on ars.
>Probably the best thing is that I've been able to counter some of the lies
>posted about Scientology. And that's mainly just by writing about my own
>experiences. I feel really good about that.
>
>
>> I'm glad you feel good about it.
>
>Well, that seems kind of him doesn't it readers? But do you believe him?
What, you'd rather I was rude?
>
>>Regrettably, that your experience differ from other people's doesn't of
>>itself make their experience lies, so I think your mots could be bonner.
>
>1. My experiences are my experiences. Their experiences are theirs. You are
>welcome to regret or not anything you wish. I'm just posting some of my own
>stories because there is very little stuff here on ars about life in
>Scientology over the past couple of decades.
Agreed. I was taking issue with your assertion that everybody else who has
experienced life in $cientology over the last couple of decades is lying.
Are they lying, Freddy? How do you know?
>
>2. You are welcome to criticise the bonness of my mots Jommy, but I'm not
>going
>to be very interested until you've said a few things that can actually make
>~me~ laugh. Go on, give it a try. But I'm afraid that pretending to be
>friendly
>at the beginning of the letter in order to lull me into a false sense of
>security and then getting meaner later on just doesn't do it for me any more.
>You must have a few better tricks than that Jommy. Let's read on and see,
>shall
>we?
Yeah tricks, Freddy. Sing a new song. I disagree with you in paragraph one
and I'm *lulling* you?
Is *anyone* who disagrees with you 'covertly hostile'? Are they trying to
*trick* you with their polite disagreement?
That 'oh, you're 1.1' stuff doesn't make me laugh either.
>> But I like you, Freddie, you're a revisionist $cieno and your organization
>> is going to need all the revisionists it can find if it's to survive.
>
>A bit of a snide dig about the poor survival chances of the church (about
>which
>I disagree), but we are still in Jommy's friendly mode.
That's my opinion. You'd rather I lied about it? I was hoping to get you to
focus on the organization's 1D issues. Does *that* make sense to you?
>> The cosy picture you paint of the organization as a kind of high-priced
>> self-help group for the half-bright (the bright would get that stuff
>> cheaper) is certainly more appealing than the (often embarrassingly
>> well-documented) 'lies' of the critics.
>
>Cozy picture - yes, more or less. It's not easy doing Scientology (for various
>reasons) but it ~is~ usually a fairly cozy scene. I know a few jaws gape
>loosely at such a statement, but the picture of Scientology I see on ars is
>~really~ askew.
>
>You say I'm painting it as a high-priced self-help group: It's more than that,
>but OK. That's probably as decent a picture as I'll be able to convey to you..
Yeah, because I'm a 1.1, right? Just talk normal, you might get through.
I'd be interested to know what else you think it is.
>Rest of the paragraph: Yadda,yadda, keep it nice.
No, I point out that the 'lies' of the critics are well-documented, so
perhaps not so unconvincing.
Isn't that still 1.1? Shouldn't you point that out to invalidate me more?
Or is 'yadda yadda yadda' your idea of not being too negative?
>
>
>> dorsai666 and Safe tell me there's a system to let $cienos make suggestions
>> about where they think $cientology's going wrong. Perhaps you could help
>> out?
>
>Scientology isn't for you Jommy. So you don't need to worry about it too much.
>After all in your universe it's not even going to survive!
Heh. That remains to be seen, Freddy. I'm frequently over-optimistic.
So I should ignore everything that "isn't for me", should I?
I reserve the right to be interested in what I choose, including fringe
religion and MLM scams. Deal with it, d00d.
>
>> That one about 2.5% of the population needing compulsory 'therapy' or
>> disposal. Don't you think that hurts $cientology's image? As an SP
>> (according to $cientologists) I think I'd like a public statement about
>> that one getting deep-sixed. Whaddya think?
>
>Give me the exact reference. If you are talking about a reference from 1952 in
>a book - that's not church policy.
But it's in a book written by Hubbard, Freddy: Science of Survival. The
organization's still selling it, there's no health warning in my copy.
Perhaps you could suggest that it should have, huh? People seem to get the
wrong idea.
> An analogy might be the fact that there are
>a number of things in the Bible which are not practiced by modern Jews and
>Christians. I can give you a few examples if you'd like.
No thanks. I guess I'm familiar with them.
Aside, I recently read that in the distant past in Sri Lanka it was judged
karmically blameless for a Buddhist to kill a non-Buddhist. I'm not sure I
trust the source, though (Sangharakshita, Alternative Traditions). You
might like to look that one up for those of us who are bored with
Deuteronomy. He's at least as convincing as Ron.
>Also, as the society improves there will be far less suppressives around. Not
>because they'll be killed or compulsorily processed - but because people will
>be kinder and will bring up their children better. It's obvious.
OK, like the Hubbard children were? What happened to Quentin? What's
Hubbards's great-grandson doing in Clearwater on Nov 11?
>> And that one about clears having perfect memory, playing chess like grand
>> masters and never getting colds? Isn't that about due for disappearance?
>
>Those aren't tests for becoming Clear nowadays. The definition has changed
>over
>the years - many, many, many times. It can be a bit confusing. I think the
>modern definition for Clear is a being without his own reactive mind.
Ah, so 'Hubbard only postulated Clear'. Your pal dorsai666 came up with
this one once, but wasn't keen to discuss it. Once again, I think a
commentary in the book would be in order. Are you prepared to help?
On a secondary point, as I recall DMSMH the whole idea of losing your
reactive mind (assuming there *are* reactive minds) was that you'd have a
perfect memory, play chess like a grand master and never get colds. How has
this changed the definition many, many, many times?
(NB: no need to point out the covert hostility here, Freddy. Assume it's
just mild disbeleif)
>> Found any OTs able to demonstrate Super Powers for us yet? Thought not, so
>> perhaps you could get to work revising that claim.
>
>You'll find a lot of answers to various questions in my earlier posts. Would
>you like me to repost the unarchived stuff that has fallen off the server?
>
>I'll cut and paste the answer I gave to someone else earlier:
<snip most of reposted argument>
>However, as you can see from the references I quoted, and indeed from the one
>you mention, there is some argument about what would happen at that point. It
>would be nice to have a lot more interest and respect from people, but I don't
>know that providing "The Proof" - Homer's phrase - would provide a stable
>environment over time. And this will be needed if we want to get the subject
>into more general use. A peaceful environment is one element that someone
>requires in order to confront those things that are holding him or her back,
>and also while they learn how to improve their abilities.
>
>End quote
So, based on Robert Heinlein's sci-fi and Homer Wilson Smith's opinion
you're prepared to forgo interest and respect from people, because it
wouldn't provide 'a stable environment over time'.
I'd go for the interest and respect, d00d.
What would become unstable in the environment if you had people's interest
and respect?
>Now that I've answered some of your questions Jommy, I'd like you to tell me
>some nice things about Scientology, LRH or the Church. Let's try to get things
>a bit friendlier and less adversarial around here.
I can tell you some nice things *you've* told me about $cientology, Freddy.
On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 01:16:33 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in msg
<973232193.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>1.Fair game was cancelled a very long time ago. They don't do it any more
>(although I know many critics wish they would).
I have no desire to see organizations attempting to 'ruin people utterly',
but perhaps you could explain why we see people associated with the Toronto
Org posting the financial details of people they don't like?
>2. It's very, very difficult to get declared these days. You've got to
>~really~
>work on it. The easier thing for the Church to do is to just ignore the bad
>behavior.
Is that why ethical $cientology hasn't restrained these Toronto $cienos
from these unethical actions yet? Couldn't they just *talk* to the entities
posting as dorsai666 and the crew?
OK, that was too suppressive, wasn't it? You'll have to get one of your
llamas to whip you if I go on being so tricky and lulling, huh?
Gregg
(Jommy Cross) wrote:
[snip]
>
>On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 01:16:33 -0500, <He...@No-spam-cotse.com> wrote in msg
><973232193.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>>1.Fair game was cancelled a very long time ago. They don't do it any more
>>(although I know many critics wish they would).
The policy to handle SPs was ordered to remain in place and
is in force today. Only the *name* "Fair Game" was canceled, not the
mandated unethical, immoral and often illegal activities the Ex Fair
Game Policy stipulates.
>
>I have no desire to see organizations attempting to 'ruin people utterly',
>but perhaps you could explain why we see people associated with the Toronto
>Org posting the financial details of people they don't like?
>
>>2. It's very, very difficult to get declared these days. You've got to
>>~really~
>>work on it. The easier thing for the Church to do is to just ignore the bad
>>behavior.
My declare is buried in the Org. But it is only really to
impress the diminishing membership and evaporating staff *something*
is being done to "make it go right" and get rid of me.
Tory got Declared by publicly leaving Co$, which according to
Huborg is a High Crime.
>
>Is that why ethical $cientology hasn't restrained these Toronto $cienos
>from these unethical actions yet? Couldn't they just *talk* to the entities
>posting as dorsai666 and the crew?
Criminally Convicted Co$ of Toronto condones and is likely
conducting these unethical activities. It is after all *policy*.
>
>OK, that was too suppressive, wasn't it? You'll have to get one of your
>llamas to whip you if I go on being so tricky and lulling, huh?
>
>Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
>Ever yours in fandom,
>Jommy Cross
>
Bluster on Master Race,
Kick some ass in hyperspace!
Our Space Opera go rolling along!.........
Gregg Hagglund SP7
Toronto and Canadian National Picket Reports now at:
<http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/8412/toronto/index.html>
"It's interesting that Scientologists cannot seem to differentiate
between:
----individuals:
picketing an organization to voice their opinion on its behavior,
and
-----an organization:
picketing individuals for voicing their opinion."
-M.C.DiPietra
"Give'em hell son." the late M.G.Hagglund
****************************************************
"It's doubtful anyone would heed
a failed businessman with his own "religion"
and other failed sci-fi interests."
-D.Bryenton, 25 year Toronto Org Member & OSA Stooge
****************************************************
wynot
>There have been a lot of changes since
>>then.
Really? Let's see - Hubbard is dead, your cult is shrinking, the
president of your cult is still on the lam from justice, all your
'trade secrets' are available for free on the internet for anyone
foolish enough to want them, do I need to go on?
As for not doing anything illegal, please take a look at
http://www.arscc-atl.com/harassment/index2.html
for proof of the Church of Scientology illegally harrassing Stacy
Brooks's mother and sister as well as ethercat and myself, including
vandalism, littering, and illegal picketing in a residential
neighborhood.
Then feel free to keep believing your cult's sick lies.
ptsc
>There are a number of possible scenarios that might occur after someone very
>thoroughly and repeatedly demonstrated 'impossible' abilities. Public acclaim
>is one; internment by security forces is another; huge public unrest is
>another; dangerous problems with other countries worried about their security
>is another.
It would seem that with OT abilities the ability to defend oneself against such
attacks would also come naturally.
>I know that to a lot of people reading this group Scientology equates in their
>mind with various kinds of bad things. And they therefore think they can help
>people by attacking it. Actually, it's a lot less exciting and sinister than
>they think.
Tell that to the people being stalked 24/7 by Scientology private investigators,
to Mark Bunker facing years in prison for a "hate crime" for standing on a
public street with a camera, or to the wives, children and elderly parents of
critics who have beeen stalked and harassed for nothing more than being RELATED
to an "enemy" of Scientology.
>Each organisation around the world sells and delivers a certain set
>of courses (some organisations can deliver more advanced courses than others).
Some of them also employ convicted criminals, such as Jacqueline Matz or Janice
Wheeler at the Toronto org, Kurt Weiland wherever he is now, Jean-Jacques Mazier
in France, or use people as "medical officers" who have had their medical
licenses yanked for being drug addicts, such as Janis Johnson of the Lisa
McPherson fiasco at the mecca of 100% Standard Tech.
>When people have trained on some of these courses they can then audit people -
>they can help others to look at things about themselves and life. That's more
>or less it.
>>If Scientology can order its members to "end cycle" when they become a
>liability to the group, then death >doesn't seem as much a threat.
>Here's the thing. There isn't a wicked group of people in upper management or
>OSA who would do these things. At various times I've known various people in
>both of these areas and they are just Scientologists like me. Actually the ones
>I've known who got promoted up-lines were some of the brightest and most
>ethical people I've ever known. One of them was also the funniest guy I've
>known personally .
So how have they ended up turning into scumbags like Mike Rinder, Richard Reiss,
Lyman Spurlock, Guillaume Lesevre, or foaming nuts like Heber Jentzsch, Kurt
Weiland, and the various other goons and thugs? If people like this are your
idea of "most ethical" you have some serious MUs on the word, or are defining it
in the Scientology sense. (Ie anything that produces an upstat for the cult.)
>I've always thought it encouraging that it was ~those~ people - some of the
>very best people I've met in my life - who were the ones who rose up through
>the ranks. I've known some of them since they first started in Scientology. One
>of them has known me since ~I~ first started in Scientology. I met a woman who
>fondly remembered David Miscavige in the same way - her children used to go to
>school with him. These people are just not monsters, insanely going around
>trying to destroy things.
You could fool me.
ptsc
Travis Morien
: "Travis Morien" <pha...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message
: news:8tv3j0$7gp$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
:> n...@cotse.com wrote:
:>
:> : I'd say that new theories prove to be totally false more
:> : often than old ones. Newton's theories were not totally
:> : discarded by Einstein.
:>
:> Your first sentence is mere oppinion, can't knock that back, the second is
:> wrong.
: The first sentence is demonstrated by walking into a lunatic asylum, or
: reading non fiction books. As for the second, please read "Relativity" by
: Albert Einstein. Einstein only modifies Newton's theories to fit the new
: observation (speed of light is a constant).
Ah, but you didn't say "the new theories proposed by the mentally
imbalanced or by authors, many of whom are not actual experts in the
field" ... you just said "new theories". I think the bit you missed out
on changes the meaning somewhat.
I suggest you do a Science degree. I'll stack up my BSc against your
study of Hubbardspew any day of the week. Newton is now totally
redundant. If not for the fact that for most applications Newton gives a
pretty good approximation to a reasonable number of decimal places we
wouldn't need it any more. Newton is simplistic and excludes a number of
very important effects, however the sums are fast to do, and as you only
notice the discrepancies when you're looking at very high prescision data,
it scarcely matters.
: "More closely" but not exactly. Someone will come up with a better theory. I
: think your definition of "correct" is useless since theories are usually
: updated over time.
Newton's theories worked well up to a point, but contained very little
useful information that would allow us to predict systems we had not
previously dealt with. Quantum/Relativity have allowed us to make
mathematical predictions which have later been verified by advanced
technological investigations. Newton nicely explaned the motion of
objects, but tells us nothing new. Quantum and Relativity, which are
being combined into a single theory have made so many completely bizarre
unexpected mathematical predictions that were later verified when we
developed the technology that we regard them as essentially correct. We
will replace them only when we start seeing stuff that contradicts this
theory.... and so far we have not seen anything of the sort.
:> : Many critics (including many psychologists) agree that
:> : something can be gained by the lower levels of scientology.
:>
:> Which excercises?
: The confessional, or counselling. It has been used for thousands of years
: and is still used today, in professional psychology.
Wow, how revolutionary! Talk to someone about your troubles! So where
do those stupid can things come into it, and why does the Church charge
so much for the privelidge?
Travis
Mistmagoo55
>Date: 11/4/00 7:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <72790t80t4q3ajeoe...@4ax.com>
utter lie. It is organized by OSA, and I was there one day when they were
making some. And DSA (director of special affairs.OSA) for LA ORG was
there...Pam Shannnon. She and some volunteers were making these signs when I
walked in. (I was asked the same day to come over to help "handle" some
picketers at the org).
Pam asked me to go help picket. I told her most def I would Not...but that I
also felt No one should do such a thing. She did what she always did: smiles
and says she will pass that on. Meantime, they went out and picketed, as the
photos are on the internet.
Best!
Tory/Magoo!