The misconception of Gerry Armstron about 'criticism'
Spacetraveler
he refuses to respond to.
The full communication you can consult here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
Quoted:
Gerry:
> >> but fair game -- the
> >> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
> >> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
> >> for criticism, decades ago.
> >
> >Define criticism in this context.
>
> Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
> faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
> accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
> Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
>
> [Quote]
>
> Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
> have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
> found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
> existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
> criminal pasts.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
> find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
> lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who do
> not have criminal pasts.
>
> Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
My response:
Did he? "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
on. It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
This HCOB is robably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
clear up that issue or to get lost.
Another quote relating to criticism:
Gerry:
> > The simplicity of it
> >is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
>
> No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
> by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
> If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
> totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
> then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
> SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
>
> If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
> and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
> necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
> Game.
My response:
Only criticisms, or not agreeing with Scientology does not get you
fair gaimed. It needs a little more doingness. And please don't call
it my organization, it isn't. It is this simple, if you have a cougar
jumping on you, you better do something, if not you will surely die.
Spacetraveler
nobody
Spacetraveler says...
>
>The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong
>that he refuses to respond to.
You're running enforced havingness again, just like Hubbard.
>A critic in that context is someone who's goal likely is to be
>the opposite of that.
You have a misunderstood.
>The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
>as described in HCOB Justifications.
You have another misunderstood. No wonder you act like an idiot.
>And please don't call it my organization, it isn't.
You're dubbing in again. Just like a scientologist infected with
Hubbard's program. You're an ignorant twit.
Genesis
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> he refuses to respond to.
Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
Its should be obvious to you Gerry has decided
not to give or recieve communication from a troll,
you know, code of honor # 8, since you, yourself,
insist on quotiing hcobs. Perhaps he is using his
power of choice and self determination, you know,
from the tape of the same.
And you claim its not your orginization. Then why
would you stoop sooooo low to defend it, and cite
references.
The church has been after Gerry, trying to put the
guy in jail for years.
Lets see if you can understand this space for brains.
The creed of the church says all men have
the right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
their own opinions and to counter and write upon the
opinions of others.
Gee space for brains, if the church really believes this,
why would they spend millions and millions in court
trying to stop people like Gerry from speaking. Why
would the church have ex-member sign a gag order.
What is the church so afraid of.
Can you say hypocrisy.
Now be a good troll and go away.
Genesis
--true awareness is only enjoyed by a few--
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.clambake.org
http://ThetaNews.da.ru
The Secrets of Scientology
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets
Karin Spaink
http://www.spaink.net
Arnie Lerma
http://www.lermanet.com
Tilman Hausherr
http://www.snafu.de/tilman
Ron Newman
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html
^ a historical look at the Co$ vs. the Internet
http://www.spaink.net/cos/rnewman/home.html
^ Netherlands mirror, courtesy of Karin Spaink
NARCONON-EXPOSED.ORG (Chris Owen)
http://www.narconon-exposed.org
ScientologyWatch.org
http://www.scientologywatch.org
Stop-Narconon.org
http://Stop-Narconon.org
Ball of Fluff
"Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> > he refuses to respond to.
>
> Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
> Its should be obvious to you Gerry has decided
> not to give or recieve communication from a troll,
> you know, code of honor # 8, since you, yourself,
> insist on quotiing hcobs. Perhaps he is using his
> power of choice and self determination, you know,
> from the tape of the same.
> And you claim its not your orginization.
If you know it's from Spacetraveler's "organization" then you know
Spacetraveler is not a troll. Yes, he's an anon. So are lots of non Scn'ists
posting here.
> Then why
> would you stoop sooooo low to defend it, and cite
> references.
> The church has been after Gerry, trying to put the
> guy in jail for years.
>
> Lets see if you can understand this space for brains.
>
> The creed of the church says all men have
> the right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
> their own opinions and to counter and write upon the
> opinions of others.
>
> Gee space for brains, if the church really believes this,
> why would they spend millions and millions in court
> trying to stop people like Gerry from speaking. Why
> would the church have ex-member sign a gag order.
> What is the church so afraid of.
'Cuz they don't subscribe to their own Creed?
>
> Can you say hypocrisy.
>
> Now be a good troll and go away.
I don't think he's necessarily a troll. He's probably a church member. That
is not the criterion for being a troll. He's evidently an Anon, but that's
not a criterion for being a troll although, coupled with other factors, it
can be an adjunctive one.
As to how he's treating Gerry- it's not so different than the way Gerry has
sometimes treated some others...
C
nobody
Spaceflunker is a total idiot and hypocrite. And a tiring one
at that...
ladayla
Gerry sure gets more than his share of them!
wbarwell
Yes. Not all critics of Stupidololoy have any criminal backrounds
at all. Here, Hubbard spewed bullshit. Its obvious bullshit.
And you here look like again, ypu are going to try to spin around
teh issue here, Hubbard said something false, stupid and mean spirited.
"random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
> only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
> Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
> this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
> prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
> on.
Blah, blah, blah.
I was right.
Did Hubbard claim that it is a fact that all
Sceintology critics inevitably prove to have
a criminal backround? Yes.
Is it bullshit?
Yes.
Is it pro-survival to make stupid claims and then spin madly
and wildly when confronted with them?
No.
It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
> is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
> still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
> as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
> with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
> at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
evil ways.
As with most SPs here, I have been investigated by
good ol' Scientology. They will have found nothing,
except an occasional traffic ticket. I live a life boringly
uncriminal, 72 year old Episcopalian ministers have more
exciting lives than I.
Hubbard says that since I speak out, I must have a criminal
backround, have crimes in my backround that could send me
to prison.
Its false and watching you try to get Hubbard offteh hook for such
a nasty and truely STUPID bit of animal grunting malovence
with this convoluted balderdash word salad is embaressing as hell.
> This HCOB is robably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
> very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
> you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
> this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
> clear up that issue or to get lost.
Only misunderstood by those who willfully misunderstand it
because they are Hubbard worshippers who cannot admit Hubbard
was wrong about anything at all.
Rank apologisms like this NEVER work with critics, even mildly
interested lurkers.
What Hubbard was quoted as saying above is so obvious in intent
it is simply futile to try to spin it as something else that what it
obviously is.
White is not black, up is not down and yes is not no.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
Spacetraveler
> "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> > > he refuses to respond to.
> >
> > Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
> > Its should be obvious to you Gerry has decided
> > not to give or recieve communication from a troll,
> > you know, code of honor # 8, since you, yourself,
> > insist on quotiing hcobs. Perhaps he is using his
> > power of choice and self determination, you know,
> > from the tape of the same.
> > And you claim its not your orginization.
>
> If you know it's from Spacetraveler's "organization" then you know
> Spacetraveler is not a troll. Yes, he's an anon. So are lots of non Scn'ists
> posting here.
Not sure what you mean by an 'anon', what does that mean?
> > Then why
> > would you stoop sooooo low to defend it, and cite
> > references.
> > The church has been after Gerry, trying to put the
> > guy in jail for years.
> >
> > Lets see if you can understand this space for brains.
> >
> > The creed of the church says all men have
> > the right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
> > their own opinions and to counter and write upon the
> > opinions of others.
> >
> > Gee space for brains, if the church really believes this,
> > why would they spend millions and millions in court
> > trying to stop people like Gerry from speaking. Why
> > would the church have ex-member sign a gag order.
> > What is the church so afraid of.
>
> 'Cuz they don't subscribe to their own Creed?
>
> >
> > Can you say hypocrisy.
> >
> > Now be a good troll and go away.
>
> I don't think he's necessarily a troll. He's probably a church member. That
> is not the criterion for being a troll. He's evidently an Anon, but that's
> not a criterion for being a troll although, coupled with other factors, it
> can be an adjunctive one.
>
> As to how he's treating Gerry- it's not so different than the way Gerry has
> sometimes treated some others...
Gerry only had to take up our communication. That's basically all
there is to it. Instead he started to jump on me giving me names and
wronging me on other posts. All unsupported by factual reasoning.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> In article <9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com>,
> Spacetraveler says...
> >
> >The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong
> >that he refuses to respond to.
>
> You're running enforced havingness again, just like Hubbard.
Where is the argument?
>
> >A critic in that context is someone who's goal likely is to be
> >the opposite of that.
>
> You have a misunderstood.
Where is the argument?
>
> >The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
> >as described in HCOB Justifications.
>
> You have another misunderstood. No wonder you act like an idiot.
Where is the argument?
>
> >And please don't call it my organization, it isn't.
>
> You're dubbing in again. Just like a scientologist infected with
> Hubbard's program. You're an ignorant twit.
Still "Talkin' loud and sayin' nothin'"........
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> > he refuses to respond to.
>
> Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
Funny, you haven't understood why I am doing this. .-)
I never disclosed why, it needs a very careful observer and someone
with a flexible mind to actually find out.
> Its should be obvious to you Gerry has decided
> not to give or recieve communication from a troll,
> you know, code of honor # 8, since you, yourself,
> insist on quotiing hcobs. Perhaps he is using his
> power of choice and self determination, you know,
> from the tape of the same.
> And you claim its not your orginization. Then why
> would you stoop sooooo low to defend it, and cite
> references.
> The church has been after Gerry, trying to put the
> guy in jail for years.
>
> Lets see if you can understand this space for brains.
>
> The creed of the church says all men have
> the right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
> their own opinions and to counter and write upon the
> opinions of others.
>
> Gee space for brains, if the church really believes this,
> why would they spend millions and millions in court
> trying to stop people like Gerry from speaking. Why
> would the church have ex-member sign a gag order.
> What is the church so afraid of.
>
> Can you say hypocrisy.
>
> Now be a good troll and go away.
Gerry is your hero, he shares your convictions. So, you have to take
his side, not matter what, even when he slips. That's not looking,
that's stupidity.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Read the whole issue.
>
> And you here look like again, ypu are going to try to spin around
> teh issue here, Hubbard said something false, stupid and mean spirited.
Sorry, you are the spinning one, rambling along and so on.
> "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
> > only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
> > Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
> > this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
> > prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
> > on.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
>
> I was right.
>
> Did Hubbard claim that it is a fact that all
> Sceintology critics inevitably prove to have
> a criminal backround? Yes.
> Is it bullshit?
> Yes.
Did you ever read the whole issue "Critics of Scientology". Probably
not.
>
> Is it pro-survival to make stupid claims and then spin madly
> and wildly when confronted with them?
> No.
>
>
>
> It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
> > is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
> > still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
> > as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
> > with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
> > at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
>
>
> Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
> I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
> in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
> evil ways.
I have not seen you ever make any positive remark concerning L. Ron
hubbard or Scientology. You have proclaimed time after time after time
that it is all balderdash. Everything of it.
See, a rational person with no bad conscience can actually look at
what is right there in front of him. You however only spout
generalities, even change dictionary definitions to fit your own
purposes ('fair game'). Avoid to give direct answers to arguments
making you uncomfortable and so on. And how ALL is bad about
Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
The above shows that you have not given it a chance, this contrary to
what you claim. Sounds like 1.1 to me. You are sitting on something,
something that you want to keep away from public knowledge. Kinda like
psychoanalysis this is, it is not only Scientology who came to that
conclusion.
There is always a motivation for doing something. We have seen how you
respond to posts, how you continuously ramble along. Spouting opinions
and so on. You are behaving like that for a reason.
> As with most SPs here, I have been investigated by
> good ol' Scientology. They will have found nothing,
> except an occasional traffic ticket. I live a life boringly
> uncriminal, 72 year old Episcopalian ministers have more
> exciting lives than I.
>
> Hubbard says that since I speak out, I must have a criminal
> backround, have crimes in my backround that could send me
> to prison.
>
> Its false and watching you try to get Hubbard offteh hook for such
> a nasty and truely STUPID bit of animal grunting malovence
> with this convoluted balderdash word salad is embaressing as hell.
Why getting emotional about this? Why? If someone would accuse me of
such things, I basically would not give a damn. I know if I have done
something or not. It would not get me out of my balance, you however
drop your balance as shown in above paragraph.
>
>
> > This HCOB is robably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
> > very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
> > you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
> > this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
> > clear up that issue or to get lost.
>
> Only misunderstood by those who willfully misunderstand it
> because they are Hubbard worshippers who cannot admit Hubbard
> was wrong about anything at all.
Are you not of that opinion? Was L. Ron Hubbard not WRONG about
EVERYTHING?
> Rank apologisms like this NEVER work with critics, even mildly
> interested lurkers.
> What Hubbard was quoted as saying above is so obvious in intent
> it is simply futile to try to spin it as something else that what it
> obviously is.
>
> White is not black, up is not down and yes is not no.
And that's why you throw around your generalities nd spout you
opinions. Relative or not relative (mostly irrelative though).
From "Critics of Scientology" (1st 4 paragraphs):
If Aunt Ermiltrude each night went through your change purse and
extracted divers coins without your knowledge, and then if she found
you had joined a group that could discover secrets, her immediate and
passionate reaction would be to damn the group and you as well.
If the wife was stepping out with your best friend behind your back,
and one day she found you had thoughts of joining agroup that taught
you people's motives and reactions and made you understand them, she
would throw a mad-dog fit to prevent your progress.
If a government were busy making capital out of people's ignorance of
economics and world affairs and was playing a double game and a group
came along and started to make its people smarter and more
knowledgable of true motives, that government would try to shoot every
member of that group on sight.
If a group of "scientists" were knowingly raising the number of insane
to get more appropriation and "treatment" fees and somebody came along
with the real answer, that group would move heaven and earth to
protect its billions of rake-off. L. Ron Hubbard
Spacetraveler
nobody
says...
>
>nobody <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
>news:<101283492.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com>,
>> Spacetraveler says...
>> >
>> >The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong
>> >that he refuses to respond to.
>>
>> You're running enforced havingness again, just like Hubbard.
>
>Where is the argument?
Now you're being dishonest in pretending you don't understand
that by insisting Gerry respond you are running an enforced
havingness, i.e. that he must have further communication with
you.
>> >A critic in that context is someone who's goal likely is to be
>> >the opposite of that.
>>
>> You have a misunderstood.
>
>Where is the argument?
Just look at your incorrect use of the word ("who's") above.
This, according to Scientology, is evidence of a misunderstood.
>> >The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
>> >as described in HCOB Justifications.
>>
>> You have another misunderstood. No wonder you act like an idiot.
>
>Where is the argument?
Same as above, you little idiot. Word clear "gets".
>> >And please don't call it my organization, it isn't.
>>
>> You're dubbing in again. Just like a scientologist infected with
>> Hubbard's program. You're an ignorant twit.
>
>Still "Talkin' loud and sayin' nothin'"........
>
>Spacetraveler
Spaceflunker, as usual, blind, ignorant and rude, and unable to
admit it publicly.
Ball of Fluff
> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > > > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong
that
> > > > he refuses to respond to.
> > >
> > > Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
> > > Its should be obvious to you Gerry has decided
> > > not to give or recieve communication from a troll,
> > > you know, code of honor # 8, since you, yourself,
> > > insist on quotiing hcobs. Perhaps he is using his
> > > power of choice and self determination, you know,
> > > from the tape of the same.
> > > And you claim its not your orginization.
> >
> > If you know it's from Spacetraveler's "organization" then you know
> > Spacetraveler is not a troll. Yes, he's an anon. So are lots of non
Scn'ists
> > posting here.
>
> Not sure what you mean by an 'anon', what does that mean?
Anon is short for anonymous. Anonymous posters do not post their real names.
You are an Anon. I am not since my real name and location have been posted a
number of times.
<snip>
> >
> > As to how he's treating Gerry- it's not so different than the way Gerry
has
> > sometimes treated some others...
>
> Gerry only had to take up our communication. That's basically all
> there is to it. Instead he started to jump on me giving me names and
> wronging me on other posts. All unsupported by factual reasoning.
But that's what he does. Ever see his goon squad OSA follies web page? Case
in point.
There are critics here with whom you can have a real discussion. I'd suggest
you talk with them and not with Gerry.
C
Gerry Armstrong
You have an example, Claire? Do you have something to support your
ever-so-enlightened, ever-so-knowledgeable black PR?
Ha, ha, ha, ha ha. You can't say. You've got me kill-filed. Wow, I can
say anything I want, and you can't see it! Your pants are on fire.
Made you look.
> Ever see his goon squad OSA follies web page?
Almost a universal code among the people whose posts are made
available on the GoON sQUaD Follies page
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
is fibbing about the page's name.
They keep trying to somehow involve OSA. OSA this and OSA that and OSA
something else. OSA, OSA, OSA. And, of course, doing so, in almost all
circumstances and communications, they serve OSA's malevolent purposes
toward the cult's fair game targets.
> Case in point.
Go ahead, it's safe, Spacetrojan.
>
>There are critics here with whom you can have a real discussion. I'd suggest
>you talk with them and not with Gerry.
Yes, watch out. Gerry is very scary. Avoid him like Claire does. She
proves she can't have a real discussion with me by kill-filing me.
Give that a try and see if it works for you.
Then you really will be telling the truth about my not answering your
BS because, like Claire, you won't know the truth of my post is there.
Without kill-filing me you have to lie and you know everyone knows
you're lying. Then you've got to hang onto this huge withhold, which
you've got to know everyone knows about too. And so it grows. Yes, I'd
say that since you're at least as veraciously challenged as Claire, a
kill-file is your one real hope.
If you kill-filed everyone, would you still hear them laughing?
>
>C
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Keith Henson
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:12:26 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>
>>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>>> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
>>news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>>> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>> > >
>>> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
snip
You might take a look at the "cooking" thread between spacetraveler
and me for style on both sides.
Being nice to spacetraveler doesn't cost anything and he reciprocates.
He is deeply mired in cult-think, but that's a reason for pity rather
than being nasty. Besides, there is a glimmer of native smarts in him
and a deep dissatisfaction with the way scientology is run today.
There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod like
Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
Best wishes,
Keith Henson
Ball of Fluff
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:410d48af...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I'm not in any CofS mindset. I question many things and am highly critical
not only of the organization but of Hubbard. You stated that my stance is
that when abuses and such occur that I say "this isn't Scn" and that I don't
see that LRH created many of the problems with the church today. That simply
isn't true. So since you don't even recognize my stance, then you really
cannot attest as to my mindset.
C
Rodi
................................................................
Well well, and......................well
How many amount of people ataking the critics of the Cave of
Scientology!
You do not have no one single name or face, you do not have what you
needs for be here, and posting your trash!
The Cave of Scientology,Please for further information about THE CAVE
OF SCIENTOLOGY visit:
THE FILES OF RODI
SCIENTOLOGY THE FRAUD EXPOSED
http://ar.geocities.com/rodi4f/
Will be Justice!
Rodi.
Zinj
says...
The person with the 'Scientology Mindset' will alwas be the 'last to
know'. That's one of the purposes of the 'Tech'.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Keith Henson
>
>"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:410d48af...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
snip
>>
>> There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod like
>> Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
>> mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
>
>I'm not in any CofS mindset. I question many things and am highly critical
>not only of the organization but of Hubbard. You stated that my stance is
>that when abuses and such occur that I say "this isn't Scn" and that I don't
>see that LRH created many of the problems with the church today. That simply
>isn't true. So since you don't even recognize my stance, then you really
>cannot attest as to my mindset.
Claire, my comment was not meant as any kind of criticism of you or
your attitude toward scientology. It makes me very happy that your
are not contributing to an outfit that has spent at least $1.4 million
giving me trouble.
But I think you would recognize a continuum between say spacetraveler
and Dan Garvin.
Where would you put yourself on such an imaginary line?
Keith Henson
roger gonnet
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> he refuses to respond to.
We know that one of the last tricks of scientology OSAers to "handle"
critics is to assert that they don't answer to communications.
Anyway, regarding Gerry, even if it was true that he does not repsond, he
can allegate that it's attornyey's - client privilege, since he is is own
attorney.
You're a brainwashed clam, "space" traveler in your brainwashed head!.
r
Spacetraveler
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:21:10 -0700, Gerry Armstrong
> <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:12:26 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
> >
> >>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> >>> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
> news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> >>> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
>
> snip
>
> You might take a look at the "cooking" thread between spacetraveler
> and me for style on both sides.
>
> Being nice to spacetraveler doesn't cost anything and he reciprocates.
> He is deeply mired in cult-think,
Based on? How do we know that you are not in cult think?
> but that's a reason for pity rather
> than being nasty. Besides, there is a glimmer of native smarts
Only a glimmer?
> in him
> and a deep dissatisfaction with the way scientology is run today.
Because it is not Scientology.
>
> There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod
> like
> Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
> mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
she broke out of anything. It may very well be so that she jumped
right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
sudden she can see? Think again.
The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
and Armstrong.
People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
THEMSELVES
Spacetraveler
Steve Whitlatch
"Ball of Fluff" <None> writes:
>I'm not in any CofS mindset.
Yes you are.
>I question many things and am highly critical
>not only of the organization but of Hubbard. You stated that my stance is
>that when abuses and such occur that I say "this isn't Scn" and that I don't
>see that LRH created many of the problems with the church today. That simply
>isn't true. So since you don't even recognize my stance, then you really
>cannot attest as to my mindset.
If you can't see that scientology deceives its suckers and sucks
money out of them, then you are are still sick.
scienos who participate in alt.religion.scientology are breaking the
scieno rules. In fact, now that you know I'm an SP, you are subject
to ethics action just for reading this, and more severe ethics action
if you respond.
hubbard found that he could extract money from people by conning them
with a very wide variety of impossible promises, like the magical power
promises of OT. It's all lies and you are the sucker. Admit that and
you can start to get over it.
Steve Whitlatch
nobody
>
>I'm not in any CofS mindset.
What a laugh.
Keith Henson
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote in message news:<410d48af...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:21:10 -0700, Gerry Armstrong
>> <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:12:26 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>> >>> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
>> news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> >>> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> You might take a look at the "cooking" thread between spacetraveler
>> and me for style on both sides.
>>
>> Being nice to spacetraveler doesn't cost anything and he reciprocates.
>> He is deeply mired in cult-think,
>
>Based on? How do we know that you are not in cult think?
In this group, a cult-think person is anyone who thinks scientology is
great. The word applies to any flavor, independent, LRH based, free
zone, official, offshoots, or any varieties I missed here.
>> but that's a reason for pity rather
>> than being nasty. Besides, there is a glimmer of native smarts
>
>Only a glimmer?
Sorry, I call it the way I see it.
>> in him
>> and a deep dissatisfaction with the way scientology is run today.
>
>Because it is not Scientology.
I don't mind stating this in a way you would approve. How would you
put it?
. . . dissatisfaction with the way official scientology . . . .
. . . dissatisfaction with the way CoS scientology . . . .
. . . dissatisfaction with the way DM's scientology . . . .
. . . dissatisfaction with the way CSI-copyright scientology . .
. . . dissatisfaction with the way [fill in here] scientology . .
where lower case scientology is what space cootie infested staring
zombies do with "auditors," emeters, training routines,
disconnections, private investigators, lawsuits, blackmail, bribery,
fraud, faux military uniforms, ranks, poor medical care, staff
sleeping 12 to a room and so on.
>> There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod
>> like
>> Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
>> mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
>
>I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
>she broke out of anything.
You are not going to get much support for that opinion, certainly not
from CoS. As you know she is now a declared SP and her husband was
forced to disconnect from her.
>It may very well be so that she jumped
>right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
>admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
>sudden she can see? Think again.
I was there. Tory's opinion of CoS changed from a supporter who was
helping them do illegal things like the denial of service attack run
by Gavino Idda to someone with an opinion of CoS much like my own.
>The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
>the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
>really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
>correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
>only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
>and Armstrong.
On such subjects as fair game, you said:
[Keith]
>> If what was done to me is not "fair game" what is it?
[spacetraveler]
>It sounds like it, yes.
Arguing semantics with people over the nuances of the exact inside-CoS
technical meaning of "Fair Game" is not gaining you debating points on
a.r.s. People here are talking about abuses--investigations,
lawsuits, stalking with PIs, framing people for crimes, and other
annoyances petty and major. CoS is well known for subjecting anyone
who disagrees with them to such abuses.
>People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
>THEMSELVES
That's not exactly on the mark according to the way I understand it,
but you're not far off. Humans get into/make something into/ a cult
because of certain evolved psychological traits we got from being
social primates living in small tribes.
Did you finish reading my Sex, Drugs and Cults paper? That will give
you the background to discuss these subjects.
Keith Henson
>Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
> hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote in message
news:<410d48af...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:21:10 -0700, Gerry Armstrong
> > <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:12:26 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
> > >
> > >>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> > >>> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
> > news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > >>> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > snip
> >
> > You might take a look at the "cooking" thread between spacetraveler
> > and me for style on both sides.
> >
> > Being nice to spacetraveler doesn't cost anything and he reciprocates.
> > He is deeply mired in cult-think,
>
> Based on? How do we know that you are not in cult think?
LOL
>
> > but that's a reason for pity rather
> > than being nasty. Besides, there is a glimmer of native smarts
>
> Only a glimmer?
>
> > in him
> > and a deep dissatisfaction with the way scientology is run today.
>
> Because it is not Scientology.
That it isn't.
>
> >
> > There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod
> > like
> > Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
> > mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
>
> I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
> she broke out of anything. It may very well be so that she jumped
> right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
> admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
> sudden she can see? Think again.
That's pretty much what I said to Tory, months ago (or was it a year...)
well, a while ago anyway.
>
> The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
> the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
> really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
> correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
> only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
> and Armstrong.
>
> People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
> THEMSELVES
I see your point, but another thing to look it is essentially WHO is
defining what a cult IS. See my posts on that to Dan Garvin? - I believe,
but maybe it was that other "I've seen the light" guy that Arnie is
promoting. Michael Tilse. (check google)
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
> "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<410b...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> > > he refuses to respond to.
> >
> > Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
>
> Funny, you haven't understood why I am doing this. .-)
>
> I never disclosed why, it needs a very careful observer and someone
> with a flexible mind to actually find out.
I'm willing to see what the whys are.
Did you see what Gerry did with the question I asked him re the Black Op
letter we received?
Blew his cover, is what he did.
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
I did, although it was not like yesterday or something.
>
> >
> > Is it pro-survival to make stupid claims and then spin madly
> > and wildly when confronted with them?
> > No.
> >
> >
> >
> > It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
> > > is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
> > > still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
> > > as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
> > > with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
> > > at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
Sounds a lot like a great post I did on that subject, about what natter is,
that only criticism that is NOT BORNE OUT IN FACT, is the kind backed by an
overt. I think that was one of the posts I responded to Church PR, Robert
with. I probably posted that as "Veracity" approximately 4 years ago.
I see that understood that subject as well.
That's refreshing.
> >
> >
> > Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
> > I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
> > in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
> > evil ways.
>
> I have not seen you ever make any positive remark concerning L. Ron
> hubbard or Scientology. You have proclaimed time after time after time
> that it is all balderdash. Everything of it.
>
> See, a rational person with no bad conscience can actually look at
> what is right there in front of him. You however only spout
> generalities, even change dictionary definitions to fit your own
> purposes ('fair game'). Avoid to give direct answers to arguments
> making you uncomfortable and so on. And how ALL is bad about
> Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
Interjecting here, I did a post that had a discussion of "Fair Game" as
well. I think it was to either Dan Garvin or Michael Tilse.
>
> The above shows that you have not given it a chance, this contrary to
> what you claim. Sounds like 1.1 to me. You are sitting on something,
> something that you want to keep away from public knowledge. Kinda like
> psychoanalysis this is, it is not only Scientology who came to that
> conclusion.
>
> There is always a motivation for doing something. We have seen how you
> respond to posts, how you continuously ramble along. Spouting opinions
> and so on. You are behaving like that for a reason.
Sure, he definitely has at least one reason - if not more than one.
Thanks for posting this.
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
nobody
>
>Did you see what Gerry did with the question I asked him re the Black Op
>letter we received?
>
>Blew his cover, is what he did.
>
>Virginia
Virginia, a woman who sees what she wants to see.
Fluffygirl
> In article <410d481e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff says...
> >
> >I'm not in any CofS mindset.
>
> What a laugh.
I'm ex CofS, actually, and probably have written far more posts
criticizing CofS than you ever have or will.
I realize it's hard for you to wrap your mind around the fact that
someone like me can be and is a critic, but,well, too bad.
C
Fluffygirl
> In article <410d481e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> "Ball of Fluff" <None> writes:
>
> >I'm not in any CofS mindset.
>
> Yes you are.
Nope. I'm an ex member.
>
> >I question many things and am highly critical
> >not only of the organization but of Hubbard. You stated that my stance is
> >that when abuses and such occur that I say "this isn't Scn" and that I don't
> >see that LRH created many of the problems with the church today. That simply
> >isn't true. So since you don't even recognize my stance, then you really
> >cannot attest as to my mindset.
See above.
>
> If you can't see that scientology deceives its suckers and sucks
> money out of them, then you are are still sick.
I frequently talk about the pricing and ripoffs.
Perhaps you missed those gazillion or so posts.
>
> scienos who participate in alt.religion.scientology are breaking the
> scieno rules. In fact, now that you know I'm an SP, you are subject
> to ethics action just for reading this, and more severe ethics action
> if you respond.
Really? How's THAT gonna happen when I'm _*~EX_*~ CofS?
Who's gonna come knockin' on my door?
Uhh...the local org? They can't. They're not allowed to talk to me.
OSA had me expelled.
I'm ex CofS.
>
> hubbard found that he could extract money from people by conning them
> with a very wide variety of impossible promises, like the magical power
> promises of OT. It's all lies and you are the sucker. Admit that and
> you can start to get over it.
>
Off topic.
I'm an ex member and I've written far far far more posts criticizing
CofS, ~and~ Hubbard than you ever have or will.And that includes the
pricing. That includes SO practices. That includes my having posted my
story at least twice and alluded to it many times. And that includes
my discussions of Lisa McPherson, Raul Lopez, the Woodcraft family and
many others. (Hint- these were all done in a negative vein. Negative
as in ~bad~ CofS. ~bad~ ~bad~!! Mommy will slap)
C
Zinj
amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
Why would you think that your willingness to criticize the 'Church' of
Scientology, while simultaneously frantically defending the 'applied
religious philosophy' that gives it its ideological basis demonstrates
your 'freedom' from a 'Scientology Mindset'?
Quite obviously that is not true. You yourself are one of the primary
proponents of the distinction between the 'Church' of Scientology and
Scientology, and it's obvious that you are still and deliberately and as
voluntarilly as such things can be, a voluntary victim of the
'Scientology Mindset'.
Not the 'Church' of Scientology Mindset.
The Scientology Mindset.
If someone accuses you of being the victim of a 'Church' of Scientology
Mindset; I will certainly object.
Scientology Mindset? Heh. The Claire-level of indoctrination (or
unindoctrination) is in full force, and unashamed, but in actuality no
different than a full blown active and unrepentent Indoctrination. After
all, such a fully active 'Church' of Scientologist would *also* claim
that his indoc wasn't, and that his mind-control was 'voluntary'.
It's a longer way out than you're willing to consider Claire :)
Steve Whitlatch
amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl) writes:
>> hubbard found that he could extract money from people by conning them
>> with a very wide variety of impossible promises, like the magical power
>> promises of OT. It's all lies and you are the sucker. Admit that and
>> you can start to get over it.
>>
>
>Off topic.
>I'm an ex member and I've written far far far more posts criticizing
>CofS, ~and~ Hubbard than you ever have or will.And that includes the
>pricing. That includes SO practices. That includes my having posted my
>story at least twice and alluded to it many times. And that includes
>my discussions of Lisa McPherson, Raul Lopez, the Woodcraft family and
>many others. (Hint- these were all done in a negative vein. Negative
>as in ~bad~ CofS. ~bad~ ~bad~!! Mommy will slap)
No, no. The topic is your inability to let go of your hope
that scientology will "work for you."
Don't feel bad. It does not work for anyone.
You can't make the ash tray stand up. Only I can make the ash tray stand
up. Give me your body, mind, and soul; become my slave, and I will share
with you the secret.
Steve Whitlatch
Spacetraveler
> On 2 Aug 2004 02:53:39 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote in message news:<410d48af...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:21:10 -0700, Gerry Armstrong
> >> <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:12:26 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> >> >>> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
> news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> >> >>> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> You might take a look at the "cooking" thread between spacetraveler
> >> and me for style on both sides.
> >>
> >> Being nice to spacetraveler doesn't cost anything and he reciprocates.
> >> He is deeply mired in cult-think,
> >
> >Based on? How do we know that you are not in cult think?
>
> In this group, a cult-think person is anyone who thinks scientology is
> great. The word applies to any flavor, independent, LRH based, free
> zone, official, offshoots, or any varieties I missed here.
That is not the dictionary definition of cult. Acknowledging that in
fact there is something of value in Scientology and in the writings of
L. Ron Hubbard does not make this a cult.
I can also say that you are mired in cult think as you seem to accept
a variety of the arguments of the critics of Scientology as truth
without getting to the bottom of them. In this you are accepting
something as true by reason of 'authority'. (you yourself have picked
what is to be your authority)
Funny actually, Scientology repeatedly has been accused of making up
their own definitions (for their own advantage). And what do we see
happening here: "In this group, a cult-think person is anyone who
thinks scientology is great."
Sheesh!
snip
> >> There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod
> >> like
> >> Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
> >> mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
> >
> >I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
> >she broke out of anything.
>
> You are not going to get much support for that opinion, certainly not
> from CoS. As you know she is now a declared SP and her husband was
> forced to disconnect from her.
I do not grave for acknowledgement of any group or person. I tell what
I perceive to be. This is called independency.
Her husband chose to disconnect from her, not the same thing. It was
not Scientology practice either.
> >It may very well be so that she jumped
> >right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
> >admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
> >sudden she can see? Think again.
>
> I was there. Tory's opinion of CoS changed from a supporter who was
> helping them do illegal things like the denial of service attack run
> by Gavino Idda to someone with an opinion of CoS much like my own.
Changing her opinion does not automatically mean that she did not jump
right into another fixation. It is an ENTIRELY logical assumption that
she was to have tendencies doing exactly that.
> >The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
> >the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
> >really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
> >correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
> >only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
> >and Armstrong.
>
> On such subjects as fair game, you said:
>
> [Keith]
>
> >> If what was done to me is not "fair game" what is it?
>
> [spacetraveler]
>
> >It sounds like it, yes.
>
> Arguing semantics with people over the nuances of the exact inside-CoS
> technical meaning of "Fair Game" is not gaining you debating points on
> a.r.s.
I am ENTIRELY NOT INTERESTED in gaining debating points anywhere on
any area. I prefer to figure out things entirely by myself. In that
sense I expose of authorities completely. Any of these I take as
sources of information, and nothing more.
The factual observation is that Rice and Armstron so far REFUSE to be
honest about HCOPL 21 July 1968 and adjust their sites. That Keith is
not 'arguing semantics'! That is dishonesty!
Are you defending the above 2 persons? Are you? Do you think it is
correct?
http://www.fairgamed.org/fairgame.htm
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
Andreas Heldal-Lund is also doing this (have not approached him yet,
but I will): http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
> People here are talking about abuses--investigations,
> lawsuits, stalking with PIs, framing people for crimes, and other
> annoyances petty and major. CoS is well known for subjecting anyone
> who disagrees with them to such abuses.
So, can ars being considered a cult or can it not?
> >People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
> >THEMSELVES
>
> That's not exactly on the mark according to the way I understand it,
> but you're not far off. Humans get into/make something into/ a cult
> because of certain evolved psychological traits we got from being
> social primates living in small tribes.
>
> Did you finish reading my Sex, Drugs and Cults paper? That will give
> you the background to discuss these subjects.
Haven't had the time yet (I saved the link though). Anyway what you
say in the above indicates to me that you may think that we are not
entirely responsible ourselves for ourselves, what we think, do or
whatever? Is this a correct conclusion?
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> > I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
> > she broke out of anything. It may very well be so that she jumped
> > right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
> > admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
> > sudden she can see? Think again.
>
> That's pretty much what I said to Tory, months ago (or was it a year...)
> well, a while ago anyway.
:-) Glad to see someone else being able to think 'independently'!
Being independent practically would mean being able to view an
argument or discussed issue from any possible angle.
> > The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
> > the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
> > really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
> > correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
> > only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
> > and Armstrong.
> >
> > People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
> > THEMSELVES
>
> I see your point, but another thing to look it is essentially WHO is
> defining what a cult IS. See my posts on that to Dan Garvin? - I believe,
> but maybe it was that other "I've seen the light" guy that Arnie is
> promoting. Michael Tilse. (check google)
This is another angle of the 'cult' phenomena. I am fully aware of it.
But I tend to use the definitions as given in ordinary dictionaries.
Often they are being adjusted in people's 'agreeing' habits.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<410b...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > > > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> > > > he refuses to respond to.
>
> > >
> > > Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
> >
> > Funny, you haven't understood why I am doing this. .-)
> >
> > I never disclosed why, it needs a very careful observer and someone
> > with a flexible mind to actually find out.
>
> I'm willing to see what the whys are.
One main reason I can not disclose on the ars, as I fear undoing the
effect I created. But I can tell you in private.
Also finding out for myself the exact behaviour of those being critics
of Scientology by using buttons. And so I will learn who they are,
what they are, how they think (if in fact they 'think') and can
foretell exactly how they will respond later on. This will enable me
to 'control' them (stimulus response), and let them do things which I
want them to do (without them actually being aware of that). Those
actually being in error will always (in the end) expose themselves,
you only have to guide them doing this.
Learning to debate with those critics, and find the patterns they use
for founding their arguments. And then to address and confront them
with the underlying issues, as this is the *only* area where in fact
you can show them being in error. Training my expertise doing this
instantly and effectively.
Then I have been curious about individuals like Gerry Armstrong, and
some more. And wanted to challenge them in person.
Collecting information.
This probably (?) sums it up.
snip
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Again, I think you stole my line! Do you actually think? Hmmm?
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> > > It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
> > > > is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
> > > > still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
> > > > as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
> > > > with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
> > > > at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
>
> Sounds a lot like a great post I did on that subject, about what natter is,
> that only criticism that is NOT BORNE OUT IN FACT, is the kind backed by an
> overt. I think that was one of the posts I responded to Church PR, Robert
> with. I probably posted that as "Veracity" approximately 4 years ago.
>
> I see that understood that subject as well.
>
> That's refreshing.
Indeed it is! Then you also know that this has been seriously
misunderstood by most Scientologists. Not many have understood that to
be able to do some serious progress on any area (Scientology or other)
that you HAVE to be critical.
Anyway I 'tricked' dear Gerry with it. And he is nowhere to be found,
again.
> > > Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
> > > I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
> > > in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
> > > evil ways.
> >
> > I have not seen you ever make any positive remark concerning L. Ron
> > hubbard or Scientology. You have proclaimed time after time after time
> > that it is all balderdash. Everything of it.
> >
> > See, a rational person with no bad conscience can actually look at
> > what is right there in front of him. You however only spout
> > generalities, even change dictionary definitions to fit your own
> > purposes ('fair game'). Avoid to give direct answers to arguments
> > making you uncomfortable and so on. And how ALL is bad about
> > Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> Interjecting here, I did a post that had a discussion of "Fair Game" as
> well. I think it was to either Dan Garvin or Michael Tilse.
>
>
> >
> > The above shows that you have not given it a chance, this contrary to
> > what you claim. Sounds like 1.1 to me. You are sitting on something,
> > something that you want to keep away from public knowledge. Kinda like
> > psychoanalysis this is, it is not only Scientology who came to that
> > conclusion.
> >
> > There is always a motivation for doing something. We have seen how you
> > respond to posts, how you continuously ramble along. Spouting opinions
> > and so on. You are behaving like that for a reason.
>
> Sure, he definitely has at least one reason - if not more than one.
This is why William Barwell is being conspicious by his absence on
this post of mine. He can not win here, and so he disappears into thin
air.
snip
Felt I needed to, I typed it right out of the book.
Spacetraveler
wbarwell
Oh hardly. Do you think my life spins around answering your twaddle?
I have two issues with Stupidology.
1. Ugly and unacceptable practices, disconnection, quackery,
fair game, et al.
2. Psuedoscience and false promises.
I posted my little list of false promises of Dianetics. You have never
managed to show I was wrong on any of that. My Mini-FAQ on Dianetics
stands.
I posted the later History of Man whole track claims nonsense,
and more big promises here.
Again, none of it s true. You haven't much answer here.
I am begining to dig out the big, and false promises of Hubbard
elsewhere. You woill as susual spin and make foolish claims as above.
You will blather and call me names and triumphantly strut about not
realizing you aren't rebutting me in any way.
My open hostility to this cults outrageously false claims is based
on that fact that they are outrageously false claims.
No OT powers, no Clears, no nuttin'!
You have blown smoke here about science, which you are
utterly incapable it seems of understanding what science is.
I don't have to answer you every word, because you have been
well deflated. Chasing around with a set of cans in yer hand
may be cute, but it doesn't get you much and no big powers,
not anymore than some new age ditz collecting her quartz
chrystals and patchouli aroma-therapy(tm) candles and
essential oils, really gains personal growth by doing so
and spouting astrological jargon.
If it went only that far, I'd have little interest is Goofintology.
To bad it is a cult and does leave a lot of people ruined, sometimes
families broken up, sometimes health ruined, sometimes PTSIII
psychosis and suicides.
Hence my slow pursuit of the failings of Goofytology's outrageously
false claims and preconceptions. Nobody is running from you.
I just have shown you don't know much about this stuff and
aren't going to actually think about it.
And its you who ran from me more than a few times posted a
few little cutting remarks and made no attempt to deal with
the meat of my postings. Others pointed it out too.
What is different from low grade auditing and newage
(ryhms with sewage) crystal sucking or tarot card
'analysis'? Tarot card games are cheaper and the cards
costs a lot less than an E-meter. That's what.
You guys just dress it up differently is all.
You'd probably have made an excellent astrology.
You could have quickly learned to blow it out your ass
with the best of 'em. OT nonsense? The newage crowd
hs been screwing around with OOBE nonsense since
the 1800's. Nothing Hubbard claimed is new or works.
I find usually most Scientologisst are amazing ignorant
of this stuff, its what Hubbard did for 50 years with just a big line
of pseudoscience guff rather than newage guff or old style psychic
church guff or 1800's parapsychology guff.
Auditing? For 50 years, jokes about psychoanalysis has been
a staple of cartoons, "my psychoanalyst is out of town...",
Catholic priests have long been aware of chronic confessional pests,
and many people go weekly to their Indian readers, tarot card readers,
astrologers and similar. "Poor man's psychoanalysis" as pseudoscience
critics have called it. Auditing is much the same, astrology and tarot
cards are mere props, so are the cans.
Auditine is a drug. The same as chronic psychoanalysis.
Really, what is Scientology but another brand of pseudoscience?
With its own KGB and lawyers with too much money and bad attitudes?
OT Powers? Where are they?
Where are all those OT, Cleared Thetan abilities many have paid
hundreds of thousands of dollars to fail to get?
How many people went PTS III and got offloaded, or committed
suicide, or left to patch up their lives as best they could?
And there are the lies.
Hubbard the war hero. Hubbard the nuclear scientist. Hubbard the trained
mathematician and engineer. Hubbard blind and crippled at the end of WWII.
Wanna discuss those? How many lies will you accept from Saint Hubbard?
20? 100? 1000?
When are you going to agree, the man's word about anything isn't worth dirt?
He was a con man.
Whats left? Watching you spin is all.
And trying to wake up the lurkers here that yes, this stuff is NOT
what it claims. My real target. You and Faxhor are just props for me to
obtain that goal.
The perfect bad examples.
What you lurkers can become if you get into Scientology
and stop thinking critically.
Some people drift in and out rapidly, some people waste lifetimes.
Some people get hurt bad, some survive it until they either
get tired of it, or one day wake up. Some people never really get over it.
A few are badly hurt by it.
And no, you don't get any of the big promises of Dianetics,
OT courses and much other big promises in between, lurkers.
Stick to astrology if you must, its a lot less dangerous and a lot less
expensive.
And as effective also.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
Bent Stigsen
> From "Critics of Scientology" (1st 4 paragraphs):
>
> If Aunt Ermiltrude each night went through your change purse and
> extracted divers coins without your knowledge, and then if she found
> you had joined a group that could discover secrets, her immediate and
> passionate reaction would be to damn the group and you as well.
>
> If the wife was stepping out with your best friend behind your back,
> and one day she found you had thoughts of joining agroup that taught
> you people's motives and reactions and made you understand them, she
> would throw a mad-dog fit to prevent your progress.
>
> If a government were busy making capital out of people's ignorance of
> economics and world affairs and was playing a double game and a group
> came along and started to make its people smarter and more
> knowledgable of true motives, that government would try to shoot every
> member of that group on sight.
>
> If a group of "scientists" were knowingly raising the number of insane
> to get more appropriation and "treatment" fees and somebody came along
> with the real answer, that group would move heaven and earth to
> protect its billions of rake-off. L. Ron Hubbard
>
> Spacetraveler
So when someone attack scientology, it is solely because they are bad
people and scientology is a rightious religion who can make you smart.
Is it not the gist of it?
How good is it as defence against criticism?
/Bent
Virginia McClaughry
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
> > > she broke out of anything. It may very well be so that she jumped
> > > right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
> > > admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
> > > sudden she can see? Think again.
> >
> > That's pretty much what I said to Tory, months ago (or was it a year...)
> > well, a while ago anyway.
>
> :-) Glad to see someone else being able to think 'independently'!
> Being independent practically would mean being able to view an
> argument or discussed issue from any possible angle.
:-)
I think we should call it what it is - sanity and the ability to reason.
Earth (or teegeeack if preferred) needs a LOT more of it, but it won't be
*that* much longer (comparitively) that the reins pass out of where they are
now.
>
>
> > > The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
> > > the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
> > > really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
> > > correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
> > > only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
> > > and Armstrong.
> > >
> > > People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
> > > THEMSELVES
> >
> > I see your point, but another thing to look it is essentially WHO is
> > defining what a cult IS. See my posts on that to Dan Garvin? - I
believe,
> > but maybe it was that other "I've seen the light" guy that Arnie is
> > promoting. Michael Tilse. (check google)
>
> This is another angle of the 'cult' phenomena. I am fully aware of it.
That's good.
> But I tend to use the definitions as given in ordinary dictionaries.
Yes, but unfortunately dictionaries get their definitions from somewhere,
and that somewhere for the later-in-time meanings listed of the word *cult*
is what's interesting.
> Often they are being adjusted in people's 'agreeing' habits.
Yes, Like KSW 1 discusses, on the subject of bank "agreement".
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
Nah, he's *nobody*.
:-)
Virginia
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
It is so criminally vacuous that it positively screams for criticism.
>
>/Bent
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Virginia McClaughry
> "Virginia McClaughry" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:<410f...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<410b...@news2.lightlink.com>...
> > > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong
that
> > > > > he refuses to respond to.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
> > >
> > > Funny, you haven't understood why I am doing this. .-)
> > >
> > > I never disclosed why, it needs a very careful observer and someone
> > > with a flexible mind to actually find out.
> >
> > I'm willing to see what the whys are.
>
> One main reason I can not disclose on the ars, as I fear undoing the
> effect I created.
I understand what are all the different angles of reasons for that.
>But I can tell you in private.
Totally your choice, my email address (and Mike's) are both fully public and
accessible. Enslaver type "hotmail or yahoo" type trolls use them pretty
consistently - lol, but we do get other more team-player type communications
like from the person who contacted Mike about all the Ron's Org materials
they had.
Of course since they got nailed on that hotmail/yahoo thing, now they are
starting to come from *real* providers like comcast.
:-/
>
> Also finding out for myself the exact behaviour of those being critics
> of Scientology by using buttons. And so I will learn who they are,
> what they are, how they think (if in fact they 'think') and can
> foretell exactly how they will respond later on. This will enable me
> to 'control' them (stimulus response), and let them do things which I
> want them to do (without them actually being aware of that). Those
> actually being in error will always (in the end) expose themselves,
> you only have to guide them doing this.
I disagree with that as a flat approach. I discussed some of why on my other
post to you today.
>
> Learning to debate with those critics, and find the patterns they use
> for founding their arguments. And then to address and confront them
> with the underlying issues, as this is the *only* area where in fact
> you can show them being in error. Training my expertise doing this
> instantly and effectively.
Sounds familiar.
>
> Then I have been curious about individuals like Gerry Armstrong, and
> some more. And wanted to challenge them in person.
>
> Collecting information.
>
> This probably (?) sums it up.
Cool, I appreciate your filling me in like that.
Virginia
>
> snip
>
> Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
> > > > > is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are
you
> > > > > still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the
level
> > > > > as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your
criticism
> > > > > with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something
else, it
> > > > > at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
> >
> > Sounds a lot like a great post I did on that subject, about what natter
is,
> > that only criticism that is NOT BORNE OUT IN FACT, is the kind backed by
an
> > overt. I think that was one of the posts I responded to Church PR,
Robert
> > with. I probably posted that as "Veracity" approximately 4 years ago.
> >
> > I see that understood that subject as well.
> >
> > That's refreshing.
>
> Indeed it is! Then you also know that this has been seriously
> misunderstood by most Scientologists.
Yea, that's also what I said in that post approximately four years ago.
Not many have understood that to
> be able to do some serious progress on any area (Scientology or other)
> that you HAVE to be critical.
Again, I'd say let's call it what it is - the ability to reason and sanity.
>
> Anyway I 'tricked' dear Gerry with it. And he is nowhere to be found,
> again.
Understood.
>
>
> > > > Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
> > > > I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
> > > > in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
> > > > evil ways.
> > >
> > > I have not seen you ever make any positive remark concerning L. Ron
> > > hubbard or Scientology. You have proclaimed time after time after time
> > > that it is all balderdash. Everything of it.
> > >
> > > See, a rational person with no bad conscience can actually look at
> > > what is right there in front of him. You however only spout
> > > generalities, even change dictionary definitions to fit your own
> > > purposes ('fair game'). Avoid to give direct answers to arguments
> > > making you uncomfortable and so on. And how ALL is bad about
> > > Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
> >
> > Interjecting here, I did a post that had a discussion of "Fair Game" as
> > well. I think it was to either Dan Garvin or Michael Tilse.
Are you familiar with the post I mention above?
Yea.
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
Ball of Fluff
"Steve Whitlatch" <st...@swhitlat3.com> wrote in message
news:41107f47$0$31545$4c5e...@news.getnet.net...
> In article <40f7d2ce.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl) writes:
>
> >> hubbard found that he could extract money from people by conning them
> >> with a very wide variety of impossible promises, like the magical power
> >> promises of OT. It's all lies and you are the sucker. Admit that and
> >> you can start to get over it.
> >>
> >
> >Off topic.
> >I'm an ex member and I've written far far far more posts criticizing
> >CofS, ~and~ Hubbard than you ever have or will.And that includes the
> >pricing. That includes SO practices. That includes my having posted my
> >story at least twice and alluded to it many times. And that includes
> >my discussions of Lisa McPherson, Raul Lopez, the Woodcraft family and
> >many others. (Hint- these were all done in a negative vein. Negative
> >as in ~bad~ CofS. ~bad~ ~bad~!! Mommy will slap)
>
> No, no. The topic is your inability to let go of your hope
> that scientology will "work for you."
No, the topic is "the Misconception of Gerry Armstrong about criticism".
You stated that I could get in trouble with CofS for talking to you.
Therefore you were positing the idea that I am a church member. False on
both counts.
Here's what you wrote:
"scienos who participate in alt.religion.scientology are breaking the scieno
rules. In fact, now that you know I'm an SP, you are subject to ethics
action just for reading this, and more severe ethics action
if you respond. "
> Don't feel bad. It does not work for anyone.
I don't feel bad. Thanks for asking!
>
> You can't make the ash tray stand up. Only I can make the ash tray stand
> up. Give me your body, mind, and soul; become my slave, and I will share
> with you the secret.
Oh, I can make an ash tray stand up. I just lift it up, help it a little,
and voila!
Nice back pedaling, by the way.
C
Zinj
spacetra...@hotmail.com says...
<snip>
> Also finding out for myself the exact behaviour of those being critics
> of Scientology by using buttons. And so I will learn who they are,
> what they are, how they think (if in fact they 'think') and can
> foretell exactly how they will respond later on. This will enable me
> to 'control' them (stimulus response), and let them do things which I
> want them to do (without them actually being aware of that). Those
> actually being in error will always (in the end) expose themselves,
> you only have to guide them doing this.
Boy howdy! I ca't speak for the rest of us downtone unevolved garden
variety humans and SP's, but I for one will be waiting with bated breath
for this demonstration of OT Powerz and superiority of the Tech Trained.
But then, you're not going to *tell* us when you've controlled us, are
you?
You're just a big meany! :(
wbarwell
Such a great plan. Space Traveler pounces. I answer.
In depth. He ignores my answers and spews a pouty
little, dismissive generality or two.
Such a plan!
See how manipulated I am by his clever stimulous/response
program?
Meanwhile, people wonder, why don't schnooks like
this NOTICE that the big promises of Hubbard about Dianetics
and OT abilities never come true as promised?
Why doesn't the rampant medical quackery of Scientology
not bother them?
How did Space Traveler go through life without a clue
as to what constitutes science?
Zinj
wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com says...
Psst... your reaction is probably *exactly* what Spacey was intending
with his 'button pushing', and now your realization of how he's
'controlled' you is supposed to 'cave' you to his superior 'Tech' and
introvert you into shuddering silence.
Coming next month: 'I know you are, but what am I Tech'
wbarwell
Its not very good.
Its not uncommon either. There are a lot of weird Hubbard rants
in his materials. One of the weirdest has to be Pain and Sex,
where Hubbard informs us that ancient pyschs on the whole track
created pain and sex to cave in free living thetans. So when you see
somebody trying to stop Scientology, it is often one of these ancient
whole life psychs.
Just bizarre.
wbarwell
>> > > > Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
>> > > > I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
>> > > > in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
>> > > > evil ways.
>> > >
>> > > I have not seen you ever make any positive remark concerning L. Ron
>> > > hubbard or Scientology. You have proclaimed time after time after
>> > > time that it is all balderdash. Everything of it.
>> > >
>> > > See, a rational person with no bad conscience can actually look at
>> > > what is right there in front of him. You however only spout
>> > > generalities, even change dictionary definitions to fit your own
>> > > purposes ('fair game'). Avoid to give direct answers to arguments
>> > > making you uncomfortable and so on. And how ALL is bad about
>> > > Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
>> >
>> > Interjecting here, I did a post that had a discussion of "Fair Game" as
>> > well. I think it was to either Dan Garvin or Michael Tilse.
>
> Are you familiar with the post I mention above?
Don't recognize it off hand, no.
The matter is, Hubbard announced "fair game" and it was
a PR disaster. By the era of Code of Reform, FG was openly
renounced after failed attempts to pretend it was cancelled
as per HCOPL 21 Oct 68. But by December 74, it was back.
The attacks on Cooper, Cazarers, various judges and others
show that not only was it back as policy, it was pursued
with savagery and gusto. No hold barred. Destroy people utterly.
The claim is, Hubbard had noithing to do with this, nor did
Scientology.
It was a bunch of renegades.
This is not true. Since Hubbard was a bone fide liar,
no claims or protestations of his about anything count
for anything. He is a dead agent.
From hs lies he gave up control of Scientology in 66 to his
claims to be a nuclear physicist and more, nothing from
Hubbard counts.
Form others, we have an obvious agenda, absolve
Scientology from blame.
But the hat check sheets exist, the fair game projects
dovcs against Cazares, Cooper and others exist, the
sentencing memorandum with its admissions
Kember and Budlong knew fair game was policy, exist.
Hard evidenece.
Only hard evidence really counts for much here in face
of Hubbard lies and true beleivers' unwillingness to
admit that maybe, Scientology at the top was not the ethical
organization it claimed to be.
AND, we still have fair game operatives with long track records,
Ingram, David Lee and other PIs doing fair game actions over
the years, paid by Moxon, a Snow White unindicted co-conspirator and
1991 hat check sheets with Aprinistics "fair game" demands from
Hubbard made official reference materials.
Command intention.
It ain't over yet.
--
Fluffygirl
> In article <40f7d2ce.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> amaflu...@yahoo.com says...
> > nobody <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:<101447084.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > > In article <410d481e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff says...
> > > >
> > > >I'm not in any CofS mindset.
> > >
> > > What a laugh.
> >
> > I'm ex CofS, actually, and probably have written far more posts
> > criticizing CofS than you ever have or will.
> >
> > I realize it's hard for you to wrap your mind around the fact that
> > someone like me can be and is a critic, but,well, too bad.
> >
> > C
>
> Why would you think that your willingness to criticize the 'Church' of
> Scientology, while simultaneously frantically defending the 'applied
> religious philosophy' that gives it its ideological basis demonstrates
> your 'freedom' from a 'Scientology Mindset'?
>
> Quite obviously that is not true. You yourself are one of the primary
> proponents of the distinction between the 'Church' of Scientology and
> Scientology, and it's obvious that you are still and deliberately and as
> voluntarilly as such things can be, a voluntary victim of the
> 'Scientology Mindset'.
>
> Not the 'Church' of Scientology Mindset.
> The Scientology Mindset.
Nope, they said CofS mindset.
So there you go.
> If someone accuses you of being the victim of a 'Church' of Scientology
> Mindset; I will certainly object.
>
> Scientology Mindset? Heh. The Claire-level of indoctrination (or
> unindoctrination) is in full force, and unashamed, but in actuality no
> different than a full blown active and unrepentent Indoctrination. After
> all, such a fully active 'Church' of Scientologist would *also* claim
> that his indoc wasn't, and that his mind-control was 'voluntary'.
>
> It's a longer way out than you're willing to consider Claire :)
And that's why you're hanging around a.c.t. sucking up to other indie
Scn'ists. Uh huh.
;->
C
Steve Whitlatch
"Ball of Fluff" <None> writes:
>
>> Don't feel bad. It does not work for anyone.
>
>I don't feel bad. Thanks for asking!
>
>>
>> You can't make the ash tray stand up. Only I can make the ash tray stand
>> up. Give me your body, mind, and soul; become my slave, and I will share
>> with you the secret.
>
>Oh, I can make an ash tray stand up. I just lift it up, help it a little,
>and voila!
And is that all you want? What is it that you are hoping scientology
can do for you? Why do you cling to it so?
Steve Whitlatch
Steve Whitlatch
wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> writes:
>Meanwhile, people wonder, why don't schnooks like
>this NOTICE that the big promises of Hubbard about Dianetics
>and OT abilities never come true as promised?
I think it is because they have so little and so desperately
want so much. Their dilemma is not that different from many.
Steve Whitlatch
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
You'd better be entirely not interested, because you have no hope
whatsoever of ever gaining debating points. Ops like you can't debate
their way out of a wet paper cult.
> I prefer to figure out things entirely by myself.
I'd prefer if you'd do this some time too.
> In that
>sense I expose of authorities completely.
Be very careful the authorities aren't watching when you do your
little exposure routine. Authorities have sensibilities too you know.
> Any of these I take as
>sources of information, and nothing more.
>
>The factual observation is that Rice and Armstron so far REFUSE to be
>honest about HCOPL 21 July 1968 and adjust their sites.
What a liar you are, Spacetrolley! You have refused to post everything
I've ever written about Scientology, let alone fair game.
Now as to your precious policy letter by the judicially declared
pathological liar, convicted criminal and sickie L. Ron Hubbard, how
about you post it here in its entirety. Use your carriage return if
you need more space.
And also, please web a scan of the actual policy letter. You can use
one of the Miscavige Scientology cult's web sites. The Miscavigites
have lots of space for supporting their sleazy ops like you.
> That Keith is
>not 'arguing semantics'! That is dishonesty!
>Are you defending the above 2 persons? Are you? Do you think it is
>correct?
>http://www.fairgamed.org/fairgame.htm
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
>
>Andreas Heldal-Lund is also doing this (have not approached him yet,
>but I will): http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
>
>> People here are talking about abuses--investigations,
>> lawsuits, stalking with PIs, framing people for crimes, and other
>> annoyances petty and major. CoS is well known for subjecting anyone
>> who disagrees with them to such abuses.
>
>So, can ars being considered a cult or can it not?
With your OT level pretended stupidity you can pretend just about
anything you want. You can even pretend that pathological liar,
convicted criminal and sickie L. Ron Hubbard was, as he said about
himself, mankind's best friend.
>
>
>> >People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
>> >THEMSELVES
>>
>> That's not exactly on the mark according to the way I understand it,
>> but you're not far off. Humans get into/make something into/ a cult
>> because of certain evolved psychological traits we got from being
>> social primates living in small tribes.
>>
>> Did you finish reading my Sex, Drugs and Cults paper? That will give
>> you the background to discuss these subjects.
>
>Haven't had the time yet (I saved the link though). Anyway what you
>say in the above indicates to me that you may think that we are not
>entirely responsible ourselves for ourselves, what we think, do or
>whatever? Is this a correct conclusion?
Of course it's a correct conclusion. How could it be otherwise,
Spacetrifler?
>
>Spacetraveler
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>snip
>
>> > > It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
>> > > > is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
>> > > > still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
>> > > > as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
>> > > > with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
>> > > > at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like a great post I did on that subject, about what natter is,
>> that only criticism that is NOT BORNE OUT IN FACT, is the kind backed by an
>> overt. I think that was one of the posts I responded to Church PR, Robert
>> with. I probably posted that as "Veracity" approximately 4 years ago.
>>
>> I see that understood that subject as well.
>>
>> That's refreshing.
>
>Indeed it is! Then you also know that this has been seriously
>misunderstood by most Scientologists. Not many have understood that to
>be able to do some serious progress on any area (Scientology or other)
>that you HAVE to be critical.
>
>Anyway I 'tricked' dear Gerry with it. And he is nowhere to be found,
>again.
You're a liar as usual, Spacetrinket. You're the one in hiding. You're
the one who won't respond rationally. You're the one who blows from
reason. You're a Miscavige cult op, who is obviously here to serve the
cult's malevolent purposes in its dirty war against good people you
Miscavigites label "Suppressive Persons." You completely avoid
discussing the Miscavige cult's war against SPs. You completely avoid
the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
You lie, cheat and work hard to destroy good people, so you make a
fine Miscavige "in-good-standing" Scientologist, Spacetraitor.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Ball of Fluff
What I want or don't want, personally, really is none of your business.
The fact that I mainly post about abuses and problems in CofS and in Scn
itself should give you a clue.
C
Gerry Armstrong
<r...@antisectes.net[OTER-L-ANTISPAM]> wrote:
>
>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
>> The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
>> he refuses to respond to.
>
>We know that one of the last tricks of scientology OSAers to "handle"
>critics is to assert that they don't answer to communications.
>
>Anyway, regarding Gerry, even if it was true that he does not repsond,
Spacetrainedseal is a trained liar and a cult op. If anyone cares to
wade through the communications between us, it is clear that this op
is the one who doesn't respond to communications.
> he
>can allegate that it's attornyey's - client privilege, since he is is own
>attorney.
I'm obviously not claiming that privilege for my communications with
this cult op, but I am making a record in these communications for
legal purposes just because it is an op. Indeed, because of my
extraordinary legal relationship with the Scientology cult and its
dictator David Miscavige, virtually all of my posts to a.r.s. have a
legal purpose and will make their way into court proceedings. So will
the posts of cult ops the cult sends here to, as you say, "handle" me.
The cult states over and over and over that anything and everything I
say or write about the Scientology cult, the "subject," or any cult-
related group, front organization, WISE company, or any of their
directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers or assigns
has a value of $50,000. That figure was arrived at by what the cult
claims, over and over and over, was careful negotiation. At the same
time, the cultists are desperately and criminally refusing to pay me
the money that they themselves insist that my communications are
worth. The Miscavige cultists and all their cult-related groups, front
organizations, WISE companies, and all of their directors, officers,
employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns are criminally out
exchange with me. That's why, inter alia, you see ops like
Spacetrachodon here so intent on black PRing me. The cult and the
cultists can never pay their bill to me so they have to obliterate me,
and Scientologists always black PR their obliteration targets before
they obliterate them. The cultists have to pretend to be pretty stupid
to do all this black PRing when it's so clear that they're doing it
because they owe me a gargantuan pile of dough.
The cultists also insist, of course, that this valuation of $50,000
for anything I say or write about Scientology cult, the "subject," or
any cult- related group, front organization, WISE company, or any of
their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and
assigns is *per recipient*. So, e.g., if this post to a.r.s. is read
by, let's say conservatively, ten thousand people, I have created a
product worth, in the existing market, five hundred million dollars.
I'll web this post as well, so I'll also pull in fifty grand each time
someone visits its page. One of the beauties of this arrangement is
that the cultists locked themselves into this valuation of my product
by contract. See:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
I usually strive to give the cult its money's worth, to keep my
exchange in. So I post often lengthy, factual, thoughtful, literarily
competent posts, such as this one. But I can simply write a single
sentence about the Scientology cult, the "subject," or any
cult-related group, front organization, WISE company, or any of their
directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers or
assigns, or even less than a sentence, a single word, and it's five
hundred million. On a slow day, I can do several billion dollars of
business, with a few a.r.s. posts alone.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ has 4225 files, each of which, except
for the fish story,
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/chilliwack-progress-ca-1956.html
is worth fifty thou, so, potentially, each person who visits the site
brings in for me two hundred eleven million two hundred thousand
dollars. I get, oh I don't know, again conservatively, three hundred
visitors a day, so that generates in a standard year an even
twenty-three trillion one hundred twenty-six billion four hundred
million.
I have been communicating about the Scientology cult, the "subject,"
and cult-related groups, front organizations, WISE companies, and
their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and
assigns ever since the cultists literally forced me to sign their
contract, and I would say that all these products at $50,000 each per
recipient, and, of course, conservatively, add up to a little over
fifty trillion dollars. There was a time that I protested this
valuation, but since Scientology and its cultists insist upon it, and
have even gone to court to get a judicial ruling that any
communication from me about the Scientology cult, the "subject," or
cult-related groups, front organizations, WISE companies, or their
directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers or assigns
is worth $50,000 per recipient of each such communication, I have
stopped protesting, and have accepted the valuation of my creative
works, and am instead focusing on collection of the monstrous debt the
cultists continue to incur.
The cultists owe me a lot of money. There's no way around that. I
can't just let them walk away because they'll only dramatize their
criminal out exchange and have me assassinated.
>
>You're a brainwashed clam, "space" traveler in your brainwashed head!.
It's an op. The pretended stupidity is so dominant in the
communications, and based on so many lies, that it is virtually
impossible that the op is not serving, and aware that it is serving,
the Miscavige cult's malevolent purposes. Indicating the fact that
it's a cult op, is often the correct strategy. Again, I have a perhaps
unique relationship with the cult and with Miscavige, in the legal, PR
and intelligence arenas, that makes the identification of cult ops at
times a useful and even necessary activity. And, of course, it's a
sure income generator, and a guy has to live. Certainly, there are
times when it is inadvisable to call an op an op, and again, my
situation in the cult's war is in a number of ways not comparable to
the situations of other cult opponents or a.r.s. participants.
Spacetrusser can demonstrate it's not an op for Miscavige by doing
what an op would not do: simply tell the truth, knock off the
pretended stupidity, and be responsive to on topic communications.
He'd rather lie, fine.
Don't be deceived by an op's claims that he or she "criticizes"
certain aspects of Scientology; e.g., "management," or that certain
things in Scientology are "problematic." Since these "criticisms" are
what cult ops have been saying for decades, these "criticisms" should
be given zero value. Unless, of course, the person who is presenting
the op as a "critic" is himself or herself seeking to serve the cult's
purposes. Look for the op's targets between the lies and the pretended
stupidity.
>
>r
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
wbarwell
> On 4 Aug 2004 02:08:03 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>>hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote in message
>>news:<41124795...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>>> On 2 Aug 2004 02:53:39 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>>> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>
>>The factual observation is that Rice and Armstron so far REFUSE to be
>>honest about HCOPL 21 July 1968 and adjust their sites.
>
> What a liar you are, Spacetrolley! You have refused to post everything
> I've ever written about Scientology, let alone fair game.
>
> Now as to your precious policy letter by the judicially declared
> pathological liar, convicted criminal and sickie L. Ron Hubbard, how
> about you post it here in its entirety. Use your carriage return if
> you need more space.
>
> And also, please web a scan of the actual policy letter. You can use
> one of the Miscavige Scientology cult's web sites. The Miscavigites
> have lots of space for supporting their sleazy ops like you.
If anybody wants to post the truth about fair game, one needs to post not
HCOPL 21 July 68 which doesn't do squat about fair game one way or the
other, but post 3 Nov 68's Code of Reform and HCOPL 26 Mar 69 which
references CoR. (See the Foster Report).
Then the December 1974 GO intel training hat check sheets.
Where the bad ol' 7 Mar 65 fair game law HCOPL is back in its starrated
glory.
Yeah, and post the relevant HCOPL 1 Mar 65.
One one hand, Hubbo did not publically say fair game is back, but
on the other it was back, secretly. In 1974, Hubbo was still sailing hid
Fabian fleet around the world, staying out of reach of the law.
all this was hatched out of his rooms aboard the Apollo.
While Armstrong was puttering around the ship looking to stay
out of RPF. Little knowing what Hubbo and Mary Sue were cooking up.
So we had sneaky, lying pair of people who decided their own public rules
did not apply to them and their minions acting on their orders.
Which is the crux of the whole matter.
Hubbard's anger managment problem got the best of him,
and he was back to destroying enemies, framing judges and
infiltrating governments.
One might also at this point place on the website
little quotes from PDC Supplemental Tape 9
where Hubbard tells us how morals don't really exist.
Everything is thus relative. So he made his own, secret,
self serving morality.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
And Armstrong can tell about his part in te burning
and destruction of all incriminating evidence to any
illegal acts including Snow White, GO and anything
else such as fair game activities.
Such and honest, upstanding, deeply moral bastard.
>>>
>>Andreas Heldal-Lund is also doing this (have not approached him yet,
>>but I will): http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
>>
>>> People here are talking about abuses--investigations,
>>> lawsuits, stalking with PIs, framing people for crimes, and other
>>> annoyances petty and major. CoS is well known for subjecting anyone
>>> who disagrees with them to such abuses.
>>
>>So, can ars being considered a cult or can it not?
> With your OT level pretended stupidity you can pretend just about
> anything you want. You can even pretend that pathological liar,
> convicted criminal and sickie L. Ron Hubbard was, as he said about
> himself, mankind's best friend.
>
My little fair game timeline, hardly complete yet, and still
needing to fill a few holes, is good enough to point the way
to a real understanding of fair game.
Publically, Hubard cancelled it by a few short years later it
was reinstated as secret, but very real policy. And drilled
on by those who would become Hubbard's fair game enforcers.
That's all one needs to know.
The real story goes beyond the HCOPL 21 Oct 68 'cancellation',
where many people do stop.
When it comes to fair game, everybody should know
HCOPL 1 Mar 65 and the 1974 GO intel training hat
check sheets.
And people should wonder, what else was there that was
one way publically, another way secretly in Scientology?
>>
>>
>>> >People themselves make something into a cult, they do that ALL BY
>>> >THEMSELVES
>>>
>>> That's not exactly on the mark according to the way I understand it,
>>> but you're not far off. Humans get into/make something into/ a cult
>>> because of certain evolved psychological traits we got from being
>>> social primates living in small tribes.
>>>
>>> Did you finish reading my Sex, Drugs and Cults paper? That will give
>>> you the background to discuss these subjects.
>>
>>Haven't had the time yet (I saved the link though). Anyway what you
>>say in the above indicates to me that you may think that we are not
>>entirely responsible ourselves for ourselves, what we think, do or
>>whatever? Is this a correct conclusion?
>
> Of course it's a correct conclusion. How could it be otherwise,
> Spacetrifler?
>
>>
>>Spacetraveler
>
> © Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
--
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>"Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<410b...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
>> > The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
>> > he refuses to respond to.
>>
>> Space for brains, who the fuck cares.
>
>Funny, you haven't understood why I am doing this. .-)
Doing what, Spacetrainingwheels?
>
>I never disclosed why,
Whoop, whoop, whoop!
> it needs a very careful observer and someone
>with a flexible mind to actually find out.
But, Spacetragicomedy, your balloon was pricked within a few minutes
you floated it here. You're a cult op.
Beyond that why you're doing all this lying, hiding and fair gaming
isn't necessary to know. The cult uses sociopaths and psychopaths to
do the kind of work you do. So you could just be nuts. You could be
doing it for money. You could be doing your A to E. It really isn't
necessary to know why you do what you do for the Scientology cult in
its sick war to shatter and obliterate good people to know that you're
doing it for the cult.
>
>
>> Its should be obvious to you Gerry has decided
>> not to give or recieve communication from a troll,
>> you know, code of honor # 8, since you, yourself,
>> insist on quotiing hcobs. Perhaps he is using his
>> power of choice and self determination, you know,
>> from the tape of the same.
>> And you claim its not your orginization. Then why
>> would you stoop sooooo low to defend it, and cite
>> references.
>> The church has been after Gerry, trying to put the
>> guy in jail for years.
>>
>> Lets see if you can understand this space for brains.
>>
>> The creed of the church says all men have
>> the right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
>> their own opinions and to counter and write upon the
>> opinions of others.
>>
>> Gee space for brains, if the church really believes this,
>> why would they spend millions and millions in court
>> trying to stop people like Gerry from speaking. Why
>> would the church have ex-member sign a gag order.
>> What is the church so afraid of.
>>
>> Can you say hypocrisy.
>>
>> Now be a good troll and go away.
>
>Gerry is your hero, he shares your convictions.
It's a lie, but even then it's probably better than having L. Ron
Hubbard as hero.
Imagine, a judicially declared pathological liar, violent misanthrope,
mysogynist, sickie, obsese, chain smoking, whining, suppressive, and
on top of all that, obscenely vain, coward, as hero. That's Hubbard.
And what he turned decent people into was worshippers of a
pathological liar, violent misanthrope, misogynist, sickie, obsese,
chain smoking, whining, suppressive, obscenely vain coward.
Conning people into Scientologists to follow Hubbard the pathological
liar, violent misanthrope, misogynist, sickie, obsese, chain smoking,
whining, suppressive, obscenely vain coward, is an act of hatred and
cruelty.
Your lying here, Spacetruthless, to keep people from finding out that
Hubbard was the pathological liar, violent misanthrope, misogynist,
sickie, obsese, chain smoking, whining, suppressive, obscenely vain
coward that he was, also shows your hatred of people and your cruelty.
Some hero you have. Hubbard the Hater.
> So, you have to take
>his side, not matter what, even when he slips.
Whereas you, Spacetripery, must take the side of Hubbard, who at the
exalted level of hallucinatory cause could not slip further.
>That's not looking,
>that's stupidity.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>nobody <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:<101447084.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <410d481e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff says...
>> >
>> >I'm not in any CofS mindset.
>>
>> What a laugh.
>
>I'm ex CofS, actually, and probably have written far more posts
>criticizing CofS than you ever have or will.
Oh boy can she pump out the "criticisms." Don't forget, however, that
ten thousand "criticisms" given to obtain "credibility" don't have the
value of one sincere effort to speak the thoughtful truth about
something evil and dangerous that only the thoughtful truth can
vanquish.
>
>I realize it's hard for you to wrap your mind around the fact that
>someone like me can be and is a critic, but,well, too bad.
Claire uses, you'll see, over and over, this term "critics" for
portraying "sides" in whatever conflict exists involving Scientology,
the cult or otherwise. "Critics" is in fact a term that in certain
circumstances serves Scientology's purposes.
There is a conflict between Scientologists and a class of citizens the
Scientologists' leaders identify as "Suppressive Persons." Scientology
teaches that Scientologists are at war with SPs, and are to treat
every skirmish with SPs as war. In this War Against Suppressive
Persons (WASP®), who comprise Scientology's victims, Scientologists
are ordered to raid SPs, to harass SPs, to make the SPs attack wrong
targets or persons, to cut off SPs' communications, funds and
connections, to deprive SPs of their political advantages, connections
and power, to expend the maximum of SPs, to make the war costly on
SPs, to capture and use SPs' communication lines, to take over SPs'
territory, to use standard wartime propaganda against SPs, to degrade
the image of SPs to beast level, to bring public opinion to a frenzy
of hate against SPs, to wage a war of total attrition on SPs, to go
all the way in and obliterate SPs, and, as already mentioned, to treat
all skirmishes with SPs like war.
If you think these attacks on the good people who comprise SPs are
indicative are insanity in Scientologists, you're right. If you think
that all this insanity, hatred and organized attacks toward good
people could not possibly be Scientology policy, you'd be wrong. This
is Scientology "scripture" that can never be changed. It comes right
out of cult founder Hubbard's policy letter "Battle Tactics" published
in 1969, a year *after* he ordered that the term "fair game" not be
used for these terrible attacks on good people.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1969-02-16-battle-tactics.html
Scientologists, pursuant to Scientology policy, *only* attack SPs, and
only victimize SPs. The whole "SP" identity is a sick Hubbard illusion
to permit him, without guilt, to order the further victimization of
his, his quackery's, and his cult's victims.
It is natural that victims of any crime, abuse or other victimization
would be critics of the victimizers. But calling these victims
"critics" can in fact be further victimization, which is how Claire
often uses this term.
Some people who are victims come to oppose the Scientology cult and
its victimization of the good people it victimizes. These people
understand what the war is about and have chosen to fight for
Scientology's victims, the SPs, to bring an end to this dirty war.
Claire ignores the fact that the war exists. That is a common position
for people who serve Scientology's malevolent intentions toward SPs,
since Scientology seeks to cloak its dirty war of attrition on SPs
until it's too late for the SPs to mobilize.
The people Scientologists war against in their utterly insane War
Against SPs are not criminals, are not guilty of anything, and are
nothing but decent, loving and lovable human brings. They are all
victims in Scientology's war.
Claire claims to be a "critic" of Scientology and also a "critic" of
Scientology's victims, the SPs, whom she misidentifies and misnames as
"critics."
But she doesn't oppose the Scientology cult's "Suppressive Person"
doctrine, and she doesn't support the doctrine's victims any more than
she supports the Scientologists who apply the doctrine to victimize
the victims.
>
>C
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
wbarwell
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:27:40 +0200, "roger gonnet"
> <r...@antisectes.net[OTER-L-ANTISPAM]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
>>news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
>>> The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
>>> he refuses to respond to.
>>
>>We know that one of the last tricks of scientology OSAers to "handle"
>>critics is to assert that they don't answer to communications.
>>
>>Anyway, regarding Gerry, even if it was true that he does not repsond,
>
> Spacetrainedseal is a trained liar and a cult op. If anyone cares to
> wade through the communications between us, it is clear that this op
> is the one who doesn't respond to communications.
>
He may not be. You can find people responding like this in almost any
newsgroup, the Bush worshipping right wingers in all the political
newsgroups. The flakes that hate Hillary Clinton with an irational
passion that paralyzes all thought, religous fanatics and cranks that come
to alt.atheism and other groups to play similar games. Astrologers and
woo-woo types in sci.skeptic and every sci.newsgroup in existance.
And more.
He is probably no agent, just somebody who is set in his ways and
somewhat inflexable. He has a theory. You can see this sort of
behavior elsewhere on the net.
As for not responding to communications, often people do, just not in a
manner that is conducive to learning. Faxhor abuses Arnie so he won't have
to face my Dianetics mini-FAQ. Space Traveler abuses you and me
while refusing to adequately deal with issues such as the nature of science
vs pseudoscience, and Hubbard's own brand of that. You see teh same tactics
on teh net.
I point out Hubard's big failed promises in the PDC tapes, he critiques
my off the cuff estimation that there are some 80 tapes. The rest, well,
he's off and running and claiming I didn't answer his question
on DM's forgeries, though I have now at least three times.
Its a game. You see that elsewhere on the net. When backed
in a corner, divert attention, avoid real issues while inflating minor
issues. 76 tapes, not 80! Avoid the issue I was dealing with
here, the failed promises, which go back to the mini-FAQ
and Dianetics false claims.
Its kind of amusing. Because most everybody here is
will know these trite net habits for what they are.
I he was an agemt of OSA, he is a bad one.
Hard to tell from any run of the mill internet hard head.
Its an old, old observation that on the net, you have one thing
to trade in, credibility. And it can be lost quickly.
Like I say, he is probably just a run of the mill net crank.
>>You're a brainwashed clam, "space" traveler in your brainwashed head!.
*****************
>
> Spacetrusser can demonstrate it's not an op for Miscavige by doing
> what an op would not do: simply tell the truth, knock off the
> pretended stupidity, and be responsive to on topic communications.
> He'd rather lie, fine.
What if its NOT pretended stupidity?
What if its the real thing?
In my go arounds with him on science, I get the distinct feeling
he knows little about many things. Like Hubbard, sometimes
people think they are experts on everything. But aren't even basically
competent. Hubbard claimed to be an expert on 28 spheres of
human endeavor, listen to his tapes, you realize he was abysmally
ignorant. He'd read a book, and drop names and concepts, and go on to
extemporize and show he was totally ignorant of what he was babbling about
except in the shallowest "scan this book" manner, like a schoolboy trying to
fake his way through a book review test.
>
> Don't be deceived by an op's claims that he or she "criticizes"
> certain aspects of Scientology; e.g., "management," or that certain
> things in Scientology are "problematic." Since these "criticisms" are
> what cult ops have been saying for decades, these "criticisms" should
> be given zero value. Unless, of course, the person who is presenting
> the op as a "critic" is himself or herself seeking to serve the cult's
> purposes. Look for the op's targets between the lies and the pretended
> stupidity.
Of course, he could be sincere. But when one has gotten much
of one's intellectual ideas from Hubbard books and tapes,
one will be ill equipped to handle real world problems in all their deep
complexity.
"What's true is what's true for you" is not a good thing have drilled into
you.
Virginia McClaughry
An "op" per Gerry, is essentially someone who does not see what Gerry says
is the truth about Scientology and LRH, to BE the truth, and who challenges
Gerry with an *opposing* view and will not back down in the face of Gerry
and other "critic's" behavior modification and abusive tactics.
Well, that's not too convenient at all.
I like how Gerry goes on and on about ops, but when he is given a real,
recent, example of one on us (Mike) - he does exactly what he accuses
spacetraveler of doing.
Gerry, in other words, tacitly agrees with black ops and "Fair Game" being
done on Mike and I.
So whose agenda is Gerry really serving?
Yeah, exactly.
This guy is either an incredible Dupe or HE is a full blown OP himself.
I tend to go with the second one - He's a full blown OP straight out of the
mind-control camp - complete with *losing* cases to "set precedents" yada
yada. A patsy in other words.
You don't see these kind of suits against someone they *can't* control the
outcome properly on, do you? NO. For example, to my knowledge there were
never any suits against Captain Bill. Why not? One obvious reason is that
Captain Bill certainly wasn't their patsy. Captain Bill wasn't a rigged game
so there was no real guaranteed outcome. Too much risk.
So... basically? A lot of this is pretty much just one big well-arranged and
orchestrated SHOW - complete with a full cast of dupes, agents and handlers,
with the real "strategists" being the men "behind the curtain".
And I think that Gerry gets pissed when his audience that is his job to play
to, gets told to "look behind the curtain".
I don't give a crap if he does get pissed or call me crazy or "cult-op" or
whatever Black PR line the "men" dream up. It's all goose for the gander and
part of the SHOW.
Remember that. They think they HAVE to do this, and it isn't out of any real
sense of duty as a motivation - I can guarantee you.
Virginia
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
news:gah4h0pa7fib6jdq3...@4ax.com...
ladayla
That's a perceptive observation, Steve. There are so very many people who are
born, or fall, into poverty, and they know that there is a better way to live
and they want to change their conditions. They see scn as a way to do that. Many
are escaping from abusive families, abusive relationships, and they are told and
they believe that scn can help them with that. Scn can help them, but it
doesn't. Instead, scn makes slaves of them and keeps them so very very very busy
busy busy writing reports, keeping stats, chipping paint, scrubbing toilets,
eating the lowest quality foods, neglecting sleep night after night, that they
lose themselves in the group insanity. Such an awful picture is painted of the
'wog world', the hatred of SPs toward them. their family trying to stop them,
war , psychiatrists etc etc that they are afraid to leave a known situation.
Where would they go? How could they get a job? What sort of transportation could
they use? Would they be a homeless person on the streets?
Would they just be another degraded being? And, the biggie, would they lose
their eternity??? It's hard to leave.
Most of the 'critics' want to get scn'ists out of scn. I am more interested in
seeing to it that people don't get in to start with. It takes so much more time
and patience to talk someone out, than it does to prevent them from goung in. I
am too old and too impatient with stupidity ( pretended or otherwise) to spend
my efforts on getting scn'ists out of the cult that they have entangled
themselves in. But....that's just me.
la
>
>Steve Whitlatch
>
>
Zinj
says...
> Most of the 'critics' want to get scn'ists out of scn. I am more interested in
> seeing to it that people don't get in to start with. It takes so much more time
> and patience to talk someone out, than it does to prevent them from goung in. I
> am too old and too impatient with stupidity ( pretended or otherwise) to spend
> my efforts on getting scn'ists out of the cult that they have entangled
> themselves in. But....that's just me.
>
> la
I agree with most of what you said beyond this (although I find Steve
suspiciously 'over-the-top' in some parts of his posts), but I think
this deserves comment. Not so much that I disagree with you, because I
don't, but I think that, while 'most' of the 'Critics' would like
Scientologists out of Scientology (and/or the 'Church' of Scientology
especially), actually *getting* them out is the primary goal of only a
few.
For exactly the reasons you mention. It's far easier to keep people from
falling for the first bait and switch than it is to try to reverse the
damage caused by Scientology Indoctrination, considering that the damage
is deliberately aimed at preventing any external influence or 'reason'.
Quite successfully too.
The defense mechanisms, whether circular logical choo-choos, apples and
oranges assaults on language or merely blithe changing of the subject
kick in automatically, and actually 'discussing Scientology' with an
active Scientologist is frustrating at best, and seldom accomplishes
more than mobilising the defenses.
In the final analysis, only the Scientologist himself can 'get the
Scientologist out'.
Worse; as a 'critical tactic', concentration on actively 'rescuing'
Scientologists leads to such silliness as deliberately *tailoring*
critical discussion to the purpose, which inevitably results in ceding
the entire discussion field to the 'Scientology Mindset'.
Attempting to avoid 'hurting feelings' or 'insulting' or 'offending'
Scientologists is a hopeless task, since the 'Tech' trains its victims
to exploit any possible offense as a weapon. Victimology as aggression.
Agree not to mention Xenu, and insulting Hubbard's lies and crimes will
become the bone of contention. Avoid both and suggesting that
Scientology creates a 'mindset' will be hurtful. Suggesting that any
Scientologist was 'tricked' into suffering the indignities of 'mind
control' is a perennial favorite topic to avoid.
There is no end, nor is there supposed to be. The only *acceptable*
level of discussion of Scientology for a Scientologist is the
Scientology Level.
Sure, *they* can mention isolated evils or abuses, but for a 'critic' to
suggest that such are not isolated at all, but rather, deliberately
systemic goes right back to square one and divert, obfuscate and run
around in circles.
Better to keep the discussion on the 'critical' level, and let the
Scientologists take care of their 'unindoctrination' themselves; or not.
As the case may be.
Personally, my critical interest remains with innocculation per
information as a preventative, and even more important on my own scale,
the exposure of Scientology to the broad general public to the level
where social pressure forces the 'wog authorities' to live up to their
own duties as defenders of social rights for *all*.
The best way to 'get Scientologists out of Scientology' is to take their
Cult away from them. If they want to continue the 'practice' of
Scientology, without the organized crime aspect after that; well, that's
their business.
Spacetraveler
> On 3 Aug 2004 17:38:56 -0700, amaflu...@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl)
> wrote:
>
> >nobody <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote in message news:<101447084.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> In article <410d481e$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Ball of Fluff says...
> >> >
> >> >I'm not in any CofS mindset.
> >>
> >> What a laugh.
> >
> >I'm ex CofS, actually, and probably have written far more posts
> >criticizing CofS than you ever have or will.
>
> Oh boy can she pump out the "criticisms." Don't forget, however, that
> ten thousand "criticisms" given to obtain "credibility" don't have the
> value of one sincere effort to speak the thoughtful truth about
> something evil and dangerous that only the thoughtful truth can
> vanquish.
How are you to know. You can't even respond to the first post on this
thread questioning your actual understanding of the word itself.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> >
> >I am ENTIRELY NOT INTERESTED in gaining debating points anywhere on
> >any area.
>
> You'd better be entirely not interested, because you have no hope
> whatsoever of ever gaining debating points. Ops like you can't debate
> their way out of a wet paper cult.
You are free to have your opinion, even it being incorrect.
> > I prefer to figure out things entirely by myself.
>
> I'd prefer if you'd do this some time too.
>
> > In that
> >sense I expose of authorities completely.
>
> Be very careful the authorities aren't watching when you do your
> little exposure routine. Authorities have sensibilities too you know.
Instead of spouting you trivialities why not addressing some issues?
Still waiting for you:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
> > Any of these I take as
> >sources of information, and nothing more.
>
>
> >
> >The factual observation is that Rice and Armstron so far REFUSE to be
> >honest about HCOPL 21 July 1968 and adjust their sites.
>
> What a liar you are, Spacetrolley! You have refused to post everything
> I've ever written about Scientology, let alone fair game.
>
> Now as to your precious policy letter by the judicially declared
> pathological liar, convicted criminal and sickie L. Ron Hubbard, how
> about you post it here in its entirety. Use your carriage return if
> you need more space.
>
> And also, please web a scan of the actual policy letter. You can use
> one of the Miscavige Scientology cult's web sites. The Miscavigites
> have lots of space for supporting their sleazy ops like you.
You are already exposed:
http://groups.google.se/groups?dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=bf456302.0407291416.145ee0e1%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Dsv%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dalt.religion.scientology
Does the elephant bother about the flea?
In my opinion you are one sick human being.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
And here we the pupil following the master.....
Still don't know how issues are to be dealt with, čh William.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
The righteous ones can not be guided.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> > > > > Many of us critics here have been here a long time.
> > > > > I am not a 1.1, covertly hostile critic. I am quite open
> > > > > in my overt hostility to Hubbard and Scientology and their
> > > > > evil ways.
> > > >
> > > > I have not seen you ever make any positive remark concerning L. Ron
> > > > hubbard or Scientology. You have proclaimed time after time after time
> > > > that it is all balderdash. Everything of it.
> > > >
> > > > See, a rational person with no bad conscience can actually look at
> > > > what is right there in front of him. You however only spout
> > > > generalities, even change dictionary definitions to fit your own
> > > > purposes ('fair game'). Avoid to give direct answers to arguments
> > > > making you uncomfortable and so on. And how ALL is bad about
> > > > Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
> > >
> > > Interjecting here, I did a post that had a discussion of "Fair Game" as
> > > well. I think it was to either Dan Garvin or Michael Tilse.
>
> Are you familiar with the post I mention above?
No, I made some notes on paper just now, will try to look for them.
snip
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
It is for me! .-)
You people are masters in applying:
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
Lines
Joseph Goebbels did that too i beleive. Just tell a lie often enough
and people will believe you. The bigger the better.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Giving me names don't hurt, my very dearest Gerry!
You are exposed here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl1073962928d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
And you will not finish the comm cycles you once started:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
You are trapped and don't know the way out. And so you slip. An SP can
not and will not admit that he ever can be in error about something.
One to have, 11 to go........
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 19:21:18 +0200, Bent Stigsen <ng...@thevoid.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >Spacetraveler wrote:
> >
> >> From "Critics of Scientology" (1st 4 paragraphs):
> >>
> >> If Aunt Ermiltrude each night went through your change purse and
> >> extracted divers coins without your knowledge, and then if she found
> >> you had joined a group that could discover secrets, her immediate and
> >> passionate reaction would be to damn the group and you as well.
> >>
> >> If the wife was stepping out with your best friend behind your back,
> >> and one day she found you had thoughts of joining agroup that taught
> >> you people's motives and reactions and made you understand them, she
> >> would throw a mad-dog fit to prevent your progress.
> >>
> >> If a government were busy making capital out of people's ignorance of
> >> economics and world affairs and was playing a double game and a group
> >> came along and started to make its people smarter and more
> >> knowledgable of true motives, that government would try to shoot every
> >> member of that group on sight.
> >>
> >> If a group of "scientists" were knowingly raising the number of insane
> >> to get more appropriation and "treatment" fees and somebody came along
> >> with the real answer, that group would move heaven and earth to
> >> protect its billions of rake-off. L. Ron Hubbard
> >>
> >
> >So when someone attack scientology, it is solely because they are bad
> >people and scientology is a rightious religion who can make you smart.
> >
> >Is it not the gist of it?
> >
> >How good is it as defence against criticism?
>
A word that has shown to be one of your misunderstoods..... (see first
post on this thread)
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Spacetraveler wrote:
>
> > From "Critics of Scientology" (1st 4 paragraphs):
> >
> > If Aunt Ermiltrude each night went through your change purse and
> > extracted divers coins without your knowledge, and then if she found
> > you had joined a group that could discover secrets, her immediate and
> > passionate reaction would be to damn the group and you as well.
> >
> > If the wife was stepping out with your best friend behind your back,
> > and one day she found you had thoughts of joining agroup that taught
> > you people's motives and reactions and made you understand them, she
> > would throw a mad-dog fit to prevent your progress.
> >
> > If a government were busy making capital out of people's ignorance of
> > economics and world affairs and was playing a double game and a group
> > came along and started to make its people smarter and more
> > knowledgable of true motives, that government would try to shoot every
> > member of that group on sight.
> >
> > If a group of "scientists" were knowingly raising the number of insane
> > to get more appropriation and "treatment" fees and somebody came along
> > with the real answer, that group would move heaven and earth to
> > protect its billions of rake-off. L. Ron Hubbard
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> So when someone attack scientology, it is solely because they are bad
> people and scientology is a rightious religion who can make you smart.
>
> Is it not the gist of it?
That's your statement. Understand the concept of it.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:27:40 +0200, "roger gonnet"
> <r...@antisectes.net[OTER-L-ANTISPAM]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> >news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> >> The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> >> he refuses to respond to.
> >
> >We know that one of the last tricks of scientology OSAers to "handle"
> >critics is to assert that they don't answer to communications.
> >
> >Anyway, regarding Gerry, even if it was true that he does not repsond,
>
> Spacetrainedseal is a trained liar and a cult op. If anyone cares to
> wade through the communications between us, it is clear that this op
> is the one who doesn't respond to communications.
Gerry is exposed here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl1073962928d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
Tseek,Tsek, got some explaining to do, dear old boy!
And another lengthy attempt to cover up why he will not address my
valid arguments.
Just a pick:
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:27:40 +0200, "roger gonnet"
> > <r...@antisectes.net[OTER-L-ANTISPAM]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> >>news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> >>> The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
> >>> he refuses to respond to.
> >>
> >>We know that one of the last tricks of scientology OSAers to "handle"
> >>critics is to assert that they don't answer to communications.
> >>
> >>Anyway, regarding Gerry, even if it was true that he does not repsond,
> >
> > Spacetrainedseal is a trained liar and a cult op. If anyone cares to
> > wade through the communications between us, it is clear that this op
> > is the one who doesn't respond to communications.
> >
>
> He may not be. You can find people responding like this in almost any
> newsgroup, the Bush worshipping right wingers in all the political
> newsgroups.
Agreed. Your kind of evading responders you will find anywhere on
these newsgroups.
> The flakes that hate Hillary Clinton with an irational
> passion that paralyzes all thought, religous fanatics and cranks that come
> to alt.atheism and other groups to play similar games. Astrologers and
> woo-woo types in sci.skeptic and every sci.newsgroup in existance.
> And more.
> He is probably no agent, just somebody who is set in his ways and
> somewhat inflexable. He has a theory. You can see this sort of
> behavior elsewhere on the net.
>
> As for not responding to communications, often people do, just not in a
> manner that is conducive to learning. Faxhor abuses Arnie so he won't have
> to face my Dianetics mini-FAQ. Space Traveler abuses you and me
> while refusing to adequately deal with issues such as the nature of science
> vs pseudoscience, and Hubbard's own brand of that. You see teh same tactics
> on teh net.
>
> I point out Hubard's big failed promises in the PDC tapes, he critiques
> my off the cuff estimation that there are some 80 tapes. The rest, well,
> he's off and running and claiming I didn't answer his question
> on DM's forgeries, though I have now at least three times.
>
> Its a game. You see that elsewhere on the net. When backed
> in a corner, divert attention, avoid real issues while inflating minor
> issues. 76 tapes, not 80!
You said *more* than 80 tapes! What were you thnking?
An opinion is not an issue. You ramble opinion most of the time.
And did you address following issue:
No, you did not.
> Avoid the issue I was dealing with
> here, the failed promises, which go back to the mini-FAQ
> and Dianetics false claims.
>
> Its kind of amusing. Because most everybody here is
> will know these trite net habits for what they are.
>
> I he was an agemt of OSA, he is a bad one.
> Hard to tell from any run of the mill internet hard head.
>
> Its an old, old observation that on the net, you have one thing
> to trade in, credibility. And it can be lost quickly.
The stupidity of some individuals never fails to amaze me. Like a
spider webbing it's net, and then they fall in it themselves.
Miserably trapped, and the more they sprawl, the less sanity they'll
spout.
snip
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Thank you!
I guess this sums it up! I believe LRH was clear enough in Ron's Journal 67.
Spacetraveler
Warrior
Spacetraveler says...
>
>"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE
>REPEATED OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC."
>HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy Lines
>
>
>Spacetraveler
This is what Scientology does. The cult's claim of 8 million members
is one example of a lie that has been repeated over and over. The
telling of this lie is itself an application of fair game.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Keith Henson
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote in message news:<41124795...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> On 2 Aug 2004 02:53:39 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
>> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>>
>> >hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote in message news:<410d48af...@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 12:21:10 -0700, Gerry Armstrong
>> >> <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:12:26 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>> >> >>> "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote in message
>> news:<410baee7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> >> >>> > "Genesis" <genes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>> > news:410b...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>> > > news:9f53d1e2.0407...@posting.google.com...
>> >>
>> >> snip
>> >>
>> >> You might take a look at the "cooking" thread between spacetraveler
>> >> and me for style on both sides.
>> >>
>> >> Being nice to spacetraveler doesn't cost anything and he reciprocates.
>> >> He is deeply mired in cult-think,
>> >
>> >Based on? How do we know that you are not in cult think?
>>
>> In this group, a cult-think person is anyone who thinks scientology is
>> great. The word applies to any flavor, independent, LRH based, free
>> zone, official, offshoots, or any varieties I missed here.
>
>That is not the dictionary definition of cult. Acknowledging that in
>fact there is something of value in Scientology and in the writings of
>L. Ron Hubbard does not make this a cult.
I said it was local to this news group.
>I can also say that you are mired in cult think as you seem to accept
>a variety of the arguments of the critics of Scientology as truth
>without getting to the bottom of them. In this you are accepting
>something as true by reason of 'authority'. (you yourself have picked
>what is to be your authority)
Please look into my story. My opinion of the cult stems from *direct
experience* with them.
snip
>> >> There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod
>> >> like
>> >> Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
>> >> mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
>> >
>> >I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
>> >she broke out of anything.
>>
>> You are not going to get much support for that opinion, certainly not
>> from CoS. As you know she is now a declared SP and her husband was
>> forced to disconnect from her.
>
>I do not grave for acknowledgement of any group or person. I tell what
>I perceive to be. This is called independency.
>
>Her husband chose to disconnect from her, not the same thing. It was
>not Scientology practice either.
As I recall he was ordered to divorce her. Are you aware of a single
marriage where one partner is a declared SP and the other is a member
in good standing?
>> >It may very well be so that she jumped
>> >right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
>> >admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
>> >sudden she can see? Think again.
>>
>> I was there. Tory's opinion of CoS changed from a supporter who was
>> helping them do illegal things like the denial of service attack run
>> by Gavino Idda to someone with an opinion of CoS much like my own.
>
>Changing her opinion does not automatically mean that she did not jump
>right into another fixation. It is an ENTIRELY logical assumption that
>she was to have tendencies doing exactly that.
Don't/didn't deny that possibility. Just stated that she went from
doing illegal things for the cult to her present situation as a major
critic. People have a tendency to do things for approval. No doubt
about it, Tory gets widespread approval for her hobby of getting
people out of the cult. (Hooray for Tory!)
>> >The ars all by itself can even be considered being a cult, it has all
>> >the characteristics I believe. Claims, claims and claims, but not so
>> >really much sound reasoning. Certain facts, obviously and proven to be
>> >correct are dismissed by inferior highly questionable arguments. You
>> >only have to watch the ramblings of Barwell, and the evasions of Rice
>> >and Armstrong.
>>
>> On such subjects as fair game, you said:
>>
>> [Keith]
>>
>> >> If what was done to me is not "fair game" what is it?
>>
>> [spacetraveler]
>>
>> >It sounds like it, yes.
>>
>> Arguing semantics with people over the nuances of the exact inside-CoS
>> technical meaning of "Fair Game" is not gaining you debating points on
>> a.r.s.
>
>I am ENTIRELY NOT INTERESTED in gaining debating points anywhere on
>any area. I prefer to figure out things entirely by myself. In that
>sense I expose of authorities completely. Any of these I take as
>sources of information, and nothing more.
>
>The factual observation is that Rice and Armstron so far REFUSE to be
>honest about HCOPL 21 July 1968 and adjust their sites. That Keith is
>not 'arguing semantics'! That is dishonesty!
>Are you defending the above 2 persons? Are you? Do you think it is
>correct?
>http://www.fairgamed.org/fairgame.htm
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
>
>Andreas Heldal-Lund is also doing this (have not approached him yet,
>but I will): http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
I don't give a hoot. After you have been subjected to what ever you
want to call the practice formerly known as fair game I doubt you will
care either.
>> People here are talking about abuses--investigations,
>> lawsuits, stalking with PIs, framing people for crimes, and other
>> annoyances petty and major. CoS is well known for subjecting anyone
>> who disagrees with them to such abuses.
>
>So, can ars being considered a cult or can it not?
Almost any human organization that hangs together over time is
rewarding to the people who are in it. For example, L5 Society and
the space colony movement had cult-like aspects. There are cult-like
attention rewards in posting on the a.r.s newsgroup. But a.r.s lacks
the coercive aspect of a real cult like Aum, Heaven's Gate, Solar
Temple or scientology.
The ARSCC, now *that's* a cult. Probably run by the Church of the
SubGenious since almost all of the high ranking members are known SG
associates, some of them open like Pope Charles and others (like me)
going back into the age of the "Bavarian Fire Drills." Of course the
SG is probably controlled by the really shadowy Illuminati, or one of
their subsidaries like the TriLateral Commission.
(In the real world, the LaRouche cult infiltrated several east coast
L5 chapters back in the early 80s.)
snip
Keith Henson
wbarwell
You are a master of missing the point. Repeating errors again
and again is foolish. Whether its a critic thinking 21 Oct 68
really is a good place to stop when discussing fair game, or
somebody spinning big theories based on 21 July 68 doing
something it obvously did not.
You seem to think repeating over and over that HCOPL 21 July 68
cancelled FG will "impinge" that silly idea on the critic's minds.
Obviously, by HCOPL 27 Mar 69, if Hubbard had thought so he'd
have told you so. HCOPL 27 mar 69 shows us Hubbard was
referencing back to the Code of Reform as having ended Fair Game
policies and three other publically unpopular practices.
Its a matter of reading the relevant paper trail and appying a
teensy, eensy bit of common sense.
Now, anybody can follow the trail, though as far as fair game,
it took years for me to do that here. I had a false start at this some
years ago. But it finally got done.
You are still hung up on 21 July 68, its become a personal dogma
with you and in face of common sense and disconfirming
evidence you still indulge in procrustian thinking, all must
be stretched or cut down to fit The Theory.
I am sure that there will be critics who will still
think that Hubbard put out HCOPL 21 Oct 68 as a
fake cancellation and the issue stops there. Wrong,
but its become a time honored myth because nobody
did their homework. I know because I was one of them
until I did my homework.
When the cult offhandedly claims that Fair Game ended
in 1968, they refer to November 3, 1968's Code of Reform.
> Joseph Goebbels did that too i beleive. Just tell a lie often enough
> and people will believe you. The bigger the better.
Are you comparing yourself to Goebbels with your repeated
silliness that HCOPL 21 July 68 cancelled Fair Game when
it did no such thing? OK. Point taken.
A thinking man would say, "Well, yeah, Barwell is right, we all
missed the Code of Reform", which is the next step in the continuing
saga of Fair Game. And no, the fact that it was a board
issue and not an HCOPL does not mean it was a purposeful trick
on Hubbard's part. Nor would that theory be allowed in a court of law.
It would be challenged as speculative opinion and any judge would
uphold an objection on that point.
Instead, you will remain a hard head with a theory.
Inflexible, unwilling to follow evidence, unwilling
to think critically even when hard evidence is plopped
on a plate in front of you, hot and steamy
Substituting name calling for reason, as above.
Here are still gaps that would be nice to fill, but unless
somebody who was deeply involved with Hubbard as he
set up and created policy for GOWW comes foward and tells
us what they observed up close and personal on these issues,
we may never know, since Hubbard was careful to have all
evidence trails as far as possible, destroyed.
But we do know that by 1974 he had changed his views
about how to handle his critics and enemies and got organized
with a vengeance and his very own intelligence agency to act out
his war on his critics, secretly, secret policy secret not only to the
general public, but to the bulk of Scientologists as well.
In retrospect, that, like the original fair game policies, was not
a good idea.
He never dropped his savage anger at squirrels and governments
and enemies and critics, he just learned to not do it publically
where it got him into trouble.
But he arrogantly mis-estimated his ability to do it this way
and not get caught.
Fair Game was a Scientology policy, a secret policy for PR
purposes, but policy.
The other myth, carefully tended by Scientology that
it was renegades out of Hubbard's control that did all
this is also wrong.
Remember, this is the net and you have a limited amount
of credibility on the net. If you keep repeating obvious errors,
you lose credibility every time you do, you lose credibility
every time you substitute empty name calling in lieu
of rational debate.
Your move.
Bent Stigsen
That was more of a hypothetical question for you, so you could give your
or Hubbards view of it. I have not read "Critics of Scientology:" which
you refer to, so I can not with just do that. I am hoping you will give
the general idea of it or concept if you like.
The real question still remains. I will elaborate it a bit.
Context is:
Scientology receive criticism from someone outside Scientology.
The text you quoted, is used in a response.
How good is it as defence against criticism?
/Bent
wbarwell
I doubt that. Its deeper than mere fair game.
Games conditions. Hubbard's rambling theories on games.
I recently listened to the PDC supplementary tape #9
where Hubbard sneeringly tells us that there is no such
thing as morality. He adopts extreme relativism, what is
forbidden by one tribe is demanded by another, no practice
is so bad it was not at one time or other, someplace the highest good.
Therefore, morality does noy exist. Except as prejudices, often
enforced by myths, and usually self serving.
Fair game comes out of these two attitudes.
If its all relative, why should we respect the other 'tribe' (the Wogs
here) rules and morality? Why not insist that ours (Scientology)
is preferable, not because it is right, (right does not exist) but because
it is profitable to us?
Since we cannot accept Wog rules or their justification, indeed
since we have explicitly rejected all morality as mere prejudice,
what is left?
Its now a Darwinian jungle where the weak are eat and
the strong survive.
Its now not a matter of ethics and morals, but of survival
strategems. Tactics and strategies, games.
Hubbard tells us you lose if you do not realize you are in a
game.
And the game is obviously, enforce your rules on others.
What is Fair Game but a game itself? Destroy your enemies.
And don't in return be destroyed.
The only problem now is, how to play the game to win.
That is what it all is in the end to Hubbard.
GOWW and Snow White was his game, to enforce his
self serving morality on others.
Fair Game was destruction of enemies.
Part of the game of forcing others to bend to your will.
This PDC Sup 9 tape is chilling listening. Taped in 1954,
it tells us Hubbard's deepest and most sincere attitude.
It is about the same sort or barbarian attitude you might
think Mongol war lords are savage dictators or genocidal
elites would hold. There is no such thing as morality or
ethics, there is only might and the sword, expect no quarter,
ask no quarter.
And even more chilling, he teaches Scientologists that this
is the way it is.
When you have listened to this tape, the games rants
he spewed all of a sudden become far more sinister.
And you see fair game in its proper place as a tool.
One of several. Zone plans, taking over psychiatry,
fair game, the law can be used to harass, taking to sea
and remaining "Fabian", its all a big game.
To force his will on the world.
wbarwell
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:<411250ee$0$166$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>> Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>
>> He may not be. You can find people responding like this in almost any
>> newsgroup, the Bush worshipping right wingers in all the political
>> newsgroups.
>
> Agreed. Your kind of evading responders you will find anywhere on
> these newsgroups.
>
I have responded to you several times, you didn't even
bother to respond back. You evaded.
Sorry, you lose.
On several other subjects, beaten, you dived out of the arguments and
now refuse to respond.
The many defective claims of Dianetics for example.
Your buddy Faxhor won't respond either.
You lose. Again. You are low on roboticism scale on the
fair game issue. You just mechanically repeat yourself ad
nauseum.
>
>> The flakes that hate Hillary Clinton with an irational
>> passion that paralyzes all thought, religous fanatics and cranks that
>> come
>> to alt.atheism and other groups to play similar games. Astrologers and
>> woo-woo types in sci.skeptic and every sci.newsgroup in existance.
>> And more.
>> He is probably no agent, just somebody who is set in his ways and
>> somewhat inflexable. He has a theory. You can see this sort of
>> behavior elsewhere on the net.
>>
>> As for not responding to communications, often people do, just not in a
>> manner that is conducive to learning. Faxhor abuses Arnie so he won't
>> have
>> to face my Dianetics mini-FAQ. Space Traveler abuses you and me
>> while refusing to adequately deal with issues such as the nature of
>> science
>> vs pseudoscience, and Hubbard's own brand of that. You see the same
>> tactics on the net.
>>
>> I point out Hubard's big failed promises in the PDC tapes, he critiques
>> my off the cuff estimation that there are some 80 tapes. The rest, well,
>> he's off and running and claiming I didn't answer his question
>> on DM's forgeries, though I have now at least three times.
>>
>> Its a game. You see that elsewhere on the net. When backed
>> in a corner, divert attention, avoid real issues while inflating minor
>> issues. 76 tapes, not 80!
>
> You said *more* than 80 tapes! What were you thnking?
>
Between 80 -90 tapes. Because in My big box of tapes I had
50 some odd PDC tapes, supplemtary tapes, and study tapes.
I had messed with them for some time.
But net loon lioke, you latched on to that minor error and
ignored the rest of the issues I had raised.
All the while robotically chanting that I was not responding to you.
Tres amusement.
Its net kook ways and old hands here will note that
when you do that. Avoiding real debate by picking one small,
unimportant error and worrying to to death to aviod
other issues, well, that is what you did.
> An opinion is not an issue. You ramble opinion most of the time.
You opinions are not even good opinions.
I place facts befor eyou. You start babbling and spewing about
opinions, as if your opinions matter much.
Not when you your opinions are based on factual error and
often deep ignorance.
My "opinions"?
How about my long list of false and failed claims to be found in
Dianetics? That is not an opinion, its fact. You and Faxhor don't seem
eager to actual get down to brass tacks here.
You both made big noises but in the end, ran from the issue.
And refuse to deals with that issue, not much Hubbard
wrote in Dianetics is true.
>
> And did you address following issue:
>
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407310627.37c49172%40posting.google.com
>
> No, you did not.
>
Yes, I did. You didn't bother to read it,
or didn't understand it when it was before your nose.
But facts are, you and Faxhor ran from issues yourselves.
Guilty as charged!
>
>> Avoid the issue I was dealing with
>> here, the failed promises, which go back to the mini-FAQ
>> and Dianetics false claims.
>>
>> Its kind of amusing. Because most everybody here is
>> will know these trite net habits for what they are.
>>
>> I he was an agemt of OSA, he is a bad one.
>> Hard to tell from any run of the mill internet hard head.
>>
>> Its an old, old observation that on the net, you have one thing
>> to trade in, credibility. And it can be lost quickly.
>
> The stupidity of some individuals never fails to amaze me.
Same here.
Faxhor's lame personal attacks in lieu of
dealing with the Dianetics mini-FAQ was truely,
abysmally dull witted for example.
Your ideas about 'science' are another eye-rolling
example. But it parallel's Hubbard's deep misconceptions.
Like a
> spider webbing it's net, and then they fall in it themselves.
> Miserably trapped, and the more they sprawl, the less sanity they'll
> spout.
You are tangled deeply in your own little web.
I do note Faxhor has had the sense to recently shut up.
He's seems to be a bit snappier than you.
Rule 1, when you are a deep hole, stop digging.
Jommy Cross
<vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in msg <4111...@news2.lightlink.com>:
<snip>>news:9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>> Indeed it is! Then you also know that this has been seriously
>> misunderstood by most Scientologists.
>
<snip>
Sweet Elvis, two more cheerful self deluders off on a voyage of discovery
to What Ron Really Meant And No One Else Understood.
How many $cienos have we had float past this riverbank gibbering how they
understand Ron better than anybody else?
Incident zero: Ron trolled them
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>Most of the 'critics' want to get scn'ists out of scn. I am more interested in
>seeing to it that people don't get in to start with.
Amen to that! I used to think of it as, "stop the flow of raw meat
into an org, and then hunger would drive the hard-core out of the org"
> It takes so much more time
>and patience to talk someone out, than it does to prevent them from goung in. I
>am too old and too impatient with stupidity ( pretended or otherwise) to spend
>my efforts on getting scn'ists out of the cult that they have entangled
>themselves in. But....that's just me.
>
And yet I believe that a methodical orchestrated picket campaign could
cause the hard-core to leave. But it would take a long time and a
clever psychological approach to do this.
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/links.htm
Jommy Cross
<41122cda$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
<snip>
>What I want or don't want, personally, really is none of your business.
<snip>
Unless Claire wants to discuss it here in this public forum.
Then it's *still* none of your business.
Period.
Steve Whitlatch
"Ball of Fluff" <None> writes:
>What I want or don't want, personally, really is none of your business.
Huh? You are an ex-scieno still clinging to the hope that
scientology will "work for you"; you defend that; you
are posting to a forum mainly critical of scientology;
and the topic is "none of my business"?
You are still heavily infected with scientology! You can
cure yourself simply by ceasing to lie to yourself. It's
easy, fun, feels good, makes you smile, etc., etc. Do it.
>The fact that I mainly post about abuses and problems in CofS and in Scn
>itself should give you a clue.
The fact that you continually harp on what a big critic you
are, while still defending the "real" scientology tells me
that you are confused, perhaps desperate, and probably in pain.
Freeing yourself, if you so choose, is easy. You just abandon
anything connected with scientology. You won't be able to control
your thinking, obsessive scieno thought-buzz, but that will
eventually go away too.
I tell you this because I pity you, and because I am bored. If
you choose to hurt yourself further, it matters little to me.
Steve Whitlatch
ladayla <ladayla...@newsguy.com> writes:
>Most of the 'critics' want to get scn'ists out of scn.
> I am more interested in seeing to it that people don't
> get in to start with. It takes so much more time and
> patience to talk someone out, than it does to prevent
> them from goung in. I am too old and too impatient with
> stupidity ( pretended or otherwise) to spend my efforts
> on getting scn'ists out of the cult that they have entangled
> themselves in. But....that's just me.
I applaud your efforts and your sentiment. I think they are
the words of a much purer person than myself. I'm just an
ex-scieno who is very much disgusted with scieno thought,
scieno actions, scieno writings . . . . and I am not really
feeling particularly kind about it, nor do I believe
that self-deluded scienos deserve much fo anything.
Steve Whitlatch
mgo...@chello.nl
<QJH2U3LR3820...@anonymous.poster>:
>>> Indeed it is! Then you also know that this has been seriously
>>> misunderstood by most Scientologists.
>>
>>Yea, that's also what I said in that post approximately four years ago.
><snip>
>
>Sweet Elvis, two more cheerful self deluders off on a voyage of discovery
>to What Ron Really Meant And No One Else Understood.
>
>How many $cienos have we had float past this riverbank gibbering how they
>understand Ron better than anybody else?
Many, but look at Clearbaby, she isn't doing so bad I think and was one of
the hard-core defenders. It is always the same; it is not scientology, it
is CoS but not scientology, it is scientology but not LRH, LRH but not
'duplicated' in the 'church' and more of that stuff.
Somehow they can't deal with the PoV; if it is done by CoS highup staff, I
don't care to debate whether Hubbard was wearing black socks or smoking
Camels for a change in 1967, what is done is done in the name of
Scientology and they can put that in a pipe and smoke it.
--
Mike Gormez
- WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace http://stop-wise.biz/
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
- Hubbard on psychs http://whyaretheydead.net/misc/scientology_hatred_of_psychiatry.html
Spacetraveler
> >> In this group, a cult-think person is anyone who thinks scientology is
> >> great. The word applies to any flavor, independent, LRH based, free
> >> zone, official, offshoots, or any varieties I missed here.
> >
> >That is not the dictionary definition of cult. Acknowledging that in
> >fact there is something of value in Scientology and in the writings of
> >L. Ron Hubbard does not make this a cult.
>
> I said it was local to this news group.
Well, don't. 'Special' local definitions will only confuse.
> >I can also say that you are mired in cult think as you seem to accept
> >a variety of the arguments of the critics of Scientology as truth
> >without getting to the bottom of them. In this you are accepting
> >something as true by reason of 'authority'. (you yourself have picked
> >what is to be your authority)
>
> Please look into my story. My opinion of the cult stems from *direct
> experience* with them.
You have experience with a cult, this may very well not be
Scientology. It's still the same old story as I told you before. Do
you think I don't have Scientology cult experiences? If I tell which
was attempted to be done on me, you may chill little. But it's not
Scientology, I knew that all the time.
> >> >> There is a decent chance he will eventually get his goldenrod
> >> >> like
> >> >> Claire did, but if we were really lucky he might break out of the
> >> >> mindset entirely the way Tory or Dan Garvin did.
> >> >
> >> >I questioned in communications with Tory that I am not convinced that
> >> >she broke out of anything.
> >>
> >> You are not going to get much support for that opinion, certainly not
> >> from CoS. As you know she is now a declared SP and her husband was
> >> forced to disconnect from her.
> >
> >I do not grave for acknowledgement of any group or person. I tell what
> >I perceive to be. This is called independency.
> >
> >Her husband chose to disconnect from her, not the same thing. It was
> >not Scientology practice either.
>
> As I recall he was ordered to divorce her. Are you aware of a single
> marriage where one partner is a declared SP and the other is a member
> in good standing?
Orders can be queried. I would have, and in fact I did, and I am
alive, and I got it handled MY way. In fact any of my attackers got
declared in the end, or they got into serious trouble with the
organization. And how did I do that? Enforcing policy and be
incredibly persistent.
He chose to submit, that's all. Many chose to do like him. And then
they may be leave also and then they start complaining on for example
ars..... And why would that be?
> >> >It may very well be so that she jumped
> >> >right into another fixation. Why would we believe her judgement, she
> >> >admits that she had been blind during 30 years. And now all of a
> >> >sudden she can see? Think again.
> >>
> >> I was there. Tory's opinion of CoS changed from a supporter who was
> >> helping them do illegal things like the denial of service attack run
> >> by Gavino Idda to someone with an opinion of CoS much like my own.
> >
> >Changing her opinion does not automatically mean that she did not jump
> >right into another fixation. It is an ENTIRELY logical assumption that
> >she was to have tendencies doing exactly that.
>
> Don't/didn't deny that possibility. Just stated that she went from
> doing illegal things for the cult to her present situation as a major
> critic. People have a tendency to do things for approval. No doubt
> about it, Tory gets widespread approval for her hobby of getting
> people out of the cult. (Hooray for Tory!)
Out of the cult okay, out of Scientology, what would that mean.
Reading books would be fine.
So you admit you are not willing to separate the cult from the
knowledge found in the technology. If you effectively want to attack
some cult you have to base it on the proper grounds. You can't afford
to slip as it will question the credibility of other possibly valid
arguments. Avoiding HCOPL 21 July 1968 is a slip. And I made this
reference widely known on the ars.
Armstrong and Rice know I have a point, that's why Rice completely
ignores me (smartest thing to do) and that's why Armstrong is being
nasty to me all over the place.
> >> People here are talking about abuses--investigations,
> >> lawsuits, stalking with PIs, framing people for crimes, and other
> >> annoyances petty and major. CoS is well known for subjecting anyone
> >> who disagrees with them to such abuses.
> >
> >So, can ars being considered a cult or can it not?
>
> Almost any human organization that hangs together over time is
> rewarding to the people who are in it. For example, L5 Society and
> the space colony movement had cult-like aspects. There are cult-like
> attention rewards in posting on the a.r.s newsgroup. But a.r.s lacks
> the coercive aspect of a real cult like Aum, Heaven's Gate, Solar
> Temple or scientology.
Coercive aspect? Depends how you look at that. Some tactics definitaly
are being used (adjusted to the limitations of just being a newsgroup)
I think you start to realize that this nut (me) is not so easily
cracked. I add an interesting perspective and you know it.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
>
> > You people are masters in applying:
> > "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> > OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> > Lines
>
>
> You are a master of missing the point. Repeating errors again
> and again is foolish. Whether its a critic thinking 21 Oct 68
> really is a good place to stop when discussing fair game, or
> somebody spinning big theories based on 21 July 68 doing
> something it obvously did not.
You CHANGE dictionary definition, you ignore completely the standard
procedures of HOW issues in the organization are dealt with.
It's all here: http://mccalcon.notlong.com search for fair game.
You definitely enforce:
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
Lines
> You seem to think repeating over and over that HCOPL 21 July 68
> cancelled FG will "impinge" that silly idea on the critic's minds.
It is silly to change definitions in ordinary dictinaries.
>
> Obviously, by HCOPL 27 Mar 69, if Hubbard had thought so he'd
> have told you so. HCOPL 27 mar 69 shows us Hubbard was
> referencing back to the Code of Reform as having ended Fair Game
> policies and three other publically unpopular practices.
>
> Its a matter of reading the relevant paper trail and appying a
> teensy, eensy bit of common sense.
Dictionaries will do.
>
> Now, anybody can follow the trail, though as far as fair game,
> it took years for me to do that here. I had a false start at this some
> years ago. But it finally got done.
>
> You are still hung up on 21 July 68, its become a personal dogma
> with you and in face of common sense and disconfirming
> evidence you still indulge in procrustian thinking, all must
> be stretched or cut down to fit The Theory.
Again you have CHANGED dictionary defitions.
>
> I am sure that there will be critics who will still
> think that Hubbard put out HCOPL 21 Oct 68 as a
> fake cancellation and the issue stops there. Wrong,
> but its become a time honored myth because nobody
> did their homework. I know because I was one of them
> until I did my homework.
>
> When the cult offhandedly claims that Fair Game ended
> in 1968, they refer to November 3, 1968's Code of Reform.
Which is not a policy letter......
>
>
> > Joseph Goebbels did that too i beleive. Just tell a lie often enough
> > and people will believe you. The bigger the better.
>
> Are you comparing yourself to Goebbels with your repeated
> silliness that HCOPL 21 July 68 cancelled Fair Game when
> it did no such thing? OK. Point taken.
You CHANGED the dictionary definition of 'Fair Game'. I did not.
>
> A thinking man would say, "Well, yeah, Barwell is right, we all
> missed the Code of Reform", which is the next step in the continuing
> saga of Fair Game. And no, the fact that it was a board
> issue and not an HCOPL does not mean it was a purposeful trick
> on Hubbard's part. Nor would that theory be allowed in a court of law.
> It would be challenged as speculative opinion and any judge would
> uphold an objection on that point.
>
> Instead, you will remain a hard head with a theory.
Not a theory, standard procedures of how issues are dealt with in the
Scientology organization (and in many other archives and such) &
dupliction of dictionary definitions that you CHANGE to support you
fixations.
....and here william rambles along again.....
Saying so does not make it true. I don't give a f*** if some consider
me having a 'limited amount of credibility'. What counts is who wins
in the end.
You use again:
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
Lines
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> In article <9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> Spacetraveler says...
> >
> >"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE
> >REPEATED OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC."
> >HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy Lines
> >
> >Joseph Goebbels did that too i beleive [sic]. Just tell a lie often
> >enough and people will believe you. The bigger the better.
> >
> >Spacetraveler
>
> This is what Scientology does.
No, this is what the cult does.
> The cult's claim of 8 million members
> is one example of a lie that has been repeated over and over. The
> telling of this lie is itself an application of fair game.
You don't see me denying that do you?
The technology and the organization, 2 things. Treat them like that!
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
Gerry Armstrong quotes one paragraph from the issue, I quoted the
first 4 paragraphs explaining a concept. I will not interpret for you.
Read my remarks on "random, carping 1.1 criticism" in link above!
There is nothing anywhere that prohibits you from criticism within
Scientology. But diehard cultmembers may tell you differently, but
then, that is not Scientology.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
believe or want them to be.
Peace with you.....
Spacetraveler
Ball of Fluff
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com...
> believe or want them to be.
>
> Peace with you.....
Could you please leave the attributions, please?
When you hit "reply" leave the name or nick of the person to whose post
you're replying.
Thanks!
C
wbarwell
> snip
>
>>
>> > You people are masters in applying:
>> > "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
>> > OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
>> > Lines
>>
>>
>> You are a master of missing the point. Repeating errors again
>> and again is foolish. Whether its a critic thinking 21 Oct 68
>> really is a good place to stop when discussing fair game, or
>> somebody spinning big theories based on 21 July 68 doing
>> something it obvously did not.
>
> You CHANGE dictionary definition, you ignore completely the standard
> procedures of HOW issues in the organization are dealt with.
>
> It's all here: http://mccalcon.notlong.com search for fair game.
You ignore the fact that July 68 changed nothing.
It did not mention fair game, much less cancel it. Its baleful "May be
restrained or imprisoned" etc shows that it did not in fact, it still
mandated ugly mistreatment.
21 Oct 68 is about fair game. It says the words are not to be used.
But policy as to treatment and handling of an SP is not changed by this
HCOPL.
This is EXPLICIT. Again, "This P/L" does not change the policy of how an
SP is to be handled or treated.
You may still imprison or restrain an SP . Or trick, lie to sue or destoy.
In fact 21 Oct 68 leaves 7 Mar 65 in place, those policies in that fair
game law are not to chancge, explicitly by HCOPL 21 Oct 68.
"This P/L does not change any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
Clay table this one sucker!
"This policy"! That is HCOPL 21 Oct 68's policy that the WORDS "fair Game
may not appear on "...any Ethics Order"! "DOES NOT". What does that mean?
It means that there is this P/L makes no demands.. "Does NOT", change
"Any" ! Now clay demo the word any. Look it up and word check it well.
"Policy" What is policy, it is the official rules, the way things are to
be done. HCOPLs for example.
Any policy towards, towards that is affecting. Affecting what?
"An SP." A suppressive person.
So, we put this all together and we get, the HCOPL 21 Oct 68
policy letter merely tell us not to use the no-no words fair game.
Bad PR.
But, this policy letter of 21 October 68 is not to be thought of as
mandating ANY changes in ANY policies as to treatment of those
bad SPs.
"ANY POLICY!"
"ANY POLICY !"
"ANY POLICY!"
Not the policy of HCOPL 7 Mar 65
Not the policy of HCOPL 21 Oct 67
Not the policy of HCOPL 21 July 68
"_NOT ANY POLICY_"!
KEY WORD, "ANY!"
No policies whatsoever changed.
Now, what do we have to do to get this fact understood
by you, act it out with muppets?!
It does not matter what the stupid rules of Stuoidology
to how Pls are cancelled.
Because HCOPL 21 Oct 68 EXPLICITLY SAYS NO POLICIES
ARE CANCELLED!
Everybody but you notices.
EVERYBODY!
You simply have to read the last line of HCOPL 21 Oct 68.
It says it all.
At that point, all earlier fair game or enemy policies are
in effect.
"THIS P/L DOES NOT CANCEL _ANY_ POLICY ON
THE TREATMENT OR HANDLING OF AN SP."
What policy are we discussing here in HCOPL 21 Oct 68?
FAIR GAME!
HCOL 21 JULy 68 does not cancel fair game, it simply make
no mentiomn of it one way or the other except to imply fair game
is still in place by its surly and no more acceptable activities it
sanctions againts "enemy".
> You definitely enforce:
> "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> Lines
>
>
>> You seem to think repeating over and over that HCOPL 21 July 68
>> cancelled FG will "impinge" that silly idea on the critic's minds.
>
> It is silly to change definitions in ordinary dictinaries.
You are now again, despite my warning, playing what
is an old and hoary net kook game, net kook dictionary war.
Anybody who has wasted any time on the net over the years
has seen net kooks play this game more than a few times.
Remember, its YOUR credibility that suffers when you net kook
off like this.
Dictionaries do not matter here. What matters is, what did
Elron Hubbard say to do to those he labelled as fair game, that is SPs?
He defined SPs and labelled than as fair game, and some people he labelled
as enemies and he said they were fair game.
What did he say to do to 'fair game" enemies and SP?
Harrass them, destroy them, trick them lie to them sue then,
they have no rights, not to person, property or position.
Fair game is a label Hubbard hung around people's necks and then
mandated his shitty Scientologists treat them as people who had no rights
and were to be harassed, and mistreated.
We don't need no stinking dictionary, because its Hubbard's
evil commands we are interested in, what he said should be
done to those he labelled SP and enemies and fair game.
"May be tricked, lied to sued or destroyed" and "This P/L does not
cancel any policy in the treatment and handling of an SP".
Yet, all you can do is wail and blubber about dictionary.
Your precious, precious dictionary definition.
It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO besides all points that are important.
Its pure net kook antics.
Why go on?
I think we can check the peanut gallery out there
and ask for a showof hands?
Is this debate over?
Is it obvious Space Travelor is in an endless loop
and the keyboard isn't responding?
Is it obvious that Space Travelor isn't thinking and
isn't going to start anytimes soon?
Anybody here thinks HCOPL 21 July 68 cancelled fair game?
Anybody here this what "This P/L does not change any
policy on the treatement or handling of an SP" means that
the various earlier fair game policies are hereby cancelled?
I think we can stop here.
It ain't going to get any better.
You're done.
Argument over.
2 + 2 = 4, not 22.
Even muppets can't help us now.
wbarwell
> I'll rest my case. Don't forget though, people are not so stupid you
> believe or want them to be.
>
Many are not stupid at all. Which is a problem for
Faxhor and your self.
People can google up the evidence for themselves
on these things.
Its all there.
Virginia McClaughry
Wow, that's just like my profile file says.
You been in my file?
LOL
But what you are describing (more or less) is patently observable from my
firsthand experiences. I have certainly seen that people who attack from a
basic weakness of their own lies, and feel threatened by one who sees
through them sometimes instantly, DO tend to run into trouble when they
don't get their motion agreed with and it "comes back" due to that it was
unaccepted.
BACKFIRING, is the common lingo for it.
Interestingly enough, I did a post concerning this concept of backfiring as
well, back some time ago.
Do you think these strategist(s) back of all this are actually stupid enough
to think that from compiling a *profile* from my posts, surveillance, etc.
etc. that I can be made to "react" without my full knowledge in so doing?
And that I wouldn't know that that's exactly what they are up to right from
the beginning and be completely willing and capable of using *their* motion?
Man if that's the case well....no wonder they keep falling into their own
traps that they *set* for others.
I think LRH says something about that somewhere, doesn't he? Something like
a thetan is the first one trapped by his own trap?
Yea, something like that.
>
> He chose to submit, that's all. Many chose to do like him. And then
> they may be leave also and then they start complaining on for example
> ars..... And why would that be?
Good word choice. (submit)
Certainly you do. I can say that so definitively because most of the
perspectives you have been adding were very much of interest to the
strategist(s) when I first said them.
So, I'm sure they are still very much of interest, as they could never (and
still can't) figure out why they had the impact they did when I communicated
them and have been trying ever since to figure out how to get that same
impact for themselves.
They seem to still have way too much non-confront of the absurdly obvious
fact that that's there is simply no substitute for a real *I*. Whether that
*I* is me, or any other thetan who is truly recovered (or well on their way
to recovering) their full *I*.
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com...
> "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> Lines
These guys meaning the guys *on* the newsgroups?
I beg to differ if that's the case....they are not masters.
LOL
The action of repeating something doesn't take a master (strategist).
The reason why, and the whole PLAN that the repeated message is just one
part of, now that's where you find some "masters".
Virginia
>
> Joseph Goebbels did that too i beleive. Just tell a lie often enough
Virginia McClaughry
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04080...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > > You people are masters in applying:
> > > "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> > > OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> > > Lines
> >
> >
> > You are a master of missing the point. Repeating errors again
> > and again is foolish. Whether its a critic thinking 21 Oct 68
> > really is a good place to stop when discussing fair game, or
> > somebody spinning big theories based on 21 July 68 doing
> > something it obvously did not.
>
> You CHANGE dictionary definition, you ignore completely the standard
> procedures of HOW issues in the organization are dealt with.
>
> It's all here: http://mccalcon.notlong.com search for fair game.
>
> You definitely enforce:
> "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCOPL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> Lines
Yes, he and others do, but that doesn't make them "masters" as I said
before.
Take "A Spy and his Master" for example.
The spy's actions are controlled and directed by the "Master".
Which applies to most of who you see posting on ARS and ACT.
It isn't often that a "Master" in the "spy game" does things himself,
although truth be told, that *has* happened once or twice in regards me when
the agents kept f'ing things up.
Just can't get good help these days...
LOL
Virginia