Boulder Picket

6 views
Skip to first unread message

ra...@ezlink.com

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

The Boulder picket.

Another early morning. 5:30Am I was up and getting ready. I headed
over to "Brett's" house to pick him up. Brett is a friend of mine who
is an interested lurker in the affairs of the CoS. We were headed out
of Fort Collins by 7am. It had snowed the night before, but
temperatures were expected to be in the 50's. This isn't Florida.

Just outside of Longmont we made radio contact with Telecon, famed
co-organizer of the Boulder Protest. We arranged for bagels and a
meeting place via handheld radio. After meeting Telecon, the three of
us proceeded to Boulder.

We hit Wollersheims (should I just call him the Evil Puppetmaster?
That's what the church seems to think he is. Wollersheim claims that
*I* am the man running the whole show, though. The truth may never be
known.) house at just after 8am. Everyone was introduced to the evil
puppetmaster and at 8:30 the German TV crew showed up. We did verbal
interviews with them while the cameras were being set up and all that
funky jazz. Eating bagels and making press kits.

The German crew interviewed Telecon and Wollersheim on camera. At
10am, we decided it was time for recon. Brett, Myself and Telecon
hit the road. Brett and I went to Pearl Street Mall in boulder and
Telecon went off to Teegeack Boulder Base to petition for the presence
of Xenu. We knew that Telecon was successful in recruiting Xenu as
soon we heard "Xenu calling Telecon, come in Telecon" over my handheld
radio. Xenu hears radio waves in his head.

The recon was interesting... they kept the area in front of the ORG
real quiet, but their people were watching for us. Fortunately,
finding OSA in a crowd is about as difficult as real life "Where's
Waldo." If Hubbards clones weren't such....well....clones...it might
be harder to pick 'em out. We ignored them for the most part.

Unlike Clearwater, all I had in terms of radio freq's was police
freq's. The CoS doesn't have any freq's registered in Colorado.

We gathered at the courthouse... And the woman I'll call "The
Screaming Woman" (I know her real name...but it's more fun to think of
her as a bansheelike wailing woman that she became later in the
picket) came and checked out our signs. She read them and trotted off
to the goon in waiting so he could drive her back to the org to report
the results of HER recon mission.

Now this is Boulder, Colorado. Picketers are about as unusual as
trees. But none the less people were very interested in our signs as
we walked up the Boulder mall. The response was usually pretty damn
cool. People urged us on, took flyers, etc... But nobody shouted
anything negative at us. (There is no negativity in Boulder...except
around the Scientology Mission.) One girl said, "Oh...scientology,
those people are scary."

I had talked to Robert Anderson on the phone thursday night before the
picket. As a courtesy call. I'd told him that I would be happy to
picket across the street in order to remove the local businesses from
the situation as much as possible. I had also explained that the
critics are individuals, and what I say is no authority over their
actions. If they refused to picket across the street, then there was
nothing I could do. I also explained that if anyone on "our side"
got out of hand, that I would stand next to him and complain just as
loudly about the individual. Bad behavior was not wanted and neither
side would tolerate it.

Robert Anderson is a pretty nice guy...but he was obviously influenced
by the wench from Portland that they'd flown in. He answered to her
orders, demands, etc, with very quick attention. At one point she
chastised him for not handing out leaflets to someone. The
turnaround was amazing. This little Portland girl obviously craved
my body, but she wouldn't share her name with me. She seemed
unwilling to talk at all and was there to direct the events. She was
"da boss," and even the overwhelming desire she must have felt towards
me, couldn't distract her from her work. I hope she reads
this...because I want her to know that I'm everything she imagined.

The picketers refused to cross the street. Twice. I'm fine with
that...but I figured I'd get hammered for my credibility later. To
their credit, they didn't do that. Eventually, they did move,
though...after many complaints from the business owners next to the
Org.

We started picketing and the counter picketers rolled out. It wasn't
long before I heard a "hi Ray" from behind me and turned around to see
none other than Joe Neal. I said, "Long time no see. Did you miss
me?" He said, "No." I asked if they'd flown him out here just for
me and he said he wanted to come here. Now Joe Neal is an interesting
guy. He can alternate between "nice guy" and "complete asshole" in a
matter of seconds. I tried to be a nice guy to him. And he was okay
except when I suggested that he start relaying personal messages from
me to Mike Rinder. Then he told me to Fuck Off or something. I
dunno. I tried to recommend a resturaunt for him to eat at..but my
mind was blank to the good ones.

Xenu showed up...and the scieno's avoided him like he was some kind of
Alien. Oh....er...well...he IS some kind of Alien, so I reckon that
makes sense. Of all the arguments that all the stooges made that
day, Joe Neal's argument made the biggest impact on me. He pointed
to Xenu and said, "Ray, you say you're not a bigot... but that's
bigotry, my friend." I made a mental note, "bring this topic up
for discussion." Consider it raised.

The picket was ok. The bullbaiting was done in Boulder Scieno style.
Which is to say, they kept their distance, they talked nicely, they
didn't cover the signs, etc. I actually had some good conversations
with people. And the church in clearwater needs to realize, we can
respect people who respect us. The dumbest move of the picket was
when DSA of Denver, Deb Danos had the sign saying "Wollersheim used
Penny." I told her, "you're going to look like an idiot when Penny
shows up." Show up he did. THE Bob Penny. I was busy protesting
and didn't take the time to introduce myself. Much to my dismay. I
do hope I get the chance to meet him again. Bob and Lawrence stood
there and talked to the media, had pictures taken of themselves, and
put the whole "they hate each other" rumor to rest. Hopefully
forever. The pictures will be up this week. (As soon as I develop
the film)

The second dumbest move of the picket was for the Boulder scns's to
start chanting, "Internet bigots, spreading lies blah blah blah
something something." This was a stupid move because it prompted a
handful of internet users to join our protest. Or such was my
impression. Real dumb, folks. Real dumb. Tell ya what, next time
someone pickets you... Hire me. I'll tell you if something's stupid
or not. Okay?

Nearing the end of the picket Jane Allen (whose phone messages have
not been getting to me apparently) and Robert Anderson and I talked.
Now this could be a good cop/bad cop thing but they're a couple of
pretty nice people. Robert Anderson seems to have this ability to
avoid clamthink. Or at least not *look* like he's displaying
clamthink. In other words, he appears logical. They offered to
take me out to dinner to chat. How could I refuse? Jane Allen is
OT8...So if I can convince her...just maybe she'll postulate a nicer
church. Hah! Right. We'll be meeting for dinner sometime this
week.

Lawrence had this woman from LA following him around bullbaiting him
near the end of the picket. At a few points he pressed her buttons
and she started wailing and screaming. This is The Screaming Woman.
Who didn't seem very bright to me. I think she didn't know how close
she was to getting arrested. Maybe she's a smart lady... I don't know
her. But she didn't *seem* smart. Hopefully they'll do better next
time.

We all adjourned to Old Chicago's for eats and beers. Everyone
jabbered and chatted and Keith Cochran footed the bill. The ARSCC had
better repay or we'll picket them. Whadda guy.

Great day picketing. They spent lots of $$$ handling us. And we
didn't spend anything. The cost of the signs was even covered as we
recycled the clearwater signs. Several newspaper journalists were
there and one television crew.

Issues and Lessons and stuff:

They complained at being called Clams. My response was that when they
stopped calling me a wog, I'd stop calling them clams.

I told Joe Neal to pass on a little note to his superiors. I said,
"Pay Wollersheim and we won't picket next year." He won't pass it
on.

They think I'm working closely with Wollersheim, or so their clamulets
on the picket line had been told. They were shocked to find I had my
own brain, that I'd only met Lawrence the week before, and that I was
there for my own reasons. Little do they know... *I* am the evil
puppetmaster. <sigh>

Next year they'll have an Opto scout....or so Joe implied. OSA,
here's a hint for ya. I have a trap set for you...remember that.
When it comes to real-tech... I'm several rungs further up the ladder
than you are and I always will be.

One last thing.... Robert Anderson, who's like 12'8" tall.. or
something like that, (closer to 6 feet..but very tall) was dressed up
as Uncle Sam. It was a good move on their part. And he definitely
gets the "Best Dressed" award. Xenu was cuddly, but this is
Boulder...Uncle Sam got more attention than Xenu. Boulder had its
fill of Aliens with Mork.


-Love And Kisses (especially to Ms. Portland (call me if you can't
help yourself <lick>))

-Ray

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Ceon Ramon

unread,
Mar 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/17/97
to

In article <8585597...@dejanews.com>, <ra...@ezlink.com> wrote:
>The Boulder picket.
[...]

>Xenu showed up...and the scieno's avoided him like he was some kind of
>Alien. Oh....er...well...he IS some kind of Alien, so I reckon that
>makes sense. Of all the arguments that all the stooges made that
>day, Joe Neal's argument made the biggest impact on me. He pointed
>to Xenu and said, "Ray, you say you're not a bigot... but that's
>bigotry, my friend." I made a mental note, "bring this topic up
>for discussion." Consider it raised.

There's a certain tension I've noticed between the goals of protesters to
inform the public at large _or_ inform the low-level public scienos about
beliefs at levels they have not yet reached, such as Xenu. (I've noticed
this with suggested picket slogans as well, some of which are in-jokes
that would be comprehensible only to other critics or to OSA who read
ars.) If the aim is to expose the harmful activities of the CoS, then the
picket signs should address those injuries-- and God knows there are
enough of them-- not the beliefs, which are largely unknown to those
outside the cult. I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery, just as
if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.

I think we should address the beliefs, if at all, in private, with those
who are deeply involved but having some doubts.

Public protesters should, in my opinion, stick to public issues.

I may be wrong about this, but I think of the scien who scampered out to
picket Wayne with a sign saying "Wayne abuses his member." That's just
silly. It's personal harassment based on a meaningless analogy to his
own picket sign and not meant to actually communicate anything to anyone
except Wayne. I don't like to see the critics falling into the
same trap.

Goodness knows I'm in no position to advise picketers on strategy, but you
asked for discussion and that's my contribution.

Anyway: thanks Ray, for your courage and initiative.

--Barbara

Ceon Ramon

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

In article <5gl1p0$iqm$1...@mistletoe.srv.cs.cmu.edu >,
Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu > wrote:
>In article <5gk2fe$p...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,
>Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It

>>seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery, just as
>>if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
>>long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.
>
>It could be viewed as mockery, but that's a side issue. Let me
>explain. Christians make no secret of what they believe. Your or I
>may disagree with it, but we can't say we weren't told what is in
>store for someone who joins a Christian church. No one is being
>fooled. Bibles are available to all who seek them.

Absolutely right. Anyone who wants to know the basic story of
Christianity/Judaism can pick up a book anywhere -- library, bookstore,
Christian Science Reading Room, hotel room -- and read about Christ and
his message.

>Scientologists *do* try to keep their higher-level teachings secret,
>while at the same time marketing them as incredibly powerful and
>valuable, worth devoting huge amounts of time and money to learn.
>This is, basically, consumer fraud.

Right, right.

>The main goal of having Xenu meet the wogs is to inform the public
>about what Scientology is really selling. If the wogs decide that
>anyone who believes this stuff must be a brain-washed lunatic, well,
>it's their right to hold that opinion.

But having Xenu Meet the Wogs (sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon
show) doesn't address the fundamental fraud because (a) non-scientologists
don't know what the hell you're talking about, and (b) low-level
scientologists don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

I ask you: Who is your audience?

If you're going to have Xenu parade around then you have to give your
audience some context.

High level scientologists might know what Xenu is about, but are we
achieving anything by parading a comic Xenu in front of them?

>Putting Xenu on the street has a second, important effect: it gives
>Scientologists an opportunity to confront their own beliefs.

But does it in fact accomplish that? Or does it just reinforce their
notion that antagonists are mockers and enemies?

Remember
>that OT III is done solo, and it's a crime to discuss the confidential
>materials with anyone. So it's virtually impossible for a
>Scientologist to mount a critical assessment of this material without
>being guilty of some kind of thought crime that will have to be
>confessed and paid for later. They mock up their own mental images of
>the OT III story and have to live with them, privately, without the
>intelligent support of others. So we give them *our* Xenu.

We give them Xenu. If they've never heard of the guy they're just going
to think you're crazy.

Let them
>make of it what they will. I doubt any sane Christians were harmed by
>watching Life of Brian. Parody is not the same as bigotry.

The Monty Python group made fun of a well-established religion that
almost everyone in the entire world knows about.

>>I think we should address the beliefs, if at all, in private, with those
>>who are deeply involved but having some doubts.
>

>Why wait for someone to get ill before telling them the well is poisoned?

I honestly don't see any point in mocking a belief that no one knows
anything about. It just makes you look like a lunatic.

>>Public protesters should, in my opinion, stick to public issues.
>

>Such as consumer fraud. See above.

And murder.

>>I may be wrong about this, but I think of the scien who scampered out to
>>picket Wayne with a sign saying "Wayne abuses his member." That's just
>>silly. It's personal harassment based on a meaningless analogy to his
>>own picket sign and not meant to actually communicate anything to anyone
>>except Wayne. I don't like to see the critics falling into the
>>same trap.
>

>I agree. I do not think we should be taunting Scientologists about
>their beliefs. Lots of religions have stupid beliefs -- which they'll
>happily tell you about. I only want to taunt Scientologists with what
>they WON'T tell the public about, 'cuz they know it would interfere with
>their scam.

But Dave. my point was that most low-level Scientologists (the publics,
who are thrown out as disposable picketers) don't know about Xenu.
Parading a Xenu around in front of an org doesn't seem to me to really
accomplish anything. And the street public who know only that scientology
is a Bad Thing also know nothing about Xenu and probably would profit more
from other facts about the beliefs.

Look at the media, the radio shows for instance, to see exactly how
idiotic Xenu seems, so that the idea is Not Taken Seriously. Give people
something they can identify with, something they can take seriously!
Xenu is not it.

I'm trying to put myself into a state of mind where I know nothing
about scientology. I just don't think that seeing someone dressed in a
Xenu costume would do anything to enlighten me.


>-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): famous costume character apologist.

Margaret Huffstickler

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

Dave Touretzky wrote:
>
> In article <5gk2fe$p...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,
> Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
> >seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery,

Of course the Scientologists will choose to interpret it that way,
just as they choose to compare Germany's treatment of them to Nazi
treatment of Jews.

(Others are more likely to interpret it as *good-natured* mockery, I
think.)

just as
> >if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
> >long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.

The analogy is false. Xenu's role in the Scientology belief structure
most emphatically does *not* equal Christ's in the Christian belief
structure. He's more the equivalent of Satan, and I haven't observed
that Christians view devil costumes as a sign of mockery of their
faith.

I guess maybe an L Ron costume would be more equivalent, since Source
= the eighth dynamic; but then no one's walking around in an L Ron
costume at the pickets.

>
> It could be viewed as mockery, but that's a side issue. Let me
> explain. Christians make no secret of what they believe. Your or I
> may disagree with it, but we can't say we weren't told what is in
> store for someone who joins a Christian church. No one is being
> fooled. Bibles are available to all who seek them.
>

> Scientologists *do* try to keep their higher-level teachings secret,
> while at the same time marketing them as incredibly powerful and
> valuable, worth devoting huge amounts of time and money to learn.
> This is, basically, consumer fraud.
>

> The main goal of having Xenu meet the wogs is to inform the public
> about what Scientology is really selling. If the wogs decide that
> anyone who believes this stuff must be a brain-washed lunatic, well,
> it's their right to hold that opinion.
>

> Putting Xenu on the street has a second, important effect: it gives

> Scientologists an opportunity to confront their own beliefs. Remember


> that OT III is done solo, and it's a crime to discuss the confidential
> materials with anyone. So it's virtually impossible for a
> Scientologist to mount a critical assessment of this material without
> being guilty of some kind of thought crime that will have to be
> confessed and paid for later.

Not only that, but many lower level Scns will have had no exposure at
all to the upper-level mythology, and this gives them a clue as to the
actual contents *before* shelling out the dough.

They may be indignant at the moment, but certainly later at least some
who have been paying big bucks or slaving away under the illusion that
Scientology is a scientific system will start to wonder if they're
going to get what they paid for.

They mock up their own mental images of
> the OT III story and have to live with them, privately, without the

> intelligent support of others. So we give them *our* Xenu. Let them


> make of it what they will. I doubt any sane Christians were harmed by
> watching Life of Brian. Parody is not the same as bigotry.

Hear, hear.

>
> >I think we should address the beliefs, if at all, in private, with those
> >who are deeply involved but having some doubts.
>
> Why wait for someone to get ill

or die

> before telling them the well is poisoned?

Absolutely.

>
> >Public protesters should, in my opinion, stick to public issues.
>

> Such as consumer fraud. See above.

>

> >I may be wrong about this, but I think of the scien who scampered out to
> >picket Wayne with a sign saying "Wayne abuses his member." That's just
> >silly. It's personal harassment based on a meaningless analogy to his
> >own picket sign and not meant to actually communicate anything to anyone
> >except Wayne.

Whereas the Xenu figure is meant to communicate important information
to many people, Scn and non-Scn.

I don't like to see the critics falling into the
> >same trap.
>
> I agree. I do not think we should be taunting Scientologists about
> their beliefs. Lots of religions have stupid beliefs -- which they'll
> happily tell you about. I only want to taunt Scientologists with what
> they WON'T tell the public about, 'cuz they know it would interfere with
> their scam.
>

> -- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): famous costume character apologist.


Margaret H.

Dave Touretzky

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

In article <5gk2fe$p...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
>seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery, just as

>if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
>long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.

It could be viewed as mockery, but that's a side issue. Let me


explain. Christians make no secret of what they believe. Your or I
may disagree with it, but we can't say we weren't told what is in
store for someone who joins a Christian church. No one is being
fooled. Bibles are available to all who seek them.

Scientologists *do* try to keep their higher-level teachings secret,
while at the same time marketing them as incredibly powerful and
valuable, worth devoting huge amounts of time and money to learn.
This is, basically, consumer fraud.

The main goal of having Xenu meet the wogs is to inform the public
about what Scientology is really selling. If the wogs decide that
anyone who believes this stuff must be a brain-washed lunatic, well,
it's their right to hold that opinion.

Putting Xenu on the street has a second, important effect: it gives
Scientologists an opportunity to confront their own beliefs. Remember
that OT III is done solo, and it's a crime to discuss the confidential
materials with anyone. So it's virtually impossible for a
Scientologist to mount a critical assessment of this material without
being guilty of some kind of thought crime that will have to be

confessed and paid for later. They mock up their own mental images of


the OT III story and have to live with them, privately, without the
intelligent support of others. So we give them *our* Xenu. Let them
make of it what they will. I doubt any sane Christians were harmed by
watching Life of Brian. Parody is not the same as bigotry.

>I think we should address the beliefs, if at all, in private, with those


>who are deeply involved but having some doubts.

Why wait for someone to get ill before telling them the well is poisoned?

>Public protesters should, in my opinion, stick to public issues.

Such as consumer fraud. See above.

>I may be wrong about this, but I think of the scien who scampered out to
>picket Wayne with a sign saying "Wayne abuses his member." That's just
>silly. It's personal harassment based on a meaningless analogy to his
>own picket sign and not meant to actually communicate anything to anyone

>except Wayne. I don't like to see the critics falling into the

Michael Voytinsky

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>...

> But having Xenu Meet the Wogs (sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon
> show) doesn't address the fundamental fraud because (a)
non-scientologists
> don't know what the hell you're talking about, and (b) low-level
> scientologists don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

You are forgetting that low level Scieno deal with the higher level ones,
and may - if their brain did not completely atrophy - draw conclusions from
their behavior.

During my last visit to the local org I asked them about Xenu - and of
course they did not know anything. I then pulled out a printout of OTIII -
they still claimed to know nothing - including this one lady who got rather
agitated upon seeing it. Two PCs present did not want to look at it in
case it was real - but of course - I did paraphrase the first page (ie. the
silliest bits) to them. Neither seemed certain of what they were saying
when they said that it must be a forgery designed to make CoS look stupid.

> If you're going to have Xenu parade around then you have to give your
> audience some context.

Handing out free copies of OTIII might work - and you would want to wear a
costume if you were doing that.

> High level scientologists might know what Xenu is about, but are we
> achieving anything by parading a comic Xenu in front of them?

They will see that wogs read OTIII, but contrary to the words of Elron did
not freewheel through the implant, catch pneumonia, and die.

--
Michael Voytinsky
mich...@igs.net
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/


Karl Mac Mc Kinnon

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

In article <5gl1p0$iqm$1...@mistletoe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:

>Putting Xenu on the street has a second, important effect: it gives
>Scientologists an opportunity to confront their own beliefs. Remember
>that OT III is done solo, and it's a crime to discuss the confidential
>materials with anyone. So it's virtually impossible for a
>Scientologist to mount a critical assessment of this material without
>being guilty of some kind of thought crime that will have to be
>confessed and paid for later. They mock up their own mental images of
>the OT III story and have to live with them, privately, without the
>intelligent support of others. So we give them *our* Xenu. Let them
>make of it what they will. I doubt any sane Christians were harmed by
>watching Life of Brian. Parody is not the same as bigotry.

It was shown for "Movie Night" at a Prysbetirian church just last
Sunday. The Turan fraud has left an indellible mark on the consciousness
of Christians. (Well, possibly not Greek Orthodox). We all know Jesus
is a tall white guy based on what that artist thought he looked like who
did the "shroud." But Xemu, in all his forms, is bound to look silly.
Grey's are cool looking aliens, lots of symbolism is packed into the Grey
face. But for Xenu I reccomend keeping it ultra-silly. (and of course,
in a clam motif).


-----
The Ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted
a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestial hell.
---Russel Kirk

Dave Touretzky

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

In article <5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,

Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>I ask you: Who is your audience?
>
>If you're going to have Xenu parade around then you have to give your
>audience some context.

Yes indeed. "This is Xenu the evil galactic overlord, star of
Scientology's secret scriptures known as OT III. According to L. Ron
Hubbard, Lord Xenu is personally responsible for all your problems
here on Earth. But he's kind of cute, isn't he? He wants to shake hands."

See how easy it is?

>High level scientologists might know what Xenu is about, but are we
>achieving anything by parading a comic Xenu in front of them?

Yes. We are showing them that the Church's secrets are not secret.
That all the rigmarole they went through when *they* did the OT III
course, including locked file cabinets and electronically-monitored
reading rooms, was pointless, because while nobody told THEM about
Xenu until they were "spiritually prepared" for it, the stupid wogs
already knew the whole story, and we're not keeping quiet about it.
So much for CoS security. So much for pneumonia. It's all a big
joke -- at least if you haven't paid $150,000 to hear the punchline.

>But Dave. my point was that most low-level Scientologists (the publics,
>who are thrown out as disposable picketers) don't know about Xenu.

That used to be true. Now I'm not so sure. Xenu is getting a *lot*
of press these days. He was mentioned by name in the Tampa channel 28
"Inside Scientology" segment, and they showed the costume. He was
mentioned by name in the NPR show, All Things Considered. He was
mentioned by name in the New York Times story. Xenu's career is on
the rise! Who knows where he'll turn up next?

Don't tell CoS, but we're currently negotiating a spot on Letterman.

-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): press agent for bug-eyed galactic tyrants.

David Lesher

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:


>That used to be true. Now I'm not so sure. Xenu is getting a *lot*
>of press these days. He was mentioned by name in the Tampa channel 28
>"Inside Scientology" segment, and they showed the costume. He was
>mentioned by name in the NPR show, All Things Considered. He was
>mentioned by name in the New York Times story. Xenu's career is on
>the rise! Who knows where he'll turn up next?

>Don't tell CoS, but we're currently negotiating a spot on Letterman.


Don't do it!

Hold out for Nightline, or at least The News Hour....

--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Karl Mac Mc Kinnon

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

In article <5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu> ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) writes:

>But having Xenu Meet the Wogs (sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon
>show) doesn't address the fundamental fraud because (a) non-scientologists
>don't know what the hell you're talking about, and (b) low-level
>scientologists don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

That's why we hand out leaflets about OT III and such, along with
direct Hubbard quotes about their being no Christ.

>I honestly don't see any point in mocking a belief that no one knows
>anything about. It just makes you look like a lunatic.

Exactly. Then we hit them with the explanation. The lunacy is
then transfered FROM the protester TO the Scientologists.
As for preclears, we hit them with handouts of handwrittan OT
III documents. Unless they have killed their natural curiosity, they
will run into the Wall of Fire before they have enough momentum to carry
them through. They will be forced to chose between reality and fantasy
long before their minds are sufficiently dumbed-down to accept anything
Hubbard says as true.
If they DO believe that Hubbard cannot lie already, they catch
pnemonia and die of psychosomatic illness.

Rebecca Hartong

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

In article <5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:

>I'm trying to put myself into a state of mind where I know nothing
>about scientology. I just don't think that seeing someone dressed in a
>Xenu costume would do anything to enlighten me.

Perhaps not, but it would certainly grab your attention. And it might prompt
you to ask "So what's with this Xenu character?"

Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran

unread,
Mar 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/18/97
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <5gn2eg$l...@krypto.zippo.com>,
Rebecca Hartong <har...@netins.net> wrote:


>ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>>I'm trying to put myself into a state of mind where I know nothing
>>about scientology. I just don't think that seeing someone dressed in a
>>Xenu costume would do anything to enlighten me.
>

>Perhaps not, but it would certainly grab your attention. And it might prompt
>you to ask "So what's with this Xenu character?"

Funny you should mention that. It's exactly what happened with the
police who showed up to make sure everybody stayed calm at the Boulder
picket.

It gave me the perfect opening to explain to the police about Xenu,
Incident II, BT's, etc etc etc. The police thought it was humorous.

I really think Xenu is a win-win situation all around. For those who
have never been exposed to the lunacy of the cult, it's a good attention
grabber.

For those who are in, but are low-level, it (will hopefully) provide
a catalyst for people to ask "is this for real?" If they're lied to,
when they do hit OTIII, they'll (hopefully) remember that they were
lied to. If they aren't lied to, and are told that "yes, a portion
of this 'religion' deals with an evil space tyrant", hopefully that
will provide some inducement to blow.

For those who are OTIII or above, it does provide a yardstick to measure
your insanity by. Personally, I always figured Xenu looked a lot like
Ghandi, but with the mentality of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussoulini
combined. And I've never been in Scientology.

-- .sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/
^L
finger -l ja...@dimensional.com for my PGP public key block.

Boulder, CO picket photos: http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/picket.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMy9r322jF2vR4ZtNAQHJgwP/QDTOdPW5h+RFcZ4Mw+fcA2VmnBXDITTb
ApEw159SRVjkZljsnoadWVrpJJyLKAW/17i12peCC+IEhhvnCLvjDCVfRCAz1ZLg
XkI7c5CDcGXLl7Q/N6t4fu9xu4FIqS16C/PmvvtzaARHl8AlUR37jU1MHVXVWnHY
5T0nNJH91fE=
=j+nj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Karl Mac Mc Kinnon

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <slrn5iuap...@dora.tertius.net.au> f...@tertius.net.remove_this_spamtrap_to_email.au (David Gerard) writes:
>We need to start work on the Saturday morning cartoon show.

We're Xenu maniacs
We're supressive to the max.
OT III is what we Fax
To give good people the facts
We're Xenu maniacs

Now some people say it's "n"
and still others say it's "m"
'Cause Hubbard's got handwritting that's to hard to understand
FACTNet and the Council* are behind out Masterplan
We're Xenu maniacs

We're Tone 40
Looking really worty
Boycotting "Get Shorty"
Xenu maniacs!

-----
The Ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted
a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestial hell.
---Russel Kirk

* the Council does not exist.

David Gerard

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

On 18 Mar 1997 04:45:48 GMT, Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

:But Dave. my point was that most low-level Scientologists (the publics,


:who are thrown out as disposable picketers) don't know about Xenu.
:Parading a Xenu around in front of an org doesn't seem to me to really
:accomplish anything. And the street public who know only that scientology
:is a Bad Thing also know nothing about Xenu and probably would profit more
:from other facts about the beliefs.
:Look at the media, the radio shows for instance, to see exactly how
:idiotic Xenu seems, so that the idea is Not Taken Seriously. Give people
:something they can identify with, something they can take seriously!
:Xenu is not it.

Xenu is pretty damn good. The Xenu story is a fantastic memetic
immuniser. If someone can't think of Scientology without snickering,
I'd say they're safe from it.


:I'm trying to put myself into a state of mind where I know nothing
:about scientology. I just don't think that seeing someone dressed in a
:Xenu costume would do anything to enlighten me.

I'm sure all the Scientologists trying to keep people from seeing
Xenu were very interesting and educational though.


:>-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): famous costume character apologist.

We need to start work on the Saturday morning cartoon show.


--
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn -- email me if it doesn't work for you
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror)
mailto: f...@suburbia.net f...@tertius.net.au

Future808

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

You know, it was neigh 10 years before I found out about Xenu and Body
Thetans, which is kind of funny. OT3-OT7 deal with these nasty creatures.
You might have Xenu carrying a sign that says "Read about me in OT III"
and that will clue everyone in on what the deal is. The pamphlets are
great ideas, too.

Mr. Ex-CMO

Margaret Huffstickler

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

Future808 wrote:
>
> You know, it was neigh 10 years before I found out about Xenu and Body
> Thetans, which is kind of funny. OT3-OT7 deal with these nasty creatures.
> You might have Xenu carrying a sign that says "Read about me in OT III"

*With* a URL for the lucky ones with computer access.

> and that will clue everyone in on what the deal is. The pamphlets are
> great ideas, too.
>
> Mr. Ex-CMO


MH

st...@swhitlat.com

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) writes:
|> In article <5gl1p0$iqm$1...@mistletoe.srv.cs.cmu.edu >,
|> Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu > wrote:

|> >The main goal of having Xenu meet the wogs is to inform the public
|> >about what Scientology is really selling. If the wogs decide that
|> >anyone who believes this stuff must be a brain-washed lunatic, well,
|> >it's their right to hold that opinion.
|>
|> But having Xenu Meet the Wogs (sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon
|> show) doesn't address the fundamental fraud because (a) non-scientologists
|> don't know what the hell you're talking about, and (b) low-level
|> scientologists don't know what the hell you're talking about either.
|>
|> I ask you: Who is your audience?


(a) Non-scientologists will wonder why 50 Xenus are
picketing this "church", and why 200 scientologists
are surrounding the Xenus and harrassing them.

(b) Low-level scientologists will very quickly know
about Xenus and BTs.


|> If you're going to have Xenu parade around then you have to give your
|> audience some context.


Of course, all Xenus should explain themselves, perhaps issue
Xenu information pamphlets.


|> High level scientologists might know what Xenu is about, but are we
|> achieving anything by parading a comic Xenu in front of them?
|>
|> >Putting Xenu on the street has a second, important effect: it gives
|> >Scientologists an opportunity to confront their own beliefs.
|>
|> But does it in fact accomplish that? Or does it just reinforce their
|> notion that antagonists are mockers and enemies?


It certainly presents the OTs with some opportunities they
had previously lacked, namely, people informed of Xenu who
are willing to communicate about Xenu.


|> Remember
|> >that OT III is done solo, and it's a crime to discuss the confidential
|> >materials with anyone. So it's virtually impossible for a
|> >Scientologist to mount a critical assessment of this material without
|> >being guilty of some kind of thought crime that will have to be
|> >confessed and paid for later. They mock up their own mental images of
|> >the OT III story and have to live with them, privately, without the
|> >intelligent support of others. So we give them *our* Xenu.
|>
|> We give them Xenu. If they've never heard of the guy they're just going
|> to think you're crazy.


Not a big deal.


|> Let them
|> >make of it what they will. I doubt any sane Christians were harmed by
|> >watching Life of Brian. Parody is not the same as bigotry.
|>
|> The Monty Python group made fun of a well-established religion that
|> almost everyone in the entire world knows about.
|>
|> >>I think we should address the beliefs, if at all, in private, with those
|> >>who are deeply involved but having some doubts.


But scientology will tell you that their is no belief involved.
In scientology, one does not *believe* scientology.


Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com

--
Honesty cures scientology.

Ceon Ramon

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <slrn5iuap...@dora.tertius.net.au>,
David Gerard <f...@tertius.net.remove_this_spamtrap_to_email.au> wrote:

>On 18 Mar 1997 04:45:48 GMT, Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>:But Dave. my point was that most low-level Scientologists (the publics,


>:who are thrown out as disposable picketers) don't know about Xenu.
>:Parading a Xenu around in front of an org doesn't seem to me to really
>:accomplish anything. And the street public who know only that scientology
>:is a Bad Thing also know nothing about Xenu and probably would profit more
>:from other facts about the beliefs.
>:Look at the media, the radio shows for instance, to see exactly how
>:idiotic Xenu seems, so that the idea is Not Taken Seriously. Give people
>:something they can identify with, something they can take seriously!
>:Xenu is not it.
>

>Xenu is pretty damn good. The Xenu story is a fantastic memetic
>immuniser. If someone can't think of Scientology without snickering,
>I'd say they're safe from it.

Oh, OK. I was only attempting to answer Ray's question from one
particular viewpoint. I'm fundamnetally a Mocker and Degrader, I have no
integrity of conviction, and I'm infamous for succumbing to peer pressure.
I'm also a pushover on a date.

>:I'm trying to put myself into a state of mind where I know nothing


>:about scientology. I just don't think that seeing someone dressed in a
>:Xenu costume would do anything to enlighten me.
>

>I'm sure all the Scientologists trying to keep people from seeing
>Xenu were very interesting and educational though.

O!K! Let's have more Xenus! My suggestion for the ARSCC [there is no
ARSCC] slogan: A Xenu in Every Pot!


>We need to start work on the Saturday morning cartoon show.

Now I see us wogs as Smurfs. (A card-carrying Pict, I'd feel right at
home painted in blue. I once had to paint my more visible portions in
blue for a stage role; fingerpaints are quite adequate for this, but do
try to have the stage manager available for washing out the tub
afterward.)

Actually, I'd like to see such short animated films as "Hubbard and Daffy
Duck Discuss Causality," "Scientologists Meet Bugs," and "Elmer Fudd in
Clearwater."

--Barbara

Scott McClare

unread,
Mar 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/19/97
to

In article <5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>Absolutely right. Anyone who wants to know the basic story of
>Christianity/Judaism can pick up a book anywhere -- library, bookstore,
>Christian Science Reading Room, hotel room -- and read about Christ and
>his message.

*ahem* Confusing names aside, "Christian Science" has about as much to
do with Christianity as it does with science. It's essentially an
offshoot of Theosophy and thus, like Scientology, a sort of Gnostic
group.

Interestingly, at one point CS shared a lot of Scientology's
characteristics: paranoia in its leader, and extreme litigiousness to
name a couple. Only Christian Science has made its way into the
mainstream.

>>The main goal of having Xenu meet the wogs is to inform the public
>>about what Scientology is really selling. If the wogs decide that
>>anyone who believes this stuff must be a brain-washed lunatic, well,
>>it's their right to hold that opinion.
>
>But having Xenu Meet the Wogs (sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon
>show) doesn't address the fundamental fraud because (a) non-scientologists
>don't know what the hell you're talking about, and (b) low-level
>scientologists don't know what the hell you're talking about either.

One thing some of the Clearwater picketers pointed out is that the
Xenu character was *great* public relations. People's curiosity was
aroused enough to find out what was going on . . . and then get the
facts.

Never underestimate the power of good ethos.

Scott

--
Scott A. McClare SP3, GGBC42, KoX, <*>, MOoRMC, "Randi groupie"
Scott's Chunk of the Web <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/samcclar/>
Criminal Cult <http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/samcclar/Scientology/>
"Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau" - William Blake

M. Council

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to


excuse me?
*this* Council sure does!

--------------------------------------m. council, human being
^^^^^^^
Hell, if you understood
everything I say, you'd cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu
be me. -Miles Davis keeper of Maggie's Drawers - SP4
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bev

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

Dave Touretzky wrote:
> Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> >[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
> >seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery, just as
> >if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
> >long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.

> It could be viewed as mockery, but that's a side issue. Let me
> explain. Christians make no secret of what they believe. Your or I
> may disagree with it, but we can't say we weren't told what is in
> store for someone who joins a Christian church. No one is being
> fooled. Bibles are available to all who seek them.

That is the exact point. I see Xenu's presence as a blatant symbol of
the lies and secrets of the Co$. What other ~religion~ do you know of
that is so ashamed of what the core of their spiritual truths are that
they work so hard and diligently to hide it from the knowledge of the
public?

> Scientologists *do* try to keep their higher-level teachings secret,
> while at the same time marketing them as incredibly powerful and
> valuable, worth devoting huge amounts of time and money to learn.
> This is, basically, consumer fraud.

That is exactly what it is. Lying to the public with a smile on
their face, and getting away with it because they have learned so
well to hide behind the cause of religious persecution.

How totally odd that being required to be honest and accountable should
be looked upon as being persecuted.


> The main goal of having Xenu meet the wogs is to inform the public
> about what Scientology is really selling. If the wogs decide that
> anyone who believes this stuff must be a brain-washed lunatic, well,
> it's their right to hold that opinion.

And that is why Xenu is such a secret. How many people would Co$
bring into their corporation if rather than being offered a "personality
test" they were greeted with "How would you like to learn about Xenu
and the Galactic Confederation and how you came to be possessed with
millions of Body Thetans?"

> Putting Xenu on the street has a second, important effect: it gives
> Scientologists an opportunity to confront their own beliefs.

It goes even way beyond that. It gives many an opportunity to learn
WHAT it is their ~religion~ believes in. Don't forget that most
scientologists really don't even know the ~spiritual~ beliefs of their
own religion they work so hard for.

> Remember
> that OT III is done solo, and it's a crime to discuss the confidential
> materials with anyone. So it's virtually impossible for a
> Scientologist to mount a critical assessment of this material without
> being guilty of some kind of thought crime that will have to be
> confessed and paid for later. They mock up their own mental images of
> the OT III story and have to live with them, privately, without the
> intelligent support of others.

Yes. And I'm sure that having to confront Xenu in person :-) is really
quite a mindfuck because it allows them to physically see with their
own eyes the absurdity of it. But then once they have gotten to the
"wall of fire" their ability for achieving independent and critical
thought is fairly well wiped out but I would think that it still, deep
inside that place they try to deny, would leave an imprint.

> So we give them *our* Xenu. Let them


> make of it what they will. I doubt any sane Christians were harmed by
> watching Life of Brian. Parody is not the same as bigotry.

I thought "The Life of Brian" was hilarious, and I am a Christian in
my personal beliefs, I will not claim to being sane though :-)

> I agree. I do not think we should be taunting Scientologists about
> their beliefs. Lots of religions have stupid beliefs -- which they'll
> happily tell you about.

Hey, they'll even be happy to tell you all about everything they believe
even if you DON'T want to know about it :-). But yes, it is true that
the majority of religions will FREELY tell you what their teachings are.

> I only want to taunt Scientologists with what
> they WON'T tell the public about, 'cuz they know it would interfere with
> their scam.

That's the crux of the whole silly little issue that has been allowed to
grow into a legal mountain of absurdity.

Beverly

Dustbin Anonymous Remailer

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

20 Mar 1997
[from Prignillius]

>Xenu showed up...and the scieno's avoided him like he was some kind of
>Alien. Oh....er...well...he IS some kind of Alien, so I reckon that
>makes sense. Of all the arguments that all the stooges made that
>day, Joe Neal's argument made the biggest impact on me. He pointed
>to Xenu and said, "Ray, you say you're not a bigot... but that's
>bigotry, my friend." I made a mental note, "bring this topic up
>for discussion." Consider it raised.

I don't see how it can be considered bigotry. The definition of
the word and how it's used are kind of different, but I think it
generally has the same meaning as "prejudice."

Prejudice involves the sub-humanization of the members of a
particular group, which is why I object to the term "clam."
Once members of a group are characterized as sub-human, it
becomes easy to treat them in a sub-human manner.

But I can't see how the mere appearance of Xenu is prejudice,
as nothing is being advocated concerning believers in Xenu.

If one were to say, "Anyone who believes in Xenu should be
electrocuted," then I think that would be bigotry.

But just to have Xenu appear doesn't seem bigoted to me. At
worst, it's making the statement, "Those crazy Scientologists
believe that an alien named Xenu brought a bunch of souls
here 76 million years ago, nuked them, and implanted them
with harmful desires."

It's analogous to saying, "Those crazy Jews don't even think the
Messiah has come yet," or "Those crazy Christians think you
go to a place called heaven after you're dead." These assertions
don't seem bigoted to me.

I could make a case for mockery or ridicule, but I'm unable to
come up with a scenario to consider it bigotry.

[Personally I oppose the Church of Scientology because of its
morally vacuuous behavior, not because of its belief system,
except to the extent that the belief system trains its members
to act in a morally vacuuous manner.]

Prignillius

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius (Sorry, no email addr right now. I'm workin' on it!) |
| |
| Hatred is not an acceptable recreational activity |
| for civilized human beings to engage in. |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMzGW+8zM5eblZfaxAQG00AH/dH9Hi9DydYNNhVULSMUuxysOPRWyLKYl
Cm/rn35p0y9edSSbKdeQ6oKPW/KAUnI0PZZgHNQ7sMf9zO0I0f7vfg==
=Pb3q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Karl Mac Mc Kinnon

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

>> >[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
>> >seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery, just as
>> >if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
>> >long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.

Bad analogy. You want a guy with a painted red face and horns.
Xenu is -quite- Satanistic. He is the cause of human missery and
suffering. He is now trapped some place very, very bad. He was thrown
out of the Confederation (heaven) by officers loyal to the people (good
angles), etc.
The Devil has been a cutesy cartoon character for a while now.
If I had some reason for pickiting a Christian sect, I would go dressed
as their Devil to illustrate the absurdity of the concept.

CapSatan.

Ted Mayett (KoX)

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

On 18 Mar 1997 04:45:48 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:


>I honestly don't see any point in mocking a belief that no one knows
>anything about. It just makes you look like a lunatic.
>

Xenu is becoming common knowledge.
Xenu is mentioned in newspaper articles printed by prestigious and
widely read newspapers. I believe that Xenu has been mentioned on TV
and radio. More and more and more people know who Xenu is.
In some cities Xenu has even appeared at pickets.


--
Ted Mayett
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
http://www.skylink.net/~teddy/court.html

Dave Touretzky

unread,
Mar 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/20/97
to

In article <5gpujp$m...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,

Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>Actually, I'd like to see such short animated films as "Hubbard and Daffy
>Duck Discuss Causality," "Scientologists Meet Bugs," and "Elmer Fudd in
>Clearwater."

"The Three Stooges Visit the Org" is in pre-production for an October,
1997 release date. Moe becomes an FSM and plans to sell Scientology
services on commission. Meanwhile Larry experiments with an E-Meter,
but when Curly keys in a clam engram and goes berserk, Moe slaps them
both silly. All three stooges are declared PTS type III and thrown
out of the org.

-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Bev

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

ra...@ezlink.com> wrote:
>
>Xenu showed up...and the scieno's avoided him like he was some kind of
>Alien. Oh....er...well...he IS some kind of Alien, so I reckon that
>makes sense. Of all the arguments that all the stooges made that
>day, Joe Neal's argument made the biggest impact on me. He pointed
>to Xenu and said, "Ray, you say you're not a bigot... but that's
>bigotry, my friend."

False logic. It is NOT bigotry, it is alerting people to the real facts
about that which Co$ attempts to hide that they have a RIGHT to know
about BEFORE they get involved. My response to his statement is
this . . .

No, my friend, this is TRUTH!!!

It is a truth that you and your ~church~ hide because you cannot
confront it. You cannot confront it because you know to do so
would be your downfall. What YOU do is to deceive people.

Crying "bigotry" is merely a weak attempt at trying to evade this
issue when the true crime is on YOUR head. DEAL with it.

Beverly

Berg

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

M. Council (cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu) wrote:


: On 19 Mar 1997, Karl Mac Mc Kinnon wrote:

: > In article <slrn5iuap...@dora.tertius.net.au> f...@tertius.net.remove_this_spamtrap_to_email.au (David Gerard) writes:
: >
: > ---Russel Kirk
: > * the Council does not exist.
: >
: >


: excuse me?
: *this* Council sure does!

ROFL...should've known something like this would happen sooner or
later...


--
Berg Oswell, SP3 with Clam Cluster, KoX
Member: ARSCC, DNRC, Pope of Sector6
Email: be...@eskimo.com
Finger for Geek Code.

azyuwish

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Re: Christain Science

Perhaps at some point Mary Baker Eddy did become a bit paranoid and did
become "litigious"..however your assertion that Christian Science ahs
nothing to do with Christ is off base.

I attended Christian Science Church weekly for over one year because I
really like the philosophy of a Christ - led church rather than a
heirarchy of priests, bishops etc.

You state that this church is based on Theosophy..actually is based on
an understanding or "gnosis" much older than Theosophy. It is actually
straight out of the Indian Vedas. There is evidence that at an
international congress of Religious leaders which was held in the U.S.,
Mrs. Eddy met and conversed with Swami Vivekenanda...the great Indian
guru who taught "Raja Yoga" or the Royal Path to God-Consciousness.
Mrs. Eddy, being of Christian background was able to see the correlation
between what Christ taught and the wisdom of the Vedas.

I believe that Christian Science "works" even though I find it's
association with the Old Testament cumbersome and less than helpful. I
just feel that it is an advanced practice requiring an advanced
understanding; which certainly both Jesus the Christ and Swami
Vivekenanda seemed to have in abundance.

Azyuwish

JimDBB

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Christian Science has a lot to answer for and responsibility for the
deaths of hundreds of children and adults who were denied medical care
because of their 'Christian Science' beliefs. On top of it all, it has
been recetnly discovered that CS 'nurses' or practioners have been getting
medddicare payments for 'praying' for sick CSers. The Govt. is
supposedly cutting off this rip off.

Read Mark Twain's book, "Christian Science'.

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

There is little point, as the xians freely tell you about the devil;
the point of dressing as Xenu is that $cienos try to conceal his
existence from the wogs, so we tell the public what they're not
supposed to hear...
_
(")
-- __`__ _____________________________________________
< > "Hollywood celebs? they're either alcoholics
| or $cientologists!" :
/ \ _____________________Madonna Luisa Ciccone___
/ \ art by Al Tinsley.

Diane Richardson

unread,
Mar 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/21/97
to

Margaret Huffstickler <marg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Dave Touretzky wrote:
>>
>> In article <5gk2fe$p...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,


>> Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
>> >seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery,

[snip]

> just as
>> >if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
>> >long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.

>The analogy is false. Xenu's role in the Scientology belief structure
>most emphatically does *not* equal Christ's in the Christian belief
>structure. He's more the equivalent of Satan, and I haven't observed
>that Christians view devil costumes as a sign of mockery of their
>faith.

Well, actually some Christians *do* view devil costumes as a
mockery of their faith.

My sister teaches in a school district that uses the nickname and
mascot "Blue Devil." Just last year they succeeded in having a
lawsuit brought against them dismissed in appellate court. The school
district has spent thousands of dollars in legal fees over this
lawsuit, which has dragged on for years. The plaintiff in the suit --
a fundamentalist Christian preacher -- has vowed to sue again over the
district's use of an anti-Christian, satanic mascot.

The school district also spends a great deal of money on educating the
preacher's grandson. His tuition and transportation to another
school, which uses an "acceptable" mascot, are paid for in full by the
school district. This is done so that the student is not required to
view a mural of the Blue Devil which appears on the gymnasium wall.

Sadly, this travesty occurs in one of the most underfunded school
districts in the state. Tax dollars which are sorely needed to
educate children are being wasted on frivolous litigation.

I realize this is off-topic, but thought it might be of interest.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net


Stanley Anderson

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> writes:

>That used to be true. Now I'm not so sure. Xenu is getting a *lot*
>of press these days. He was mentioned by name in the Tampa channel 28
>"Inside Scientology" segment, and they showed the costume. He was
>mentioned by name in the NPR show, All Things Considered. He was
>mentioned by name in the New York Times story. Xenu's career is on
>the rise! Who knows where he'll turn up next?

Well, he turned up in the 'George' magazine article on Germany vs. Scien-
tology in the latest issue!

Stan Anderson

Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

Ted Mayett (KoX) (te...@skylink.net) wrote:

: On 18 Mar 1997 04:45:48 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:

: >I honestly don't see any point in mocking a belief that no one knows
: >anything about. It just makes you look like a lunatic.

: Xenu is becoming common knowledge.
: Xenu is mentioned in newspaper articles printed by prestigious and
: widely read newspapers. I believe that Xenu has been mentioned on TV
: and radio. More and more and more people know who Xenu is.
: In some cities Xenu has even appeared at pickets.

Scientology: The first "religion" laughed out of existence. Keith Henson
: --

Ceon Ramon

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

In article <E7BBJ...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
Scott McClare <samc...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <5gl6ls$12...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>,

>Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>Absolutely right. Anyone who wants to know the basic story of
>>Christianity/Judaism can pick up a book anywhere -- library, bookstore,
>>Christian Science Reading Room, hotel room -- and read about Christ and
>>his message.
>
>*ahem* Confusing names aside, "Christian Science" has about as much to
>do with Christianity as it does with science. It's essentially an
>offshoot of Theosophy and thus, like Scientology, a sort of Gnostic
>group.

Well, yeah, but that's irrelevent to my point, which was that it's one of
the places where you can pick up a Christian bible. (At least that's been
my experience.)

--Barbara (what, your feet have never hurt while you're waiting in the
rain for your bus that runs only once an hour and you just missed the last
one by 32 seconds? A Christian Science Reading Room is a quiet, clean
place where you can sit and read or write without having anyone pester
you)

Scott McClare

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

In article <5gvl7p$g...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>>*ahem* Confusing names aside, "Christian Science" has about as much to
>>do with Christianity as it does with science. It's essentially an
>>offshoot of Theosophy and thus, like Scientology, a sort of Gnostic
>>group.

>Well, yeah, but that's irrelevent to my point, which was that it's one of
>the places where you can pick up a Christian bible. (At least that's been
>my experience.)

OK. I was commenting more on the idea that you could "get the story
of Christianity/Judaism" there. Granted, you can pick up a standard
Bible and read it; however, orthodox Christianity is not what CS
teaches.

Your point was taken though. Besides, I don't believe _Science and
Health with a Key to the Scriptures_ or other Christian Science books
are "trade secrets," either.

Scott

--
Scott A. McClare SP4, GGBC42, KoX, <*>, MOoRMC, "Randi groupie"

azyuwish

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <3332B3...@concentric.net>,

> azyuwish <azyu...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Re: Christain Science
> >
> >Perhaps at some point Mary Baker Eddy did become a bit paranoid and did
> >become "litigious"..however your assertion that Christian Science ahs
> >nothing to do with Christ is off base.
> >
> >I attended Christian Science Church weekly for over one year because I
> >really like the philosophy of a Christ - led church rather than a
> >heirarchy of priests, bishops etc.
> >
> >You state that this church is based on Theosophy..actually is based on
> >an understanding or "gnosis" much older than Theosophy. It is actually
> >straight out of the Indian Vedas.
>
> It is straight out of Mesmer. Mesmer's ideas spread quickly.
> An American Atheist named Quimby read of Mesmer's cures and
> realized many 'miracles' were no such thing, but were capable
> of being done by anybody. He experimented with hypnotism
> and became a pretty successful 'faith healer', traveling widely,
> curing people, lecturing, teaching hypnotism and writing.
> Early on he cured Ms. Eddy of her various mystery ailments
> and hypochondria, and she became a Quimby disciple, working
> for him for some time. She had a religous reawakening from her
> childhood Christianity and combined Christianity with Quimby's
> ideas that many human ills were merely psychosomatic and curable,
> which she took to extremes, declaring all ilnesses were curable by proper
> belief.
>
> If you want to understand CS's roots, you have to understand Quimby and
> Mesmer.
>
Thanks Charles, but I still think she borrowed heavily from the
Vedas..as what she ultimately states is NOT about Faith Healing..Read
Prose Works..or Science and Health. She combined the Vedic
understanding (God-consciousness; concept of the Atman as the Divine
Self) with Christ's healing demonstrations. Divine Science of YOGA
(union with God) + Christ's healing miracles = Christian Science.

Azyuwish

> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> Slack!

William Barwell

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

In article <333179...@iag.net>, Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:

>Dave Touretzky wrote:
>> Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>> >[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
>> >seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery, just as

>> >if protesters at some other, fundamentalist Christian, cult brought in a
>> >long-haired bearded man in sandals hauling a big wooden cross.
>
>> It could be viewed as mockery, but that's a side issue. Let me
>> explain. Christians make no secret of what they believe. Your or I
>> may disagree with it, but we can't say we weren't told what is in
>> store for someone who joins a Christian church. No one is being
>> fooled. Bibles are available to all who seek them.
>
>That is the exact point. I see Xenu's presence as a blatant symbol of
>the lies and secrets of the Co$. What other ~religion~ do you know of
>that is so ashamed of what the core of their spiritual truths are that
>they work so hard and diligently to hide it from the knowledge of the
>public?

Absolutely. The sucker the public in with promises that are false,
(Dianetics will raise yer IQ, make your memory perfect) and then
start a graduated series of deceptions, never telling what they really
believe or teach. These silly teachings are part and parcel of the new,
improved false promises, (OT powers over time and space.)

They are thus relevant, and the very deceptions and bait and switch
approach of Scientology these hidden beliefs represent is very
objectionable.

>
>> Scientologists *do* try to keep their higher-level teachings secret,
>> while at the same time marketing them as incredibly powerful and
>> valuable, worth devoting huge amounts of time and money to learn.
>> This is, basically, consumer fraud.
>
>That is exactly what it is. Lying to the public with a smile on
>their face, and getting away with it because they have learned so
>well to hide behind the cause of religious persecution.
>

Exactly so.

>How totally odd that being required to be honest and accountable should
>be looked upon as being persecuted.
>

This should be read three times by everybody. Until cognition.

Honesty is not persecution.
Bait and switch is not acceptable.

William Barwell

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

Pope Charles

Oregon Ghost

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 21 Mar 1997 08:14:50 -0800, azyuwish <azyu...@concentric.net> wrote:

>Re: Christain Science
>
>Perhaps at some point Mary Baker Eddy did become a bit paranoid and did
>become "litigious"..however your assertion that Christian Science ahs
>nothing to do with Christ is off base.
>
>I attended Christian Science Church weekly for over one year because I
>really like the philosophy of a Christ - led church rather than a
>heirarchy of priests, bishops etc.
>

Alt.Religion.Scientology has nothing to do with Christian Science, but this
is a common misconception. This newsgroup deals with the religion of
Scientology found by the science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. For more
information about this church try:

The official church website: www.scientology.com

For more information about it's lies, human rights abuses, and attempts to
censor the internet try:

An Introduction To Scientology: www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
The Scientology sect vs. Internet: www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/scientol.html
The Lisa McPherson Memorial page: www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMzQ2ipS907qG1vFJAQG7fAP+O9KmoSP8D1DS9Kh8fJSYLvLWdQrxvWw2
1agqp6j6JsbEvfAO+iuXmjvjCQyyHwduQMZQT1tnzqfsGNzP83P7bJ/0WM7Jetu9
dJ8M9nwS5CZXReIWjsUwF9ZbWqJk5i7VNjXCW4r532tC+TdtvPO5MasFdxvpIM4f
VcHk/pv0Cno=
=Szes
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

KNIGHTS OF XENU INTERGALACTIC BIKER CLUB
"Touch the bikes and I'll stuff you in a Volcano, worthless Thetan."

Ron Newman

unread,
Mar 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/22/97
to

In article <3332B3...@concentric.net>, azyuwish
<azyu...@concentric.net> wrote:

> Re: Christain Science
>
> Perhaps at some point Mary Baker Eddy did become a bit paranoid and did
> become "litigious"..

The following is the full text of Roy Wallis's article "Religious sects and
the fear of publicity", published in the UK magazine _New Society_ for 7
June 1973. As you will see, this article compares the efforts of Christian
Science and Scientology to suppress written works unfavorable to their
respective Churches.

Roy Wallis wrote a number of essays about Scientology during the 1970s and
1980s, as well as the excellent full-length book _The Road to Total Freedom_
(Columbia University Press, 1977).

Since Roy Wallis is deceased and _New Society_ has folded,
I don't think anyone will seriously object to my posting it here.


"Religious sects and the fear of publicity"
by Roy Wallis
published in _New Society_ magazine, 7 June 1973.

(Roy Wallis is identified as "Lecturer in Sociology, University of Stirling")

subhead:
Few religious sects go to the lengths of the Scientologists to maintain
secrecy. But Christian Science was once a comparable example.

While some religious and quasi-religious sects, in their eagerness to broadcast
the word as widely as possible and bring new sheep into the fold, welcome
investigation by outsiders and the publication of books by former members about
their beliefs and practices, this is typically not always the case. Many seek
to discourage publicity and deny access to their activities to those who are
only casually or impartially interested. They feel that only the committed have
any right to observe or discuss the work of the sect.

The reason, I feel, is not far to seek. The members of a sect see themselves as
having a unique and privileged access to the truth not possessed by outsiders,
who are therefore likely to contaminate, misunderstand, or misrepresent the
doctrine and ritual. In some cases their scepticism on the objectivity of
observers is not unwarranted. The popular press seems, on occasion, to project
some of the more obvious Freudian fantasies onto new sectarian groups whose
beliefs and rituals they find incomprehensible. Many editors appear to have a
sneaking suspicion that something underhand is always going on in new sects that
do not welcome reporters, even if it is not always sexual immorality.

However, while some sects do not view investigators or even writers in their
own ranks favourably, not all have gone to the lengths of Christian Science
and Scientology to maintain secrecy.

One would hardly believe that the elderly gentlemen and middle-aged, middle
class
ladies who attend the services of Christian Science churches could be
mobilised into actively suppressing serious literary works discussing their
Church -- but at times in its history, such a belief would have been profoundly
misplaced. A pamphlet issued by Charles Scribner's Sons in 1930, _The Blight
that Failed_, gives an account of the difficulties faced by this publisher over
the appearance of a biography of the founder of Christian Science,
_Mrs. Eddy: the biography of a virginal mind_, by Edwin Franden Dakin.

Dakin had not been a Christian Scientist, but his interest in Mrs Eddy led him
to write the biography, which Scribners accepted for publication. After the
appearance of a public announcement for the book, Scribners were immediately
approached by the Christian Science Committee on Publication for New York
who made reference during a conversation with the publishers to a confidential
memorandum issued to Scribners' sales staff. The one-man Committee suggested
that the book be submitted to its office for a check on accuracy and
reliability -- an offer regarded by the publishers as censorship, which
they declined.

The pressure brought to bear then took a different form. Personal approaches
were made to Scribners executives by former schoolfriends in the Church.
When the book appeared, bookshops and libraries were visited as part of a
concerted campaign to persuade them not to take it. The bookshops were
threatened with boycott if they offered it for sale. Abusive letters
were sent to Scribners from all parts of the United States, many having
a highly stereotyped content and phraseology. So effective was the
campaign that, at one point, 70% of Scribners' normal retail outlets had
stopped selling the book and refused to display it. The campaign backfired,
however, since Scribners could advertise how important the work must be,
if so much effort was being expended to suppress it, and the book
eventually became a bestseller.

What is especially disconcerting is that this was not an isolated case.
An early biography of Mrs Eddy, originally published in article form in
_McLures Magazine_, later appeared as a full-length biography --
Georgine Milmine's _The Life of Mary Baker Eddy and the History of
Christian Science__ -- by Doubleday. The board of Mother Church was
able to purchase the copyright and plates of this book, effectively
preventing republication.

Adam H. Dickey's _Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy_, published in 1927, was
based on his observations of several years in which he acted as
Mrs. Eddy's secretary, and her specific instruction to him not long
before her death that he write a history of his experiences during
his time with her -- although the book was not published until after
his own death. On publication, the board of directors of the Church
wrote to every member of his Association of Students, requiring them
to return their copies, and reimbursed Mrs Dickey for the costs of
publication -- thereby acquiring the copyright. The book never saw
the light of day again.

In another case, after all other attempts at obstruction failed,
considerable pressure was brought to bear on Putman & Co., sufficient
to persuade them to make sweeping revisions in the manuscript of
High Studdert Kennedy's _Mrs. Eddy: her life, her work, her place
in history_. These revisions mutilated the book to such an extent that
his widow regarded it as bearing no relation to the original, and
she eventually established her own publishing trust to produce the book.

Finally, Arthur Corey, at one time a prominent Christian Science
practitioner, produced a volume based on materials employed by many
prominent teachers of Christian Science in their class instruction.
Although there was no formal prohibition against publishing materials
used in teaching the normal classes (passage through which is a
prerequisite to practitioner status), an informal taboo had emerged
against making public what took place in class or passing details
on to the uninitiated. Although Putnams expressed an initial interest
in Corey's book, _Class Instruction_, they eventually decided that
they were unwilling to face the campaign which would inevitably ensue
on publication.

Many of the teachers or their heirs, on orders from the Church,
protested against inclusion of their class materials in the book
_before_ its appearance, or even announcement, and threatened legal
action. Corey discovered that his financial position had been
investigated to discover whether he could stand the costs of a lawsuit.
Threats from a law firm representing the board of directors were
received, and a professional process server served a bogus injunction
on Corey to prohibit publication. When it did appear, editors of
periodicals which reviewed the book were subjected to an organised letter-
writing campaign. Furthermore, immense pressure was brought to bear
by Christian Science advertisers to prevent publicity in the press
and on radio. Many editors declined to give the book coverage
on the grounds that they could thereby escape the considerable nuisance
which had been caused them in the past when they had published materials
deemed objectionable by the Church. Bookshops again received threats
of boycott unless they ceased selling the volume. Charles Braden, from
whose book, _Christian Science Today_ , these details are taken, recounts
that many libraries refused to accept copies, and that copies disappeared
from libraries which did take the book. In one case even the index
card was stolen. Other copies were mutilated.

Braden himself, although an historian of contemporary religion of
undoubted eminence and integrity, found himself greatly obstructed
by the Church in his preparation of _Christian Science Today_. The
board of the Mother Church refused access to archival materials and
made several attempts, directly and indirectly, to secure the right
to censorship. Braden also recounts that he had evidence of Christian
Scientists organising themselves into groups which would arrange to
borrow in continuous rotation, from libraries which stocked them,
materials deemed by the Church to be objectionable. This was in order
to prevent other readers gaining access to such works.

Scientology, while a movement very different in style, bears many
similarities to Christian Science, and the Church of Scientology
and its leadership have also often taken objection to publications
regarding the movement. The policy of the Church with regard to
the press has been unequivocally stated by the movement's founder,
L. Ron Hubbard: "We are not interested in sensationalism,
personalities, or the complexity of Scientological methodology
being discussed by the general public. As a subdivision of this, we
do not want Scientology to be reported in the press, anywhere else
than on the religious page of newspapers... we should be very alert
to sue for slander at the slightest chance, so as to discourage the
public presses from mentioning Scientology" (Hubbard Communication
Office, 1965).

This policy has been followed assiduously. Indeed, so litigious
did Scientology become that Peter Horden MP was not far off the
mark when he claimed in the House of Commons on 6 March 1967 that
"every newspaper which so much as mentions Scientology is served
with a writ for libel." One source reports that at one point around
38 writs for libel were outstanding against individuals and
newspapers which had published statements on Scientology, although
some 36 of these were later withdrawn.

Scientologists appear to have followed the lead of Christian
Science in organising mass mailings of correspondence on at least
one occasion. Sir John Foster, when conducting the _Inquiry into
the Practices and Effects of Scientology_, received during the
first four to five weeks of his appointment some 1,178 testimonials
about Scientology. His report states, "over three quarters of them
included the statement `Scientology is my religion', and expanded
this assertion in a fairly standardised paragraph." Many arrived
in batches from the same place, and very few were received later.

A large proportion of those books which have so far appeared on
Scientology by outsiders or defectors have been the subject of
litigation. An Anglican minister, Maurice Burrell, wrote a book
called _Scientology: what it is and what it does_, which appeared
briefly in 1970. The publishers were taken to court on the
grounds that the book might prejudice the fair trial of cases in
which Scientology was then involved. The publishers, a small
company, did not appeal the decision although legal opinion had
been offered to the effect that such an appeal would most likely be
won.

Cyril Vosper's _The Mind Benders_ was to be published in September
1971. The day before publication, the Scientologists secured an
injunction delaying publication. The movement lost an appeal by
the publishers against the injunction and their own appeal to the
House of Lords was also rejected. The action against the book
having failed, an action against its writer and publisher for
contempt of court was brought and again lost. An appeal was
initiated, but the Scientologists withdrew before its hearing. An
action for libel remains to be pursued by the movement.

At one stage in this litigation, a High Court judge was reported
(in the _Daily Telegraph_) to have said of applications by the
Church of Scientology to have Vosper and a newspaper editor
committed to jail for contempt of court, that these were
deliberately made "to try to stifle any criticism or inquiry into
their affairs."

Three American works, George Malko's volume, _Scientology The Now
Religion_, published in 1970, Paulette Cooper's _The Scandal of
Scientology_, which appeared in 1971, and Robert Kaufman's _Inside
Scientology_, have also been the subject of extensive litigation.
An injunction preventing the publication of Kaufman's book in
Britain was recently lifted by the High Court.

Extensive litigation is only one of the hazards to which writers
on Scientology are subject. They appear to be disproportionately
subject to mysterious and unpleasant happenings. On one
occasion, a manuscript and, on another, a master galley proof of
books on Scientology mysteriously disappeared. One author on holiday
in Spain was questioned by the police when they opened a parcel
addressed to his lodgings containing obscene caricatures of
General Franco. Notices were put in trade journals declaring that
one publisher of a work on Scientology had gone bankrupt and retailers
were circulated with false notices to the effect that their stocks
of this work should be returned for cash. A bogus injunction was
served on one writer who had entered a suit for harassment against
Scientology in the United States. The complaint issued by her lawyers
includes making visits to the author's apartment late at night,
spying on her apartment, tapping her phone, employing a photographer
to follow her for three days, and numerous other attempts at
harassment and intimidation. The suit claims damages of several
million dollars.

My own experiences, while less dramatic, follow a similar pattern.
As a product of research for a doctoral thesis on Scientology, I wrote
a paper called "The sectarianism of Scientology," which I sent
to the leaders of the movement in East Grinstead for comments,
before publication. The comments I received clearly indicated that
they did not view the paper favourably, and a very useful body
of documentation was supplied to support their views, resulting in
slight modifications to the paper.

Shortly after this, a young man arrived at the University of Stirling
representing himself as a graduate of Bristol and claiming an
interest in Scottish religion. On being sent to see me he asked
if he might attend my lectures and tutorials, and also if I could
put him up for a few days. This I declined to do, having realised
that I had last seen him wearing a staff member's uniform at the
Scientology headquarters. I did not reveal my suspicions, being
unsure how to react, until the following day, when I learned that
he had visited my home in my absence, seeking to gain entry.

On being confronted, he agreed that he had been a Scientologist,
but claimed to be a defector, having come to Stirling to sell me
information. He gave as referees a professor at Bristol and
another prominent defector. The defector did not know the man,
while the Bristol professor recognised the description as belonging
to a former student who was apparently using an assumed name.
Before leaving Stirling rather hurriedly, the young man visited
students, claiming to be a friend of mine, asking about me,
my course and the "drug scene" at Stirling. It appears he then
visited another northern university seeking information.

A day or two later I received a telephone call from this young man
of an inconsequential kind, the tone of which could best be
described as "threatening to be threatening." I also received
a telephone call from someone claiming to be a policeman, which
was too garbled to make any sense at all. The net significant event
was the receipt of two letters, by a sociologist at the northern
university. The first was a covering letter, claiming the second
letter was circulating at Stirling. The signature was indecipherable.
The letter enclosed with it purported to be a reply to me, thanking
me for information concerning a drug scandal at the northern
university, implicating the sociologist, and indicating that
this information had been passed to the Drug Squad at Scotland Yard.
It was addressed from the Monday Club in London and bore a fair
facsimile of the director's signature. The letter was a forgery.

A later batch of letters was addressed to "The Chancellor" of
Stirling University. The covering letter this time was purportedly
from a disgusted landlady. Contained with it were two homosexual
love letters of an obscene kind, written on Stirling Department
of Sociology notepaper -- or more probably a photograph copy of the
letter-head -- typed on a machine with a distinctive type-face very
similar to my personal portable, and signed with my name. On investigation
by the police the landlady was found not to exist.

During the student troubles at Stirling, letters similar to those
received by the northern sociologist were also received by
Digby Jacks, President of the National Union of Students. These
letters indicated that I was one of those responsible for reporting
students for disciplinary proceedings, and that I was "working for
a right-wing organisation." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not usually prone to this kind of correspondence and the
implication is strong that, whether with or without the connivance
of the leadership of the Scientology movement, I was the subject of
a concerted attempt at harassment designed to "frighten me off"
Scientology, to undermine my credibility as a commentator on their
activities, or to keep my so busy handling these matters that I had
little time for research.

While these events are disturbing, as they have been for myself and
other writers on this movement, their motivation is not hard to
understand. If a group regards itself as embodying the absolute truth,
as did Christian Science in earlier years and Scientology today, then
only those fully versed in and committed to the beliefs and practices
in question will be seen as legitimate commentators upon them. Since
both are highly authoritarian sects, to permit commentary by outsiders
threatens to undermine the authority of the leadership as the sole
legitimate interpreters of the doctrine. Moreover, in the development
of most social movements, events will occur at one stage or another
that may contrast uncomfortably with a later, more sophisticated
rhetoric. We all have skeletons we would prefer left unexposed,
Christian Science and Scientology and their founders no less than the
rest of us. The misfortune of Mrs. Eddy and Ron Hubbard was that
in an age of instant communication, no respectable period has been
permitted to elapse during which such skeletons could be effectively
buried, or passed off as a youthful aberration of their movements.

Vilification of the enemy is therefore a natural recourse. The enemies
of Christian Science are vilified as practitioners of "malicious
animal magnetism" and the Catholic Church is seen as the chief repository
of this maleficent force. The enemies of Scientology are seen as
engaged in a world conspiracy fostered by the "psycho-politicians"
to deny man the "total freedom" available through Scientology. Psychiatrists
and mental health organisations are those principally seen as engaged
in this "suppressive" activity.

But sectarian movements draw their boundaries rather sharply. Their world is
black and white. Those who are not for them are against them, and
the observer on the sidelines is liable to be tarred with the same brush
as their most rabid opponent.

[Citations listed in the right margin:

Charles S. Braden, _Christian Science Today_ (Dallas: Methodist
University Press, 1969

Roy Wallis, "The sectarianism of Scientology" in Michael Hill (ed),
_A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain_ (SCM Press, 1973)

Sir John G. Foster, "Scientology and its enemies" (_Inquiry into
the Practice and Effects of Scientology_, HMSO, 1971
]

[Credit line in right margin:
Roy Wallis is Lecturer in Sociology, University of Stirling
]

--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html

Paul

unread,
Mar 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/24/97
to

Ron Newman wrote:
> "Religious sects and the fear of publicity"
> by Roy Wallis
> published in _New Society_ magazine, 7 June 1973.

[much snipped]

> If a group regards itself as embodying the absolute truth,
> as did Christian Science in earlier years and Scientology today, then
> only those fully versed in and committed to the beliefs and practices
> in question will be seen as legitimate commentators upon them.

We should preserve this paragraph. How many times have we heard
Scientologists claim that critics of Scientology aren't qualified to
comment on its practices because they haven't learned everything there
is to know about Scientology?

> Since both are highly authoritarian sects, to permit commentary by
> outsiders threatens to undermine the authority of the leadership as
> the sole legitimate interpreters of the doctrine.

And this goes far to explain the litigious nature of Scientology, as
well as the hostile attitudes that critics have seen at pickets and the
like.

-Paul

Jim Bianchi

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

On 20 Mar 1997 09:52:39 GMT, Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
>In article <5gpujp$m...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,

>Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I'd like to see such short animated films as "Hubbard and Daffy
>>Duck Discuss Causality," "Scientologists Meet Bugs," and "Elmer Fudd in
>>Clearwater."
>
>"The Three Stooges Visit the Org" is in pre-production for an October,
>1997 release date. Moe becomes an FSM and plans to sell Scientology
>services on commission. Meanwhile Larry experiments with an E-Meter,
>but when Curly keys in a clam engram and goes berserk, Moe slaps them
>both silly. All three stooges are declared PTS type III and thrown
>out of the org.
>
>-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Sig! Sig! Sig: "Poor clams <nyuk><nyuk><yuk>" Actually, I kinda
fancy the utter demolition Groucho Marx, say, could do with a scieno
scenario!

--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279


Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Mar 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/27/97
to

In article <5gr1d7$2fd$1...@mistletoe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>,
Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
>In article <5gpujp$m...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
>Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I'd like to see such short animated films as "Hubbard and Daffy
>>Duck Discuss Causality," "Scientologists Meet Bugs," and "Elmer Fudd in
>>Clearwater."

I missed that before --- that is truly excellent. When will
these films be available for public viewing (ROFL) !


>
>"The Three Stooges Visit the Org" is in pre-production for an October,
>1997 release date.

--
(o_ (o< (o_ _o) (o<)< (0_ (o|:
//\ //\ (o_ (o_ //\ //\ //\ //\ //\:
V_/_ V_/_ (/)_ (/)_ V_/_ V_/_ V_/_ V_/_ V_/_
pppppppick up a penguin, art by chd j day:

Brennan M. O'Keefe

unread,
Mar 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/28/97
to

In article <5gpujp$m...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Ceon Ramon <ce...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>Actually, I'd like to see such short animated films as "Hubbard and Daffy
>Duck Discuss Causality," "Scientologists Meet Bugs," and "Elmer Fudd in
>Clearwater."

Oh, I can think of some more appropriate cartoons.

"Gee, Elron, what are we going to do tomorrow night?"

"The same thing we do every night, Poodle-boy: Try to Clear the Planet!"

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Mar 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/28/97
to

In article <slrn5jlqs7...@bolt.sonic.net>,
Jim Bianchi <ji...@bolt.sonic.net> writes:
>>"The Three Stooges Visit the Org" is in pre-production for an October,
>>1997 release date. Moe becomes an FSM and plans to sell Scientology
>>services on commission. Meanwhile Larry experiments with an E-Meter,
>>but when Curly keys in a clam engram and goes berserk, Moe slaps them
>>both silly. All three stooges are declared PTS type III and thrown
>>out of the org.
>>
>>-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4+++++): nyuk nyuk nyuk.
>
> Sig! Sig! Sig: "Poor clams <nyuk><nyuk><yuk>" Actually, I kinda
>fancy the utter demolition Groucho Marx, say, could do with a scieno
>scenario!

Oh, if only.

--
## ## " From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down
(@ (@ I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it"
\
##### | Da...@xemu.demon.co.uk quote collection---cfbd
~\_====+ www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ picture---Ian Broverman

Tovaresch

unread,
Apr 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/5/97
to

>> >[snip]... I personally think Xenu costumes are ill-advised. It
>> >seems to me this could easily be interpreted as spiteful mockery,
=============

While there is some tradition of wearing masks at a picket (Iranian
students before the fall of the Shah, a few times outside the Los Angeles
complex near the start of the schism) it is mostly interpreted by the lay
public as a sign that the side wearing masks might engage in violence.
This makes it unadvisable.

Also some US jurisdictions specifically prohibit wearing a mask or costume
in public for many purposes.

-- Don't be alarmed. I'm your friend. Do as I say and no harm can come to you. --

Tovaresch

unread,
Apr 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/5/97
to

<< Subject: Re: Boulder Picket
From: hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 00:15:59 GMT
Message-ID: <hkhensonE...@netcom.com>

Ted Mayett (KoX) (te...@skylink.net) wrote:
: On 18 Mar 1997 04:45:48 GMT, ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:

: >I honestly don't see any point in mocking a belief that no one knows
: >anything about. It just makes you look like a lunatic. >>

EXACLTY. And for that matter even if people did know about it, it's a
none issue. I could spend the whole rest of my life never once
complaining about Scientology if it would alter its behavior towards
unsuspecting people. I could let those idiots delude each other to their
hearts content and put up with lots. I wouldn't care if they believed a
giant polka-dot space ship was coming to pass out gummy bears - spicy ones
to the bad and sweet ones to the good - or any other endless list of
nonesense.

Xenu is not an issue worth the bandwidth. The stupidity of the religion
of Scientology is not an issue. Its unacceptable behavior is what is
properly an issue.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages