Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is goig to be based upon invented shit.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
>invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
>promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
>the Anon effort.
Fact is they either can't tell the difference between bullshit
criticism and the truth ... or they don't really care to stick to the
truth.
D
-----------------
"Everybody's doin' somethin'
I heard it in a dream
But when there's too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean." - B Dylan
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> the Anon effort.
My guess is, that then it could happen, that Anonymous does in fact
report such things to the authorities, since it is an obvious attempt
to discredit the efforts of Anonymous to protest against scientology
by all given, serious and legal means, which include of course a good
research and/or the note, that those claims have been made by ... (ex-
scientologist, well known critic, a critical website) but could not be
proven completely and thus are based on hear-say or whatever
disclaimer Anonymous choses, to make it clear to the public, that
Anonymous is not going to be destroyed by those old and boring OSA-
tactics.
How did John Sweeney say? There is a complete new group of critics
coming?
.Lily.
intergalactic...@hotmail.com
> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> the Anon effort.
I've heard this many times my self... on the one hand Jesus didn't
exist & ot-3 and on the other there are references to Jesus being a
pedophile.
Both require sources. Given 35 million words in scientology at least,
perhaps 70 depending on the internal vid you watch, it would be nice
of someone would site it.
But it's hard to tell the real bullshit from the invented bullshit.
dharm...@gmail.com
> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> the Anon effort.
Perhaps no one told them it isn't true.
Is that possible? Perhaps you should be informative instead of
combative?
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
A better guess is maybe, that Anonymous will in fact use such
derogatory videos and statements, to show to the public, how
manipulation tactics work. And teach people, to make up their minds
very carefully. Well, if I start thinking about, how great in fact
such OSA-videos could be used to work for Anonymous instead of against
them, I become creative again. :-)
Go. Try it.
.Lily.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>>>If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
>>>invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
>>>promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
>>>the Anon effort.
yhn
>>Fact is they either can't tell the difference between bullshit
>>criticism and the truth ... or they don't really care to stick to the
>>truth.
>Or the one posting the video in question (also in the video saying that
>he/she isn't part of Anonymous) is indeed a DM slave posting that only to
>make Anon look bad.
Yah, that would work as a plan of countering what should be a healthy
outcry to stop the abuse within. Keep trolling the nonys with fake
data. Keep the nonys accepting bs mystical criticisms. Elevate icons
that will ultimately be easily discredited.
Why do people keep playing into their hands, Sten?
>How could we know Dennis? We can't of course, but if this "Jesus was a
>Paedo" spreads into Anon as a whole, then at least I have said my part.
All we can do is sound the warning.
Hey Nony! YHBT ~again~!
Dennis
-----------------
"The Rock You Stood Upon
Is Broken Up And Gone
Hey Baby, Who's Your Baby Now
On The Slipway Of Your Dream
Stands Someone Else's Scheme
Hey Baby, Who's Your Baby Now" - Mark Knopfler
dharm...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:43:22 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> <fc9d3cab-750d-4daf-863c-a3cdbd228...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
> And the Organization Header:http://groups.google.com.
> The famous author: dharmasa...@gmail.com.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is
> goig to be based upon invented shit.:
I'm not referring to any other time, or anything other than this
post. Seriously... I've been reading what you have to say, and so far
all I've seen is honesty and openness. I'm just saying that my
opinion is that you shouldn't freak out over what could be an honest
mistake. Again, that's only my opinion. I'll wait to see what the
response is, and then decide if it was deliberate or not. If it was
deliberate, tear 'em a new one.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>But it's hard to tell the real bullshit from the invented bullshit.
Only because you haven't looked for the facts behind the bullshit.
D
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>The "Jesus was a Pedophile" has never been found in any Lecture or
>scripture that can be verified. It may very well be the invention of
>Steven Fishman.
No, it's more or less a sure thing, Sten.
Steve was a professional scam artist. That was his trade and why he
was sent to federal prison. That Oatea Ate was his little way of
getting back at the cult that dumped him like a hot-potato when he got
caught scamming for them.
>We should be fair in our criticism of the Scientology crime syndicate
>shall we not?
Nothing else works, Sten. Not on the net. It has a way of sifting
out the germinating memes and letting the dross get blown away.
(BTW, Sten. I broke my old one trying to repair it, so I'm installing
a new toilet at home. And though the process may, at first, be
smelly, I'll try to sublimate my scatology [as above] and use
healthier metaphors from now on. Of course with the shit from the ng
going on right in front of me, its gonna be difficult.)
>>Both require sources. Given 35 million words in scientology at least,
>>perhaps 70 depending on the internal vid you watch, it would be nice
>>of someone would site it.
>>
>>But it's hard to tell the real bullshit from the invented bullshit.
>>
>
>No it isn't. The whole fucking bridge is out there today. Why use at best
>dubious things for criticism, when there are tons of well known idiocies
>in the cult to criticize?
I believe it's because of a basic difference in personal philosophy
amongst people.
Certain people think that there are right ways to go about trying to
accomplish anything, and that using only those methods doesn't
~ensure~ success ... but it at least permits the possibility thereof.
Seemingly others don't care about being truthful, and sticking to
facts to accomplish their ends.
<sigh>
D
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
wrote:
> your input is tainted already.
Another attempt to shut a true critic down by lying and accusing her
of the own doingness and beingness will fail.
Why don't you want your messages to be preserved anymore? For the
time, when the walls have come down?
.Lily.
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
wrote:
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:43:19 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> Wrote on the subject: Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is
> goig to be based upon invented shit.:
>
> >On Feb 17, 8:32 am, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> >> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> >> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> >> the Anon effort.
>
> >I've heard this many times my self... on the one hand Jesus didn't
> >exist & ot-3 and on the other there are references to Jesus being a
> >pedophile.
>
>
> Hubbard did not say that Jesus didn't exist, what he said that he wasn't
> Christ, as in "The Messiah"
>
> "The man on the Cross, there was no Christ"
>
> Nowhere in the Class VIII course where we find that quote above, is there
> to be found anything about Jesus being a Pedophile.
>
> The "Jesus was a Pedophile" has never been found in any Lecture or
> scripture that can be verified. It may very well be the invention of
> Steven Fishman.
>
> shall we not?
>
>
>
> >perhaps 70 depending on the internal vid you watch, it would be nice
> >of someone would site it.
>
> >But it's hard to tell the real bullshit from the invented bullshit.
>
> dubious things for criticism, when there are tons of well known idiocies
> in the cult to criticize?
For the newcomers:
Here you get the opportunity to watch the OSA tactic: to distract the
discussion away from criticism of scientology, live.
.Lily.
intergalactic...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:43:19 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> <4940be43-07e4-4ea5-a8df-ed6576892...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
> And the Organization Header:http://groups.google.com.
> The famous author: intergalacticexpandingpa...@hotmail.com.
> goig to be based upon invented shit.:
>
> >On Feb 17, 8:32 am, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> >> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> >> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> >> the Anon effort.
>
> >I've heard this many times my self... on the one hand Jesus didn't
> >exist & ot-3 and on the other there are references to Jesus being a
> >pedophile.
>
>
> Hubbard did not say that Jesus didn't exist, what he said that he wasn't
> Christ, as in "The Messiah"
>
> "The man on the Cross, there was no Christ"
>
> Nowhere in the Class VIII course where we find that quote above, is there
> to be found anything about Jesus being a Pedophile.
Thanks for the data, I'll see if I can find a source.
> We should be fair in our criticism of the Scientology crime syndicate
> shall we not?
Absolutely. It's been 10 years since I even looked at the stuff.
> >But it's hard to tell the real bullshit from the invented bullshit.
>
> No it isn't. The whole fucking bridge is out there today. Why use at best
> dubious things for criticism, when there are tons of well known idiocies
> in the cult to criticize?
Well... you can see the quote "The man on the Cross, there was no
Christ" can easily be misinterpreted (my self included) as Jesus not
existing. I can say with some certainty that it's a common criticism
of Co$ that it claims to be compatible with other religions and this
is sited as an example.
Thinking this is so, it's not unbelievable to think the man thought
Jesus was a pedophile. I've heard that claim my self many times. I
know I'm among those who humbly suggested to at least one small group
of Anons to seek out religious groups to stand together on this
subject, though I thought the idea was rejected for fear of these
groups fighting.
So while I agree that there should be truth in criticism, I disagree
with the idea that it's hard to establish fact from bullshit because
respectfully LRH was full of shit, from his credentials to those audio
out of body adventures. You gotta respect the fact the mans claims
were often to far out there that it's easy to believe some of the
information planted by, as someone might put it, faux-critics.
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
Dharmasa, generally it is a very good suggestion, to always counter-
check each and every claim, which has been made about scientology, and
especially mistrust the on the surface "critical" sounding statements,
done on seemingly critical websites, before you use them in order to
inform society about it.
A guess is, that in many cases the stories one hears, are true or have
at least a true core, but in order to discredit criticism, they can
bear some lies deliberately put into by a phony critic. This is done
to:
- firstly make the critic (Anonymous) believe in the stories and make
him "work" with them, spread them around for instance
- just to afterwards make the public slowly aware of the lies. The end-
effect of this tactic is, that people come to the conclusion, that "if
this detail is a lie, than the whole story is a lie as well, therefore
critics of scientology are liars". Thus especially in the details I
would suggest Anonymous to counter-check everything. If there is a
lack of proof, Anonymous should always name the source of the
information. That is very, very important. If it is a quote from e.g.
Tory, Anonymous should vocate on that. If it is from a website, name
the source. "According to..." Name it please. If you use sources from
books or news-articles name them please.
This is why, what Anonymous does experience now themselves, is so
important to be preserved. The own experience, the own story * is *
source. To collect all the injustice - may it seem small, but then the
amount makes it - and tell it is imho very important for criticism of
scientology. As well are affidavits. Maria Pia Gardini is a wonderful
source with her affidavits. You can find a link to them on the
Hitchhiker's Guide (very downwards).
Only yesterday I was trying to find out about the truth about the
"grey ribbon" - story. I could not. I got an answer that the people on
the RPF wear "coloured" ribbons. I have never heard that before. I
consider the grey ribbon true and the RPF as well, but that is not
enough, therefore I would vocate the source.
.Lily.
intergalactic...@hotmail.com
> But if you can't find the pedo ref in other than Steven Fishmans
> writings, I'd say it isn't Hubbard's data, no matter how crazy LRon was.
That's cool... as someone else said inform and educate. In my short
time on YT I my self have had to correct or at least if data was still
relevant, which I should address in a separate post.
All I was trying to make a point of saying is, it's easy to believe
bullshit when the truth is pretty horrifyingly awful, that's all.
Henri Ladd
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:43:19 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> Wrote on the subject: Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is
> goig to be based upon invented shit.:
>
>
>>On Feb 17, 8:32 am, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
>>>invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
>>>promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
>>>the Anon effort.
>>
>>I've heard this many times my self... on the one hand Jesus didn't
>>exist & ot-3 and on the other there are references to Jesus being a
>>pedophile.
>
>
>
> Hubbard did not say that Jesus didn't exist, what he said that he wasn't
> Christ, as in "The Messiah"
>
> "The man on the Cross, there was no Christ"
>
> Nowhere in the Class VIII course where we find that quote above, is there
> to be found anything about Jesus being a Pedophile.
>
> scripture that can be verified. It may very well be the invention of
> Steven Fishman.
>
> shall we not?
Which tends to negate your argument here is that Scientology lawyer
Kendrick Moxon stood up before a judge and said that the OT VIII
material at issue--calling Jesus, "a lover of young boys"--was indeed
their property, and was a copyright and trade mark infringement.
Their lawyer claimed the validity of it in court.
Android Cat
> The famous author: intergalactic...@hotmail.com.
>> Thinking this is so, it's not unbelievable to think the man thought
>> Jesus was a pedophile. I've heard that claim my self many times. I
>> know I'm among those who humbly suggested to at least one small group
>> of Anons to seek out religious groups to stand together on this
>> subject, though I thought the idea was rejected for fear of these
>> groups fighting.
>>
>> So while I agree that there should be truth in criticism, I disagree
>> with the idea that it's hard to establish fact from bullshit because
>> respectfully LRH was full of shit, from his credentials to those
>> audio out of body adventures. You gotta respect the fact the mans
>> claims were often to far out there that it's easy to believe some of
>> the information planted by, as someone might put it, faux-critics.
>
>
> But if you can't find the pedo ref in other than Steven Fishmans
> writings, I'd say it isn't Hubbard's data, no matter how crazy LRon
> was.
Stalking the Net October 4, 1995, Alan Prendergast, Denver Westword News,
Village Voice Media
http://www.westword.com/1995-10-04/news/stalking-the-net/full
At least some of what Lerma posted concerning the cosmology of "body
thetans" had been reported before in some fashion. What seems to have
stirred the most response from readers were disclosures concerning the
intensive training routines for the Operating Thetan, including an exercise
that involves attempting to communicate with plants and animals "until you
know the communication is received and, if possible, returned." Even more
controversial is a passage in the disputed Level VIII documents that debunks
major religions as instruments of "enslavement" and depicts Jesus as "a
lover of young boys and men...given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and
hatred."
Although Church officials have emphatically denounced the OT VIII materials
as fakes, Wollersheim insists they're legitimate. "Two sets of defectors, at
different times in different parts of the world, came out with those
documents," he says. "I've been working with defectors for fifteen years. I
have never dealt with anyone as afraid of having their identity revealed as
the people who came out and verified those documents."
==
Without knowing more about these two mystery defectors, and the trail the
documents took, it's hard to draw any conclusions.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Henri Ladd
phil scott
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:14:35 -0600.
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID: <47b8879...@news2.lightlink.com>
> And the Organization Header: Lightlink Internet.
> The famous author: Henri Ladd <hen...@nowhere.com>.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is
> goig to be based upon invented shit.:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:43:19 -0800 (PST).
> >> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> >> With the Message-ID:
> then without even examining the objects in question.
>
> Tom Klemesrud, you're as believable as Steve Fishman.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Myself...for decades I saw this cult and hubbard revile
christianity.. we have Hubbard on tape, used to be posted on
lermanet.com that 'there is no christ'.... Hubbard made a point of
trashing all 'other' religions... he lied extensively... the cult
after presumably reading the OT 8 material before the court... stating
jesus was a paedophile or whatever...CLAIMED COPYRIGHTS TO IT......
Myself i dont care to split that particular hair further..... its sort
of like seeing the mafia machine gun down 2 dozen guys in an alley
then brag about it....... then some idiot claims that #14 was not shot
by the mafia, but by a passing babtist preacher... we should take him
seriously? regardless, the major issue is not this one guy.... its
the larger scene.... the mafia machine gunned all the competition.
same with Hubbard, he never missed a chance to trash the christian
religion or most others.
thats the issue..... the hair splits are a diversion.
*****
On another aspect we have sature....and jokes... those require enough
truth to be funny or sardonic to remain entirely valid.... a person
can easily satire El Rong Hubbard in the darkest ways imaginable and
not be far off the factual mark...
sorry...thats just how it is.
Phil scott
henri
>If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
>invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
>promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
>the Anon effort.
I would hope that people new to this just aren't familiar with what's bullshit
yet. Anyone who examines the truth about that "Jesus was a lover of young
boys and men" thing will reasonably conclude that it is at best suspect. It
certainly shouldn't be used in criticism.
I'd cut a little slack on that particular one. Reasonable people disagreed on
it for a while.
If you Google that phrase "lover of young boys and men" you will find that
most hits on the web from ESTABLISHED critics citing it disclaim it, if at all,
only in a footnote. Some websites out there even claim it is NOT a forgery,
or refuse to take the issue head on. Like this:
http://www.torymagoo.org/cosvm/ot8.htm
Even the Washington Post fell for that particular Fishman troll:
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/wpost.html
They used the word "purportedly" and quoted a Scientology liar calling
it a forgery, but really, you shouldn't even use something as questionable
as that at all, and quoting a Scientology liar in refutation is as much as
claiming it's true.
If anyone is to blame for that particular lie being out on the web like a
fact, it's "us," with "us" being established critics. It has not been refuted
on the web much, and is floating around, like an unflushed turd, polluting the
memetic space.
It certainly isn't the only ars myth.
henri
wrote:
>Without knowing more about these two mystery defectors, and the trail the
>documents took, it's hard to draw any conclusions.
I think it's fairly easy to draw a conclusion from the fact that no OT VIII
coming out of the cult has verified that they, in fact, took this as a course,
that even making the huge assumption that it ever was given as a course,
it didn't last for long.
The headers don't match the contents of the document, either. They're
nothing like the other OT VIII headers, and not even like the other documents
in the Fishman attachments. The document just isn't credible and shouldn't
be presented as if it is. Even giving the utmost benefit of the doubt to it,
its provenance is uncertain.
Hartley Patterson
> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> the Anon effort.
My impression in reading Anonymous message boards etc is that many of them
are starting off as ignorant of religion in general as they are of
Scientology in particular.
The word 'pedophile' just happens to resonate with Anonymous in a way that
'false prophet' and other Biblical references do not. They aren't trying
to look at Scientology from the point of view of Christians.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Although Church officials have emphatically denounced the OT VIII materials
>as fakes, Wollersheim insists they're legitimate. "Two sets of defectors, at
>different times in different parts of the world, came out with those
>documents," he says. "I've been working with defectors for fifteen years. I
>have never dealt with anyone as afraid of having their identity revealed as
>the people who came out and verified those documents."
Wow. Fishman's turds in a bottle, validated by Wolly paraphrasing two
untraceable defectors (on of which is most certainly Fishman).
It's gotta be true!
>Without knowing more about these two mystery defectors, and the trail the
>documents took, it's hard to draw any conclusions.
Judging from how the document surfaced and the content of the scam
HCOB, the obvious conclusion is that Fishman wrote it to add his
personal stink to accusations in his lawsuit filings. (which did btw
include other real cult docs)
D
--------------------
"Hope I'm not outta line." - Lenny Bruce
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>thats the issue..... the hair splits are a diversion.
Oh, it's splitting hairs and distracting to be concerned with whether
a doc is part of the cult's dogma or something made up by a
professional scam artist to make them look bad?
We're back to the "fling enuf bs and someone is bound to buy it"
theory of criticism.
And no, the cult lawyers ultimately renounced the doc as a fake, which
the didn't do with any of their other claimed copyright violations.
Because it said HCOB it was scooped up in the raid on lerm. Those who
knew it was a fake were higher up the food chain than those doing the
scooping.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
>invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
>promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
>the Anon effort.
>
I am the one who kept posting that particular New OT VIII reference
back in the 1990's. Sorry to everyone who was tricked by this
particular fakery. (Epic lulz for me.)
Here's one where I posted it in 1996.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/tree/browse_frm/thread/b88d04b2af2140e4/3ae800c77845da08?hl=en&rnum=1&q=new+ot+viii+jonathon&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.religion.scientology%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fb88d04b2af2140e4%2Fe1ce7b67036377d3%3Fhl%3Den%26lnk%3Dgst%26q%3Dnew%2Bot%2Bviii%2Bjonathon%26#doc_3ae800c77845da08
Love,
-- Jonathon
jerald
wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:32:40 +0100, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> >invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> >promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> >the Anon effort.
>
> I am the one who kept posting that particular New OT VIII reference
> back in the 1990's. Sorry to everyone who was tricked by this
> particular fakery. (Epic lulz for me.)
>
>
> Love,
> -- Jonathon
Awww Jonathon, untill you leave the scientology mindset you will
never know the joy of lulz, you will just be thought of as lulz.
jerald
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Oh, it's splitting hairs and distracting to be concerned with whether
>a doc is part of the cult's dogma or something made up by a
>professional scam artist to make them look bad?
>
>We're back to the "fling enuf bs and someone is bound to buy it"
>theory of criticism.
And if it doesn't matter that a document is factually a group's dogma
or a just piece of dung fabricated to make another's misplaced
religious faith look bad, would someone be inaccurate in calling you a
bigot?
Think about it, Phil.
D
------------------
"Stay free from petty jealousies
Live by no man's code
And hold your judgement for yourself
Lest you wind up on his road."- B. Dylan
banchukita
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:03 -0500, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com>
I don't really care if the whole Jesus thing is in there or not. It
makes not one bit of difference except as an outstanding example of
the lack of informed consent; if the scriptures were truly open and
free of the necessity of being presented 'on a gradient' then none of
us would even have to wonder about whether it's in there or not.
Whether it's true or not, it's not like there aren't other, more
concrete things to criticize Scientology about.
-maggie, human being
roger gonnet
news:f7ogr3lto65odv23i...@news2.lightlink.com...
> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> the Anon effort.
>
>
problem is there is not the least evidence that jusus pedophile hubbard
rants were invented. Knowing the guy Hubbard, I'd bet that he did n,ot
remember he had said there was no Christ on the Cross, that religion was
just a control tool, and he did add to this by this incredible and hainous
sci-fi story about Christianity. He had been able to get through so many
stupid sci-fis and "processes" that he HAD most probably to find out
something new to deconsider what he thought was "concurrence" !
r
Henri Ladd
> On Feb 17, 2:44 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:24:03 -0500, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Without knowing more about these two mystery defectors, and the trail the
>>>documents took, it's hard to draw any conclusions.
>>
>>I think it's fairly easy to draw a conclusion from the fact that no OT VIII
>>coming out of the cult has verified that they, in fact, took this as a course,
>>that even making the huge assumption that it ever was given as a course,
>>it didn't last for long.
It's fairly easy to conclude also that if they did they would be hunted
down and punished.
>>
>>The headers don't match the contents of the document, either. They're
>>nothing like the other OT VIII headers, and not even like the other documents
>>in the Fishman attachments. The document just isn't credible and shouldn't
>>be presented as if it is. Even giving the utmost benefit of the doubt to it,
>>its provenance is uncertain.
Don't know what you're talking about here with headers. As long as were
going to debate this in length can you provide that data?
>
> I don't really care if the whole Jesus thing is in there or not. It
> makes not one bit of difference except as an outstanding example of
> the lack of informed consent; if the scriptures were truly open and
> free of the necessity of being presented 'on a gradient' then none of
> us would even have to wonder about whether it's in there or not.
>
> Whether it's true or not, it's not like there aren't other, more
> concrete things to criticize Scientology about.
>
>
> -maggie, human being
I agree with you here Maggie. However we must remember what started
this threat. It was a YouTube video that went out of its way to
communicate that the information is in controversy. It finally
concluded research it for yourself and you be the judge.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that criticism should be kept up on
those concrete things, as well as the controversy will other things.
And I extol the Reverend Dennis L. Erlich to begin the criticism on
those concrete things concerning the abuses and evils of Scientology and
specific.
Henri Ladd
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:53:17 -0600.
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID: <47b8...@news2.lightlink.com>
> And the Organization Header: Lightlink Internet.
> The famous author: Henri Ladd <hen...@nowhere.com>.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is
> goig to be based upon invented shit.:
>
>
> Eat a grape Tom:
>
> I just read this web page for the first time.
>
> http://www.torymagoo.org/cosvm/ot8.htm
>
> It is wholly inaccurate. I did OT8 in 1990, and NONE of this was part
> of it. Not the Jesus part, and not the whole "recalled process" part,
> which is, IMHO a "crock of shift". It looks to me like these are 2
> DECOY texts to confuse the public. Tory can not be blamed for posting
> it, but I can vouch for its inaccuracies.
>
> The two accurate things that have been posted on the internet are;
>
> 1. Ariane Jacquier's account of OT8.
>
> 2. The "End Phenomenon" of OT8 that Scientology's lawyers forced out
> of me in a deposition "Now I know who I am not, and am interested in
> finding out who I am".
>
> This other stuff was nowhere on OT8. I think it should be removed from
> Tory's web page in the interests of correctly informing the public.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Pattinson
Thanks for the information Michael. But, now the question becomes: was
the information in your course pack edited or abridged in any way?
Can you say for certain, that this material was not in anybody else's
OT8 course pack? If you can't, then a genuine issue of fact is still
the case.
Friendly Xenu
>If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
>invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
>promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
>the Anon effort.
Bye. Anony will miss you. }:-}
According to the classical Christanic mythologies, the Jesus mythos
did in fact have a young male lover -- no big deal since the mythos
was contrived Hellenized and it was a common practice. That Hubbard
noted the fact is not surprizing.
The concept of pedophilia didn't exist back in the time of the Jesus
mythos in any event.
---
"Every time Tory waves to OSA, David Miscaviage gets shorter."
Andrew Robertson
"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSet...@invalid.host> wrote in message
news:urpgr3htaarfb7t0m...@nntp.aioe.org...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:50:24 -0800 (PST).
<snip>
> Shut your mouth hole .Lily. You're known for being OSA in Austria, so
> your input is tainted already.
That's no way to speak to a lady, Sten-Arne. .Lily has been set the
impossible task of convincing the readership of this newsgroup that she's a
critic, yet she soldiers on manfully, unmindful of the scorn poured upon
her.
I, for one, commend her perseverance against hopeless odds.
I remember a parody of a rather awful inspirational poem by Edgar Guest, 'It
Couldn't Be Done', which I've adapted slightly as a mark of respect for
.Lily.
At the Org they said that it couldn't be done--
But .Lily, with a smile, replied,
She'd never be one to say it couldn't be done--
Leastways, not 'til she'd tried.
So she buckled right in, with a trace of a grin,
By golly, she went right to it!
She tackled The Thing That Couldn't Be Done!
And she couldn't do it.
Andrew
Jonathon Barbera
You know little of true lulz. Your lulz is tone 1.1 and, therefore,
fake. You are lying to yourself more than you are lying to me. Why
can't you be honest with yourself, Jerald? Why deceive yourself?
Love,
-- Jonathon
Jonathon Barbera
I am the one who promoted the fake OT VIII reference in the 1990's on
ars.
Love,
-- Jonathon
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
This is the one that Kendrick Moxon marked as a copyright infrigment,
in RTC vs Arnaldo (Arnie)
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/washingtonpost/lermaraid091995.html
Lerma, Leiby, Marc Fisher, The Washington Post and Digital gateway
and then Scientology's Scientologist attorney Earle Cooley explained
to Judge brinkema after they changed their minds and realized they had
better NOT call it a copyright infringement... he said (lying - trying
to lead the judge to a wrong conclusion) "that just goes to show you
have to have experienced people doing the search" (of my hard
disks )..
Kendrick Moxon was a 20+ year scientologist at that time... an
OT7.....and OSA, and a RTC Exec and Lawyer privy to all, having the
highest security clearances in scientology..
and he marked it as a copyright violation...
The back peddling was amazing!
And now it is called a "FORGERY"
regarding 20 year scientology OT7 and RTC Lawyer, and Unindicted Co-
conspirator in US vs Mary Sue Hubbard, Moxon tabbing the OT 8 bulletin
as the real deal in RTC vs Lerma
now for the rest of the story
Shortly after the Lerma Raid of August 5th 1995, for posting the
Fishman affidavit to alt.religion.scientology,
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/washingtonpost/lermaraid091995.html
Helena Kobrin
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/kob3.jpg
and Warren McShane
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/bed1.jpg
showed up on
http://www.lermanet.com/leiby.htm
Richard Leiby's doorstep...in Maryland, ( I had given the doc to
Richard for safekeeping..(who had put in the vault at the washington
post) in order to be able to prove it was a court filing, and not
"Stolen property" as Scientology had claimed ( lying) to the Judge, in
6" of exparte filings, in order to get the raid authorized...
They were asking him if he had the fishman documents.
Richard said he had OT1 through OT8, and asked if THEY were the ones
they were looking for, including OT8??
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/kob3.jpg
Helena Kobrin answered yes, those... and
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/raid.html
Warren McShane elbowed her, to shut up, clarifying that they were
interested in OT1 through OtVII
---------------------
So there you have it,
Kendrick Moxon tabbed OT8 as a COPYRIGHT violation
( see first post in this thread ) AND
Helena Kobrin said YES, to Washington Post writer Richard Leiby, on
his front doorstep.. that OT8 was a one of the COPYRIGHT works in
question until Warren McShane elbowed her in the ribs to be silent.
arnie lerma
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
Is is real or or is it forgery, I do not know, whatever it is, at
LEAST it is similar enough to how Hubbard describes what Christianity
really is to fool the best and most experienced big shots in
Scientology.
Hubbard saying: There man on the Cross, there was no christ
http://www.Lermanet.com/cos/nochrist.wav
and.. with the quote above and perhaps this one:
"The only difference between Moslems and christians is how they go to
the bathroom" (laughing)
http://www.lermanet.com/audio/hubbard-on-christians-and-moslems.wma
and a laughable book called The Hymn of Asia, filled with nonsensical
sanscrit looking writings that in fact say nothing, and a long "poem"
in English by the penultimate narcissist Hubbard claiming to be the
reincarnation of Buddha!
you have enough to get EVERYONE pissed off without generating ten
thousand lines of argument about whether it is real or not
Regards
Arnie Lerma
LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON
Friendly Xenu
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:30:29 GMT.
>In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
>With the Message-ID: <13rhd62...@corp.supernews.com>
>And the Organization Header: Marcabian Invasion Fleet Ass Rapes L. Ron
>Hubbard For Fun.
>The famous author: fr...@skeptictank.org (Friendly Xenu).
>Wrote on the subject: Re: If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is
>goig to be based upon invented shit.:
>Hey Rice, so you're also one of the "The end justifies the means"
>so-called critics?
Woops! Calm down, pause a moment, and think before you post again.
Seebs
> My impression in reading Anonymous message boards etc is that many of them
> are starting off as ignorant of religion in general as they are of
> Scientology in particular.
A few, maybe. Not "many".
> The word 'pedophile' just happens to resonate with Anonymous in a way that
> 'false prophet' and other Biblical references do not. They aren't trying
> to look at Scientology from the point of view of Christians.
Many of us have no real choice in the matter.
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
anonymousAltF4
> If the criticism of Scientology from Anon is going to be based upon
> invented shit, like the fake (Jesus was a Paedophile) OT-8, then I
> promise you that I will just lean back and distance myself totally from
> the Anon effort.
I was actually just thinking about the subject of this thread.
Isn't a lot of the criticism in fact based on a whole DC-8-load of
LRH's "invented shit?"
Just made me laugh in retrospect. :)
The impossible to handle .Lily FireRed.
> "TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote in message
Andrew,
your mock is litter
your laugh is bitter
my smile is sweet
my lulz are joyful glitter
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
.Lily.
Red Mage Moogle
LILY EPICFAILRED IS EPIC FAIL.
THETANS OR GTFO
--
RMM, servant of Xenu
zidane_tribal_64(at)hotmail(dot)com
http://www.myspace.com/redmagezidane
They call me the Seeker, I been searchin' low and hiiiiigh...