About the "truce"
Rod Keller
Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
But what I find so interesting is that they come up with these ideas in
synch with each other. One day last week, they all decided that critics
are being paid to post here, or paid to picket. AOL folks suddenly decided
that, OSA shills came to that realization at the same moment. All together
now, we'll give you your opinions for this week.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Inducto
>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
Perhaps CoS management wants to try to prove to the staff and public that
a.r.s. is in fact coordinated; if all the critics stop posting they can claim
it as proof that a.r.s. is centrally controlled rather than that its a group of
undividuals with a nearly universal sense of goodwill. They may just want to
record the bickering of the critics about whether or not to do it (good reason
to avoid bickering and rash statements regarding this issue). Still, I think
it good for critics to take the moral high ground, whatever the scientologists
may try to make of it.
I think it is also part of their doctrine about control, that if you can get a
person or a group to agree to something once, then you have a foothold to
slowly bring them to heel. But this, though partially valid, can be easily
enough disproven as applicable in this case.....
I.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
RonsAmigo
Rod Keller wrote:
>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>But what I find so interesting is that they come up with these ideas in
>synch with each other. One day last week, they all decided that critics
>are being paid to post here, or paid to picket. AOL folks suddenly decided
>that, OSA shills came to that realization at the same moment. All together
>now, we'll give you your opinions for this week.
Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce"
and you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program.
Did you even for a moment think that just maybe that person was
acting as an individual and trying to forward the spirit of Christmas?
Of course not. You know better.You "know" that Scientologists are
sub-human and incapable of such thoughts.
I am truly disgusted by the bigoted mindset displayed by several of
you critics in response to the idea of a Christmass truce. Do you
guys derive ALL of your sense of self-worth through your anti -Scientology
activities? Is that what it is? Does considering even *one* Scientologist
as more than sub-human so threaten your justifications for your
continued blind bigotry?
Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
(and believe me that IS the case) I believe the primary motivation
for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry. They are
so imprisoned by their own fixed ideas that they are virtual slaves
to their own ignorance. They are incapable of seeing anything but
bad in Scientology and Scientologists. And anything that they do to
a Scientologist or Scientology is a triumph and fully justified. Of
course anything a Scientologist or Scientology do to them is an
attrocity of magnitude.
Well, the hell with all of you. Because you have such little traffic
with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
with you. The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
threatens you that you can not even consider or view well-intended
communication directed your way.
Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset. Even
though there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation
that a dead cat was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists,
most of you bastards embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus
responses on the thread. You just *know* this is the kind of thing
Scientology does and that is proof enough for you. And that "know"
is at the heart of your bigotry. Rather than seek any real understanding
of Scientology and Scientologists you only seek further proof
that your fixed ideas and blind bigotry are sane. And a dead
cat turning up on somebody's doorstep is proof enough that
you are indeed acting in a rational manner when you devote
your time attacking my friends and my religion.
Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
one a rest too because it is pure crap.
I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
resources on these lines.
It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Amigo
John Dorsay
On 19 Dec 1997 19:57:20 GMT, RonsAmigo wrote:
>Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce"
A "truce" RonsAmigo?? A "truce"??? WTF is this, Northern Ireland
or the Middle East? Rwanda? The former Yugoslavia? Silly old me,
I thought it was a usenet group.
What are you so afraid of, RonsAmigo? That somehow someone might
slip through some criticism of your Dangerous And Wacko UFO Cult,
and it might go unanswered? Let me guess - the day that happens,
Lord Xenu's prison batteries will fail and He will be free. I'm on
the edge of my chair in anticipation of the miraculous event!
Know what, RonsAmigo? I have better things to do on Christmas day
than read and respond to your drivel anyway. Not out of any nutty
desire to observe a "truce" on a usenet newsgroup, but simply
because I have a life. Maybe you should get one, too.
Merry Christmas to all - Critics and Apologists, Clams and Wogs,
however you choose to see yourselves.
[remainder of paranoid babbling deleted]
Regards, John
-------------------
Original Member, Bernie's ars Bigot List (since v 0.9á)
Invited Member, Helena Kobrin Fan Club since 1997/06/12
You too can be invited. Find out how at
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/helena/
Joe Harrington
RonsAmigo wrote:
> I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
> is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
> should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
> joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
> damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
> some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
> for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
> rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
> rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
> resources on these lines.
No resources available for picketing amigo? With 8 million members
worldwide, do you think Miscavige would be able to muster 1/2 of 1 % of
the faithful? That would give you 40,000 true believers to deal with a
few dozen picketeers scattered around the world. I'm sure with that $25
million war chest of the IAS, Miscavige could probably a few dozen PI
firms to conduct some noisy investigations of critics to make it a bit
rougher.
> It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
> than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
> bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
> avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Sorry amigo, but you'll never find the rank and file church member out
on some picket operation. Miscavige would never let them happen. He
terrified they might find out the real truth about all the lies he's
been peddling to them for the last 18 years.
>
> Amigo
Joe
Anonymous
On 19 Dec 1997 19:57:20 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
>should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
>joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
>damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
>some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
>for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
>rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
>rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
>resources on these lines.
>
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
>
Well there youhave it folks...this is why they proposed a "truce."
They knew it wouldnt be accepted and that it would be distrusted (as
anyone who has any knowledge of the Co$ at all would). This was justa
feeble ploy to give them an excuse to do what is outlined above.
Amusing really. Well Ron, go ahead. The more you go after critics
legally the more the truth about the BUSINESS that is $cientology will
come out and the more the money-making SCAM will continue to flounder
and lose its own members and drive away possible new members. Notice
that Mr Amigo specifically points to freeing up resources to fight the
critics. Apparently the recent mentioning of the amount of money
spent on lawyers by $cientology has touched a nerve. I wonder just
how much they are spending on legal fees...it must piss off a lot of
staff for Mr. Amigo to push this issue so strongly. What's the matter
Mr. Amigo? Are staff members complaining about the rice and beans?
Are they fed up with living as indentured servants? This is what they
are aren't they? They give themselves to $cientology for a billion
years in return for next to nothing. And they see the OSA spending
untold millions of dollars to fight critics who only ask that the
church stop harming its own members. How about you free up those
resources to buy toys for children who have been separated from their
parents and are left with nothing in $cientology day "care" ? How
about you free up those resources to feed your staff with nutritional
food? You know, the kind DM receives? Or how about you spend the
money to get proper medical care for Lisa McPherson? Oh yeah i
forgot...she's DEAD.
Alec
Inducto wrote in message <19971219183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>
>Perhaps CoS management wants to try to prove to the staff and public that
>a.r.s. is in fact coordinated; if all the critics stop posting they can
claim
>it as proof that a.r.s. is centrally controlled rather than that its a
group of
>undividuals with a nearly universal sense of goodwill. They may just want
to
>record the bickering of the critics about whether or not to do it (good
reason
>to avoid bickering and rash statements regarding this issue). Still, I
think
>it good for critics to take the moral high ground, whatever the
scientologists
>may try to make of it.
>
>I think it is also part of their doctrine about control, that if you can
get a
>person or a group to agree to something once, then you have a foothold to
>slowly bring them to heel. But this, though partially valid, can be easily
>enough disproven as applicable in this case.....
>
>Inducto
Nah... This is about future PR and material for future Dead-agent packs.
If they can show they offered a truce and we rejected, they can seek to show
that we are hostile. Can you imagine who is going to give it a second
thought?
Since OSA's presence here is strictly optional for them, as hecklers, then
no "truce" is relevant. They can simply go back to where they came from and
let us go about the business of exposing their Satanist religion. If the
purpose of a truce is to cease hostilities, one needs to consider that the
hostilities began when OSA began hostilities against this group--within this
group. If they would just refrain, that would amount to the truce they
seek. We don't go into their "churches". They should stay out of ours.
Their offer of a truce implies they are rightful, accepted participants
here. What a move! Their presence here is purely subversive. Offering a
truce in the guise of generosity is clear demonstration of the natural
"1.1-ness" of Scientologists. With guile and deception, they hope to cover
their guile and deception.
My answer is a resounding "NO!". No slack in the war against totalitarian
control. A truce would be our permission for them to proceed in their
planetary coup. Speaking for the future of mankind, I say, The Fuck stops
here!
---Alec
We would all do better to go about our business without responding to their
disruptive efforts.
---
Ceon Ramon
In article <19971219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
RonsAmigo <rons...@aol.com> wrote:
>Rod Keller wrote:
>
>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>
>>synch with each other. One day last week, they all decided that critics
>>are being paid to post here, or paid to picket. AOL folks suddenly decided
>>that, OSA shills came to that realization at the same moment. All together
>>now, we'll give you your opinions for this week.
>
Ahhh, no, that's not quite right, RonsAmigo: four or five scientologists
offer a "truce" at exactly the same time...
>and you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program.
Yes.
Odd, how that works.
I won't bother wishing you a happy Christmas, as I believe the Mass that
celebrates the wonder and holiness of the birth of Christ means nothing to
you, because you follow the beliefs and instructions of one to whom you
pay spiritual obeisance, that liar, bigamist, coward, thief, cheat, and
general all-round sociopath L. Ron Hubbard, who taught his followers that
Christ didn't exist.
--Barbara
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) brewed up the following, and served it
to the group:
<snipped some Amigodrivel (bs)>
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the
battle
>should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
>joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
>damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
>some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
>for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as
a
>rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
>rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
>resources on these lines.
>
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and
rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Amigo, you are following standard LRH tech (bs)--attack, never
defend. How long has it been since you have thought for yourself?
Are you even still capable of independent thought? Obviously you
are incapable of correct spelling and grammar--another great win for
the tech (bs).
An "all out attack"--my, how "ethical" of you.
You hide from every reasonable question. You refuse to discuss
serious issues, like the failure of the tech (bs) that killed Lisa
McPherson. You are a sniveling coward, Amigo.
I *DO* know about your "religion," Amigo--I was in it too. You once
again paint with too broad a stroke--suppressive generalizations,
I'd say.
"Most ethical group on the planet"--what a load of horseshit.
Amigo, I don't consider $cientologists as "subhuman" as you keep
accusing. No, I consider them as people--just like me--who are
deeply misguided--just like I was when I was in $cientology. I do
admit to having trouble considering you as anything other than
subhuman, though. Posts like this one make it really difficult.
But I am damn well trying.
Happy Solstice, all. Even to you, Amigo. Maybe you should just sit
for a minute, open up a beer, and think about the renewal of all
things. Think about life. Think about freedom. Not what Elrong
calls "freedom"--but real freedom.
Think for yourself. Live for yourself. Then, Amigo, then you will
truly be free.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNJsJ9Kn8flYc1m/ZAQGp/wf+O54knHFvr4XCX4w7JBJaAKmozIvzNLMQ
e1pgcdgCJf+MkIM/P/1lzN5f2OuncnewvehvdJz4s5efEXxuqMPRjhiyC7RbvGiS
TlstxiM5MT86EOl222GI1T/PLvCDH5AsIDUvEa1eyzXpFnjOIJ3SvbDNc0wKDW9R
IhRB+GJZlBriY7sJgSrzSusalCDEyDBIda15VD4KN9Sexh/rNwuxgL0xyfYJDVIH
TPGE7R8lwmtMVv/l1GbmIl+djDajbvr3prwHJ6kutCtlhFulxieonKOdw/xdyc+u
lBEh0CIa/SW4lJYwy7ivrzGH3uwqDN+eZgZa4a6JC5OwhUMDKuKSAA==
=+9gD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts
to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to
be one of the facts that needs altering."
-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"
the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains
bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
*SP2*
...bc...
Garry Scarff
Rod Keller <rke...@netaxs.com> wrote in article <67e78i$m...@netaxs.com>...
> Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
> it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
> there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to
claim
> we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
> Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
> Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
> The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
> Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Like the religion they claim to be adherent to, the only respect they have
for
Christmas is the presence of images..Winter Wonderland, the light displays,
a Christmas tree in the Cleveland Building. Business is as usual at FLAG
during Christmas.
>
Matt Ouimette
RonsAmigo read from his script:
>
> Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
> people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
Well, I for one (And I'm certainly NOT the minority in this) have
attacked neither the people nor the religion, but I HAVE voiced my views
on the CRIMINAL tactics of the CO$.
All I know about CO$ is what the CO$ has shown me here in this NG, and
in the world at large in the past couple of years. You know what? I
know all I need to see who is telling the truth, and who are a bunch of
lying, cheating, barratrous, bigoted, small-minded turds who care more
about their own personal power than any possible lofty goals.
> I believe the primary motivation
> for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry. They are
> so imprisoned by their own fixed ideas that they are virtual slaves
> to their own ignorance. They are incapable of seeing anything but
> bad in Scientology and Scientologists. And anything that they do to
> a Scientologist or Scientology is a triumph and fully justified. Of
> course anything a Scientologist or Scientology do to them is an
> attrocity of magnitude.
Pot. Kettle. BLACK.
Considering what the CO$ has said in the last year about ANYONE who
speaks critically of them, I find it hard to give credence to ANYTHING
you guys say anymore. Funny that.
The critics are able to defend their views with court cases, actual CO$
scripture (That you deny till they post it, then sue them for posting,
nice tactic, that one!), scientific theory, and public records.
The CO$ uses Dead Agenting, threats to ISP's, Picketing *individual
homes*, leafleting *individual's neighborhoods*, bait-and-switch,
outright lies, secrecy, harassment, fraud, and a host of other shady
practices.
Which would you believe? Which would you prefer to be? I know which
side *I* want to be on, thank you.
> Well, the hell with all of you. Because you have such little traffic
> with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
> with you. The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
> threatens you that you can not even consider or view well-intended
> communication directed your way.
You have yet to try reason, brightboy.
You have also not yet presented one *single solitary bit* of actual
scientific evidence that the 'tech' works, in any way, shape, or form,
even so much as the placebo effect. You can tout your 'Big Wins!' till
you're blue in the face, but whenever you're asked to present an actual
peer-reviewed study, you vanish, or just conveniently ignore it.
> Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset. Even
> though there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation
> that a dead cat was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists,
> most of you bastards embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus
> responses on the thread.
Most? I counted over 500 people posting last week. you've got 70 or so
responses TOTAL. Kindly explain how you arrived at 'most of you
bastards' - Or are you saying that the majority of the *bastards* felt
it was a $cientology-directed activity? I have a sneaking suspicion
that most of the people you're talking about can offer real proof that
they aren't bastards, so that argument won't hold water either.
Want to explain how you got 'most' out of 70 posts?
I for one have not said anything about the cat. I've been waiting for
some evidence, even though Occam's Razor would point the finger right at
the CO$. Why? Because mysterious pet deaths happen all too often to
those that the CO$ doesn't like. But I'm still waiting for some real
evidence before I accept it.
> Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
> you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
> one a rest too because it is pure crap.
Why? Explain yourself, sirrah! More undocumented rantings. It's a
documented fact that the CO$ is the one picketing INDIVIDUAL HOMES, and
NOT the critics. Kindly explain how critics are attacking individuals
and not the organization?
Can't do it, can ya?
> I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
> is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
> should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
> joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
> damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
> some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
> for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
> rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
> rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
> resources on these lines.
>
> It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
> than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
> bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
> avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Please, PLEASE, go right ahead. Convince all your friends! It
shouldn't take more than a few incidents like the Clearwater Picket to
get a lot more people cheesed off at you.
It's not as if you have a lot longer to worry about it, after all. And
the faster you hurry things along, the sooner we'll be rid of you and
your bunch of crazies.
FOAD
Oh and, Merry Christmas! :)
--
Ermine!
Paul
Alec wrote:
> Since OSA's presence here is strictly optional for them, as hecklers, then
> no "truce" is relevant. They can simply go back to where they came from and
> let us go about the business of exposing their Satanist religion. If the
> purpose of a truce is to cease hostilities, one needs to consider that the
> hostilities began when OSA began hostilities against this group--within this
> group. If they would just refrain, that would amount to the truce they
> seek. We don't go into their "churches". They should stay out of ours.
Alec, I hope I'm misunderstanding you, but the last time I checked, this
isn't a "church". Moreover, Scientologists have the same rights here
that you and I do--they are free to post anything they wish as long as
they stay within the boundaries of their ISP's TOS.
Actually, I would welcome greater Scientology[tm] participation here.
> Their offer of a truce implies they are rightful, accepted participants
> here.
Like I said, I hope I'm misunderstanding you. They *are* rightful,
accepted participants here.
> What a move! Their presence here is purely subversive.
That depends on who's posting. Personally, I'd rather respond based on
the person's words rather than on their membership or lack thereof.
-Paul
Alec
RonsAmigo wrote in message
<19971219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Rod Keller wrote:
>
>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>
>
>>But what I find so interesting is that they come up with these ideas in
>>synch with each other. One day last week, they all decided that critics
>>are being paid to post here, or paid to picket. AOL folks suddenly decided
>>that, OSA shills came to that realization at the same moment. All together
>>now, we'll give you your opinions for this week.
>
>Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce"
>and you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program.
>Did you even for a moment think that just maybe that person was
>acting as an individual and trying to forward the spirit of Christmas?
>Of course not. You know better.You "know" that Scientologists are
>sub-human and incapable of such thoughts.
No, Ron's. Your propaganda didn't take. When a group such as COS, known
for its deception, pillage, and betrayal, offers a truce to a newsgroup
where it is merely an intruding troublemaker... suffice it to say we
weren't born yesterday.
>I am truly disgusted by the bigoted mindset displayed by several of
>you critics in response to the idea of a Christmass truce.
Why do you seek a truce? If you'll just go away and worship Christ in your
own way, that would amount to a truce. You are the invader. Cease firing
and there will be a cease-fire.
>Do you
>guys derive ALL of your sense of self-worth through your anti -Scientology
>activities? Is that what it is? Does considering even *one* Scientologist
>as more than sub-human so threaten your justifications for your
>continued blind bigotry?
"WE GUYS", are not the target. Speaking for myself, following the betrayal
and devastation I suffered at the hands of Scientologists from a remote Org
on up to David Miscavige, I am seeking to regain my self-respect and
self-worth, by dutifully informing others about your fraud. Your
unawareness of the fraud merely indicates your are among the deceived. Read
more ARS. Sling less stuff at us.
>Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
>people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
Thanks to ARS, and the $112,822.26 of which I was swindled, there is little
about Scientology that I don't know.
>(and believe me that IS the case) I believe the primary motivation
>for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry. They are
>so imprisoned by their own fixed ideas that they are virtual slaves
>to their own ignorance.
Ignorant as they might be, is it coincidence that they address the same
things as those of us who know about the deception, pillage, and betrayal?
>They are incapable of seeing anything but
>bad in Scientology and Scientologists.
Ron's, if you can't consider what is being said here, how can you know that
YOU are not "slave to your own ignorance"? If this seems uncomfortable to
you, consider my duty--exposing the fraud and deception by Scientology and
Scientologists--my kind of people. You and I perceived the reality of
Immortality and sought it out. Our search landed us at the abusive,
deceptive cult of Scientology. You and I are separated by the steady
progress of attrition--you on one side, I on the other. When attrition
finally gets you, then you will regretfully see that you have been deceived.
Count the old-timers in the church. The Grim Attritioner has been hard at
work.
>And anything that they do to
>a Scientologist or Scientology is a triumph and fully justified. Of
>course anything a Scientologist or Scientology do to them is an
>attrocity of magnitude.
Yes, atrocity is atrocity, and exposure of manslaughter, deception, pillage,
and betrayal is quite condemning.
>Well, the hell with all of you.
Ron's, you are only a curious guest on this group. You have no duty here
other than the orders given you by your senior. We do not require your
presence. And now you are dismissing us all 'to hell'?
>Because you have such little traffic
>with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
>with you. The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
>threatens you that you can not even consider or view well-intended
>communication directed your way.
When I was deluded that Scientology held the answers, I was elated. My
search was over. You obviously haven't found the truths that I have about
Scientology. Since you are the one who has missed it, how can you consider
me the uninformed one?
Yes, my disappointment in Scientology was extremely devasting, effecting my
stability and my sanity. It seems extremely cruel that you would tease me
about that. Thanks to ARS, I have found the reality of Scientology and have
since worked out the delusions and even implants that blinded me to its
remedy. Cloistered with other Scientologists you have a safe place, a
"haven" that protects you from the reality of the deception. Your
compliance to the Policy forbidding you to learn of your deception is all
that holds you in its snare.
>Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset.
Try to get the truth you have just spoken.
>Even
>though there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation
>that a dead cat was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists,
>most of you bastards embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus
>responses on the thread.
Ron's, talk to your seniors in "Legal" at OSA. Ask them about a concept
called "preponderance of evidence". Do you suggest that Minton, after
spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to stabilize a cat
shelter, would kill a cat and put it on his porch, as false evidence,
without photographing it or otherwise taking advantage of the event for the
purpose of testimony? I agree that it's not conclusive, but a
"preponderance of evidence" would stand up in court with only the possible
exception that Scientologist's pickets at his neighborhood led some neighbor
to commit this act. Either way--Scientologist's direct action, or
Scientologist's sedition--the seige mentality of Scientologists was "Cause"
for this event.
>You just *know* this is the kind of thing
>Scientology does and that is proof enough for you. And that "know"
>is at the heart of your bigotry. Rather than seek any real understanding
>of Scientology and Scientologists you only seek further proof
>that your fixed ideas and blind bigotry are sane.
The word "bigotry" can only be applied to the one who really is blind to the
truth.
>And a dead
>cat turning up on somebody's doorstep is proof enough that
>you are indeed acting in a rational manner when you devote
>your time attacking my friends and my religion.
>
>Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
>you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
>one a rest too because it is pure crap.
Not a convincing arguement.
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
>should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
>joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
>damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
>some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
>for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
>rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
>rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
>resources on these lines.
>
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
>Amigo
You know, Ron's, sometimes it is possible to get so caught up in something
that it effects your judgement. You should consider taking a break from
ARS, Scientology, and anything that is remotely restimulative of either of
them. Take an interest in natural surroundings and possibly a pet. Get
back in touch with "Self" and surroundings. Then in three months or so,
approach it in a new point in time and see if you don't have a different
perspective on things.
Yours very truly,
David Alexander
Paul
I did not see the original of this posting. Did this really come from
RonsAmigo? Are we being trolled? If not, something must really be
getting to him, don't you think? Could it be that he's having trouble
reconciling his world with the real world? Does he believe that by
shutting us up he can stop his own doubts from overwhelming him?
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 1997 19:57:20 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
> >I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
> >is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
> >should be brought to the front door of those *individuals*
Why the emphasis, RonsAmigo? Are we not individuals? Do you really not
see the differences between the literally hundreds of people who post
here?
> >who take
> >joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church.
Can you name even one person who has harassed you? One person who has
harassed your friends? One person who has harassed your Church? While
you're at it, please supply the definition of "harass" that you are
using.
> >I don't give a
> >damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
> >some noble endeaver of just cause.
That really doesn't make a difference to you? Sigh....
> > If resources aren't available
> >for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
> >rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
> >rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
> >resources on these lines.
There really isn't a scarcity of resources, I suspect. It's just that
the leaders of the Church of Scientology[tm] aren't stupid enough to
picket individual critics on a large scale. The public relations black
eye that your Church would receive would cause a hurricane of bad
publicity. Is this really what you want?
If you're advocating tougher measures, as you appear to be, the
resulting negative publicity would be even worse. Do you not understand
that the public spotlight is on the Church of Scientology[tm] more than
it has been for the past twenty years?
> >It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
> >than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
> >bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
> >avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Who here has sought to "destroy" your religion? While a couple of
people may have said that that is their goal, most of us don't give a
damn whether Scientology[tm] lives or dies. What we want stopped are
the abusive practices and policies of the Church of Scientology[tm].
And, for the record, what would you consider an "all out attack"? What
actions would you consider appropriate against people whose only "crime"
is that they are exercising rights guaranteed them by the Constitution
of the United States? How would you "attack" me, RonsAmigo?
-Paul
john smith
In article <19971219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
<snip>
>I am truly disgusted by the bigoted mindset displayed by several of
>activities? Is that what it is? Does considering even *one* Scientologist
>as more than sub-human so threaten your justifications for your
>continued blind bigotry?
>
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
>
Hypocrite...
Alan Furman
>>Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce"
>>and you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program.
>>Did you even for a moment think that just maybe that person was
>>acting as an individual and trying to forward the spirit of Christmas?
>>Of course not. You know better.You "know" that Scientologists are
>>sub-human and incapable of such thoughts.
>
>No, Ron's. Your propaganda didn't take. When a group such as COS, known
>for its deception, pillage, and betrayal, offers a truce to a newsgroup
>where it is merely an intruding troublemaker... suffice it to say we
>weren't born yesterday.
Anyone can go to a website like www.xenu.net and get the real story.
In particular, last year Gene Ingram, a rent-a-goon employed by the
vicious criminal cult of $cientology, pumped Grady Ward's mother for
private family information and photographs of her grandchildren under
false pretenses.
Years earlier, eleven members of the criminal cult were convicted of
tampering with federal prosecutors' files. And the properties in
Clearwater used by the Sea Orgasm were bought by straw buyers.
The vicious criminal cult of $cientology LITERALLY elevates dishonesty to a
religious sacrament. No amount of deception is too great, or too obscene,
in the name of propping up the criminal cult.
The vicious criminal cult of $cientology got its reputation for
untrustworthiness the hard way--they earned it.
--
====al...@aimnet.com * LPC * LPUSA * ISIL * IOS * KoX * Netscab Squealer====
LEGALIZE FREEDOM >>>> http://www.lp.org * UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
An electorate terrified of hemp plants growing in closets
will crap its collective pants, on cue, over firearms.
Alec
Paul wrote in message <349B044A.432F@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>...
>Alec wrote:
>> Since OSA's presence here is strictly optional for them, as hecklers,
then
>> no "truce" is relevant. They can simply go back to where they came from
and
>> let us go about the business of exposing their Satanist religion. If the
>> purpose of a truce is to cease hostilities, one needs to consider that
the
>> hostilities began when OSA began hostilities against this group--within
this
>> group. If they would just refrain, that would amount to the truce they
>> seek. We don't go into their "churches". They should stay out of ours.
>
>Alec, I hope I'm misunderstanding you, but the last time I checked, this
>isn't a "church". Moreover, Scientologists have the same rights here
>that you and I do--they are free to post anything they wish as long as
>they stay within the boundaries of their ISP's TOS.
I'm with you Paul, but the Scientology membership isn't generally allowed to
post here. I was addressing "OSA", not COS members generally. I did make
the point that OSA's presence here is optional for their purposes and ours.
So that for them to offer a truce is presumptious. With few exceptions OSA
are the only Scientologists who post here--and their purpose is subversion
of our work of exposing the fraud of Scientology. I particularly look
forward to discoursing with the membership when it happens on rare
occasions.
Yes, all public have the right to participate here, but those who are at
cross-purposes with ARS are off-topic. EVERY OSA action on ARS is one of
subversion--it is "1.1"--deception. They have no intention of contributing,
only of destruction. Usenet newsgroups are generally categorized to
announce the interest and purpose of the group and of those who are invited
and welcome. Anywhere, in any neighborhood, when protagonists enter the
environment of others for the purpose of subversion and destruction, it can
only be socio-path behavior, thus deviant behavior.
>Actually, I would welcome greater Scientology[tm] participation here.
>
>> Their offer of a truce implies they are rightful, accepted participants
>> here.
>
>Like I said, I hope I'm misunderstanding you. They *are* rightful,
>accepted participants here.
There's a difference between rightful and accepted.
>> What a move! Their presence here is purely subversive.
>
>That depends on who's posting.
And with few exceptions that's OSA.
Personally, I'd rather respond based on
>the person's words rather than on their membership or lack thereof.
I'd rather respond to those who don't have the determination to not hear,
but OSA is just the opposite.
>-Paul
---Alec
Xenu Mania
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Joe Harrington wrote:
>
> Sorry amigo, but you'll never find the rank and file church member out
> on some picket operation. Miscavige would never let them happen. He
> terrified they might find out the real truth about all the lies he's
> been peddling to them for the last 18 years.
That's true. The average Scientologist has at least a few dozen grains of
doubt about his newly-found mind-control techniques.
What, for instance, does EVERYONE hear when they are being talked into
making a financial commitment by a registrar -- "Scientology raises your
ability, and with more ability you'll have MORE money!"
So how many scientologists have MORE money in the bank than when they
first started? How long have they been telling themselves that just one
more course should put them over the top and that money will just start
rolling in all by itself? Because of all that increased ability?
In their hearts they already know it will never happen.
Joe Cisar
reply to: iy...@cleveland.freenet.edu
http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/index.htm
I'm not against Scientology. I'm for freedom.
Support your local FreeZoner!
Tashback
> I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
> is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
> should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
> joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church.
If you guys bring the battle to my front door, please be careful not to
scare my cat. She hangs out by the front door sometimes, and
Scientologists bringing battle make her jumpy.
Thanks,
Tash
Tom Klemesrud
Drop by my house first Santa!
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Rod Keller wrote:
>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>>But what I find so interesting is that they come up with these ideas in
>>synch with each other. One day last week, they all decided that critics
>>are being paid to post here, or paid to picket. AOL folks suddenly decided
>>that, OSA shills came to that realization at the same moment. All together
>>now, we'll give you your opinions for this week.
>Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce"
>and you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program.
Well, when a number of their paid shills come up with the same idea at the
same time, and given the Co$' penchant for groupthink and reliance on orders
from the top, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that that
"Scientologist" didn't come up with that idea all on his own.
>Did you even for a moment think that just maybe that person was
>acting as an individual and trying to forward the spirit of Christmas?
>Of course not. You know better.You "know" that Scientologists are
>sub-human and incapable of such thoughts.
I don't know that -- but I _do_ know what that fat, drug-crazed psychotic
whose ravings are the gospel of your alleged "Church" said about Christ. He's
an implant, right? Your own leader said so, "Ron". Are you going to dispute
that right here in front of the ARSCC and the OSA, who _are_ keeping tabs on
this newsgroup?
>I am truly disgusted by the bigoted mindset displayed by several of
>you critics in response to the idea of a Christmass truce. Do you
>guys derive ALL of your sense of self-worth through your anti -Scientology
>activities? Is that what it is? Does considering even *one* Scientologist
>as more than sub-human so threaten your justifications for your
>continued blind bigotry?
If I decide to picket the Houston mission next Thursday, I'll do so because
your so-called "church"'s leaders couldn't care less about the reason for
Christmas in the first place -- by damn, it's Thursday, and they _will_ force
their staff to work that day or else they'll land in a condition of Doubt! --
and because they have no intent of honoring any truce: remember your leader's
words? "Never defend -- always attack!"
>Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
>people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
>(and believe me that IS the case)
$cientology isn't a religion, "Ron". Religions don't have secret scriptures
that they'll gladly sell for as much money as they can suck out of the
gullible.
>I believe the primary motivation
>for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry. They are
>so imprisoned by their own fixed ideas that they are virtual slaves
>to their own ignorance. They are incapable of seeing anything but
>bad in Scientology and Scientologists. And anything that they do to
>a Scientologist or Scientology is a triumph and fully justified. Of
>course anything a Scientologist or Scientology do to them is an
>attrocity of magnitude.
Really, "Ron"? A few completely clueless people at the Houston mission taking
pictures of me and my wife are an _atrocity_? Boy, those SooperSekrit OT
Powers [tm] really _work_, eh?
>Well, the hell with all of you. Because you have such little traffic
>with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
>with you. The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
>threatens you that you can not even consider or view well-intended
>communication directed your way.
In other words, we're below 2.0 on the tone scale, so we can be disposed of
"quietly and without sorrow", eh?
Like hell _I_ will, "Ron". Take THAT to your nut-cult leaders, who are a
bunch of the most cowardly assholes I've seen in this lifetime.
>Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset. Even
>though there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation
>that a dead cat was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists,
Gee, I guess those pickets of critics -- who were in Florida at the time --
were just coincidences, too?
Your average person on the street, given the history of the Co$, would likely
conclude that there was a pretty high probability that that dead cat was
another of $cientology's impotent acts of terrorism against a world that
proceeds on its way without giving Hubbard's ravings the slightest heed.
>most of you bastards embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus
>responses on the thread. You just *know* this is the kind of thing
>Scientology does and that is proof enough for you. And that "know"
>is at the heart of your bigotry. Rather than seek any real understanding
>of Scientology and Scientologists you only seek further proof
>that your fixed ideas and blind bigotry are sane. And a dead
>cat turning up on somebody's doorstep is proof enough that
>you are indeed acting in a rational manner when you devote
>your time attacking my friends and my religion.
You don't have a religion, "Ron". Religions don't have their leaders losing
court cases right and left.
>Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
>you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
>one a rest too because it is pure crap.
It's your blood-sucking leaders, "Ron" -- that's who I'm out to see rotting in
jail, for the rest of their thetans' lives. Why? Little things like the
vicious criminal acts committed by the members of your so-called religion, and
that same so-called religion's approval of violence against anyone who dares
criticize its blatant psychosis.
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
>should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
>joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a
>damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
>some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
>for this purpose, they should be made available. Scientologists as a
>rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
>rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
>resources on these lines.
I see one really good reason -- people are getting wiser to your cult's scam,
"Ron". Your leaders are getting royally sodomized in court, and if you
thought 1997 was a bad year, just wait until next year. Did you ever wonder
why there are so many more _ex_-Scientologists than there are currently
practicing Scientologists? (Oops. You're not allowed to wonder. Sorry about
that. I wouldn't want you having to subsist on rice and beans for a few
months.)
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Go right ahead, "Ron" -- your fellow morons did such a good job in reacting
to a measly forty picketers in Clearwater that they shut the whole freaking
Fort Harrison down for two days, and managed to piss off the real people who
actually live in Clearwater for reasons _other_ than being slaves to Hubbard's
insanity. You stupid bastards managed to undo twenty years of PR in one fell
swoop, and now you want to go on to even more actions guaranteed to get even
more negative attention for your cult of thugs?
Do us a big favor, "Ron" -- just get your cult's leaders (no one else) to pull
a Heaven's Gate. That'd be the best Christmas present they could give anyone.
--PLH, truce? Not bloody likely
NoGoot
In article <19971219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) writes the following blathering, whining,
drivel; hoping to waste a lot of the Freedom Fighters' valuable time in
response:
>Rod Keller wrote:
>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a
>>truce? I'm thinking it's a little test, ... <snip>
>Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce" and
>you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program. Did you
>even for a moment think that just maybe that person was acting as an
>individual and trying to forward the spirit of Christmas? <cut>
BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAhaahaa...heeheehee. Sorry, RonsA. What I
meant was LOL. The reason this makes me laugh is because I remember
the days when I was on staff or on course as a public and when Christmas
came around, the push for stats was heavier than usual. Any Scientologist
who was willing to abandon his/her family on Christmas Day was patted on
the back for "keeping the stats from crashing". As a matter of fact, the only
acceptable way for a staff member or student to get the day off is to
write-up a CSW, which is a written request for *permission* from your
"senior" or supervisor to have the day off, including your explanation of when
and how you are going to *make up* the lost course time. Staff members,
technically, have to find a replacement to "fill their post" if they want to
take
the day off -- almost an impossibility on Christmas Day. This CSW is *not*
considered valid unless it is signed "APPROVED" by the supervisor or
senior. Anyone taking off without an approved CSW could be sent to
Ethics.
So much for your "spirit of Christmas".
><cut> Of course not. You know better.You "know" that Scientologists
>are sub-human and incapable of such thoughts.
Sounds sort of anti-social and a morale destroyer to me. I wouldn't go so
far as saying "sub-human".
>I am truly disgusted <cut>
Yeah, I can sense that. It's oozing out of your post -- you can turn it off
now.
>by the bigoted mindset <<snip>> blah, blah, blah, blah, blither, blither,
blather, whine>>
>Well, the hell with all of you. <<snip more sobs of mock offense>>
Some Scientologists want to wish us a merry Christmas while you,
RonsAmigo, want to send us to hell? tsk tsk tsk
>Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset. Even though
>there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation that a dead cat
>was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists, most of you bastards
>embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus responses on the thread.
Maybe we're just cat lovers?
>You just *know* this is the kind of thing Scientology does and that is proof
>enough for you. And that "know" is at the heart of your bigotry. Rather
>than seek any real understanding of Scientology and Scientologists
Sorry, you're wrong here. We got the idea *from* the Church of
Scientology. The policy is called "Fair Game" and its practice has never
been cancelled. It led Scientologists to put a snake in Paulette Cooper's
mailbox when she was criticizing them. A Judge's dog is drowned during
a Scientology trial with Wollersheim; peaceful (even lone) picketers have
been beaten and man-handled by Scientologists; why wouldn't we put two
and two together? Oh, I forgot: LRH didn't approve of any math he didn't
understand, so you probably won't approve of my math, will you.
>you only seek further proof that your fixed ideas and blind bigotry are
>sane. And a dead cat turning up on somebody's doorstep <cut>
How did you know there was a dead cat on somebody's doorstep? You
just gave yourself away, RA! You had some prior knowledge of this,
didn't you?
>is proof enough that you are indeed acting in a rational manner when you
>devote your time attacking my friends and my religion.
I've stated it before, but you've never had the guts to respond to any of the
tough questions. That's why you get treated the way you do. Refuse to
answer communications and you create ARC breaks, no? Are you still
working on getting some dead agent material before you'll respond to me?
Why do you do that? Do you have things to hide that you try to distract
people from by insisting that your opponent is an alcoholic or a lunatic?
>Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think you are
>attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that one a rest
>too because it is pure crap.
True, the organization is made up of individuals -- some, it appears, are not
very visible, heh? And we attack the policies, that those individuals
continue to forward, which we consider anathematic to the rest of society.
You have never once addressed these issues. What does management
have to say to the rest of society in response to these issues? We are
NOT just a bunch of SP's. The word has gotten out about all the dirty little
tricks that Scientology has up its sleeve and in its closet. It's time to
cancel or change the policies having to do with attacking everyone you
don't like.
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade is all out
>attack. <cut>
There you go again. Do you see the state to which you've been
conditioned?
> I believe that by any and all legal means the battle should be
>brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take joy in harrassing
>me, my friends and my Church. I don't give a damn if they think or
>honestly believe that they are engaged in some noble endeaver of just
>cause.
Would you like for us to say, "We don't give a damn if those Scienos think or
honestly believe that they are engaged in some noble endeavor of just cause."?
Well? Would you?
>If resources aren't available for this purpose, they should be made
>available. Scientologists as a rule are passionate about defending their
>Church <cut>
I'll give you this much: The Scientologists I know are "passionate about
defending" in speech, for certain. When it comes to paying, it takes the
heavy handed regging techniques of the IAS's Cliff Bowen and his celebrity
sidekick of the month, coupled with locking the doors during so called
"briefings", guarding the door with the biggest, baddest, staff members they
can find, and not letting anyone out until he/she makes a pledge. Now
*that's* some passion, for sure!
> from this kind of rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any
>scarcity of resources on these lines
Well, my friend, the "rabble" are increasing in numbers; so give it your best
shot.
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
than
>just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the bigot's homes,
>it is time for an all out attack on those who as an avocation or vocation
>seek to destroy my religion.
Do you think there could just possibly be any other way? I didn't think so.
NoGoot
jf0...@navix.net
On 19 Dec 1997 19:57:20 GMT, rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
>people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
A "people"? What, you guys are now a new race or what? As far as the
religion part, well.....let's let that go for now, in the spirit of
x-mas.
>(and believe me that IS the case) I believe the primary motivation
>for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry.
Crap Crap Crap. Might be your motivation, not mine. My motivation is
the normal, human response one can only equate to the reaction of
smelling ripe dung.
They are
>They are incapable of seeing anything but
>bad in Scientology and Scientologists.
Wrong again. no problem with $cientologists, just the cult.
>Well, the hell with all of you. Because you have such little traffic
>with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
>with you.
And WE are the bigots. Don't they allow mirrors in OSA?
>The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
>threatens you that you can not even consider or view well-intended
>communication directed your way.
Well-intended communication involves responses when questions are
asked in lieu of vitriolic attacks on the person asking.
>Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
>you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
>one a rest too because it is pure crap.
No, crap is claiming to be a science for 30+ years, and not being able
to produce the research that was the claimed foundation.
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack.
Good. Every time this line is pursued, our numbers treble. More
stuff to send our congressmen too (and the IRS).
> Scientologists as a
>rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
>rabble. I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
>resources on these lines.
Please do convince the cult to spend those tax exempt dollars to
suppress free speech. We can use the help.
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
>
>Amigo
>
You had better keep those mittens on. A cold day in hell is not as
far away as you may think.
Stephen Jones
In article <67e78i$m...@netaxs.com>,
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to
>claim we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
What? It *does* seem reasonable. If i'm walking around town shouting
Merry Christmas to my fellow townsfolk..ok, if I say it to guy in the
cubicle next to mine...I can't very well come on ars and call RonsAmigo a
dimwit without tarnishing my brassy and festive Christmas spirit. Jeez,
just say Merry Christmas, smile and enjoy your eggnog. I thought it was
hilarious that people were trying to show that Russell couldn't say Merry
Christmas and still be a loyal Scientologist. Even it that were true,
Russell would only get extry-bonus Jolly points for respecting and
furthering a holiday he himself does not observe. My G*d!!! The
Scientologist said something pleasant! Hit the dirt!!
While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the insanely paranoid responses
are telling. Perhaps Freedom could find a story here.
"Shadow Boxing: The Fitness Craze of the Usenet Crowd"
Please, Russell, for the sake of ars, don't wish anyone a Happy Birthday.
Stephen Jones
>--
Brett
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote,
... revealing both his hypocrisy and ever-emerging basic fascist
nature ..
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack.
>
Whatever happened to just answering, with calm and reason, the many
points critics raise about your "church's" illegal and depraved
behaviour ?
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Just think how less enturbulated you would be if only you had some
truthful answers to critical questions. Pity it's not an option, eh ?
Best just to stick to policy and attack, lie to, cheat and if possible
utterly ruin the messenger. Ignore the message !
Brett K
NoGoot
In article <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
<snj...@ix.netcom.com> patters out the following half cocked cult-induced
empty blitherings typical of a mindless robot:
>While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the insanely paranoid responses
are telling.
That's good, Stevie-boy. Now I'll ask you to "be specific about who said what"
and you'll pick out two lines out of the probably more than 1000 lines that
this thread has generated in half a day, while conveniently ignoring the rest
of the posts which are bursting at the seams with questions that we SP's just
want answered so we won't be SP's anymore. So, what have you proved, little
fellow? Are you feeling like a big being now? Do you feel like you *control*
this thread because you and RonsAmidget don't answer questions?
I will give you shills one thing: you can generate a lot of electronic
transfers with a few carefully chosen phrases -- you're getting to be experts
at it. I don't believe the desired effect is being created in the public eye
though. Do you? Do you really think that the lurkers on a.r.s are fooled by
your tactics? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think the lurkers
would have a lot higher opinion of Scientology if you pro-Scientology / active
Scientologists posters would openly answer questions posed, and stop with the
diversionary tactics. In your attempt to paint yourselves as being "above it
all", you come off as being evasive, distrustworthy, and paranoid -- not
socially desirable qualities.
>Perhaps Freedom could find a story here.
Perhaps "Freedom" the Scientology Magazine could. Perhaps there's also a story
here about the inhibition of the freedom of speech that the CoS puts upon its
membership.
NoGoot
Stephen Jones
In article <19971220055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote:
>In article <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
><snj...@ix.netcom.com> patters out the following half cocked cult
>induced empty blitherings typical of a mindless robot:
Hiya, NoGoot!
>>While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the insanely paranoid
>>responses are telling.
>That's good, Stevie-boy.
YES! My very first funny-name thing! Thank you, NoGoot. Personally I
thought I might get a "Jones" thing. Stevie-boy works, though.
>Now I'll ask you to "be specific about who said what"
>and you'll pick out two lines out of the probably more than 1000 lines
>that this thread has generated in half a day, while conveniently ignoring
>the rest of the posts which are bursting at the seams with questions that
>we SP's just want answered so we won't be SP's anymore.
Here, let me go pick two lines out of....HEY, you are on to me. Dang.
Ok, here is what you can do so you won't be an SP anymore. First, you must
love L.Ron Hubbard. Second, you must show your love of L.Ron Hubbard by
sending oodles of money to L.Ron Hubbard care of Stephen Jones. Third,
you must walk The Unbalanced Plank to Happiness while holding a vibrating
Tickle Me Elmo in one hand and a bottle of Peppermint Schnapps in the
other. Fourth, must crave the delicious taste of a meatball hoagie. In
order to prove your craving, you must send a meatball hoagie to L.Ron
Hubbard. Write ATTN: Stephen Jones in bold marker on the front of the
package. Fifthly, L.Ron Hubbard demands you do a little dance. You must
dance a good (not overly "thrusting" and not underly thrusting) dance for
L.Ron Hubbard. Dance, NoGoot. Sixetherly, you must write a funny song
using only the letters found in L.Ron Hubbard's name. Make it funny or you
are still an SP.
>So, what have you proved, little
>fellow? Are you feeling like a big being now? Do you feel like you
>*control* this thread because you and RonsAmidget don't answer questions?
I think I speak for all little fellows when I say we feel shamed by your
harsh, yet loving, post. Until I read your taunts, I felt I knew it all.
Now...i'm not so sure. What questions can RonsAmigo and I answer for you?
>I will give you shills one thing: you can generate a lot of electronic
>transfers with a few carefully chosen phrases -- you're getting to be
>experts at it.
Yeah, who knew? At the meeting Russell suggested the "Merry Christmas"
thing and we all shouted him down. Bah, it will never work, we said. Some
keen critic will just respond with a heartfelt "Merry Christmas" and that
will be the end of it, we said. Man, who knew.
>I don't believe the desired effect is being created in the public eye
>though. Do you? Do you really think that the lurkers on a.r.s are
>fooled by your tactics?
I believe someone is fooled by my tactics and I don't think it is lurkers.
>I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think the lurkers
>would have a lot higher opinion of Scientology if you pro-Scientology /
>active Scientologists posters would openly answer questions posed, and
>stop with the diversionary tactics. In your attempt to paint yourselves
>as being "above it all", you come off as being evasive, distrustworthy,
>and paranoid -- not socially desirable qualities.
Distrustworthy and paranoid? You know, you are right. These are not
socially desirable qualities. I'm just glad down to earth people, like
yourself, are not above it all.
>>Perhaps Freedom could find a story here.
>
>Perhaps "Freedom" the Scientology Magazine could. Perhaps there's also a
>story here about the inhibition of the freedom of speech that the CoS
>puts upon its membership.
I can't say a word about that.
Stephen Jones
>NoGoot
William Barwell
In article <19971219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
RonsAmigo <rons...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
>people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
We know enough RonsAsshole. We have our fair shar of ex-members
who have been there. Many of us have seen people cheated,
lives destroyed, critics and writers attacked by your hate
cult. We know enough to see why your cult deserves such
disgust and disdain.
Does www.Scientology.org still peddle teh WIS" lies about Hubbard
being abandoned by his family at teh end of WWII? Almost blind and
crippled? We all know this is a lie, one onf many your hateful cult
peddles to this day. We know it is a lie.
Why does your cult lie?
>(and believe me that IS the case)
That your cult lies and does ugly things? Yes, we noted that.
I believe the primary motivation
>for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry. They are
>so imprisoned by their own fixed ideas that they are virtual slaves
>to their own ignorance.
Trying to end Scientology's habits of entrapping people with lies.
And trickery. Scientology to this day pushes Dianetics with it's big list
of lying claims for the benefits of becoming Dianetics Clear.
Want me to list the list of such lying promises again?
Perfect memory? Shrink over large organs? (Snigger!)
Stupidology then makes big promises about it's OT courses.
All lies. Again. A cult of lies and big promises, heh, RonsAsshole?
Instead people end up selling theirselves into Sea Org slavery
for false promises while their children rot in dank Sea Org 'nurseries'.
We are trying to save people from your cults furious lies and
tricks.
So many people who fell for this have felt so bad for the way
their children were so treated while they were stupidly wasting lives ibn
the Sea Org. They helped Scientology steal their children's childhood
from them.
We are here RonsAsshole, to see if we can stop people from being tricked
by your hate cult.
No blind bigotry here.
They are incapable of seeing anything but
>bad in Scientology and Scientologists.
The good in many Scientologists is they sooner or later see through teh
hate and bad treatment and lies and greedy gouging money grubbing and
leave.
The bad is that your hate cult manages to lie to so many and suck their
money and lives to the extent it does.
Lives wasted, suicides, PTSIIIs dumped, offloaded, years wasted in Sea Org
slavery, disconnects, broken families, broken promises, fear and threats
and blackmail, DA attacks, on those who do leave.
What an ugly cult. The more people we can warn off from this hate cult
the better.
We critics won't be going away, RonsAsshole, we have a job to do here.
And anything that they do to
>a Scientologist or Scientology is a triumph and fully justified. Of
>course anything a Scientologist or Scientology do to them is an
>attrocity of magnitude.
Feeling pathetic and pitiful RonsAsshole? Sorry. When we expose
this cult for what it is, we win. When you lie and we knock your lies
down, we win. When Gertie or Erin spew hate drenched libels and DA
attacks, you lose, everybody realizes what a hate cult you are. You lose.
When your hate cult kils cats and leaves it on porch, you lose.
When your hate cult's barrators start lashing out at Minton in the
startling hate campaign of legal terror we have seen this month, you lose.
When your hate cult panics and goes to pieces in Clearwater and starts
attacking the police, the city government and everybody else in sight, you
lose.
When your hate cult hires lawyers and PIs to pester the Youngs and shut
down their cat sanctuary simply to harrass them, your cult is exposed as
the truely hate drenched cult of destruction it is, a hate cult, a mad
rampaging cult of thugs and flaming shitheels. You lose.
Scientology is every bit as bad as us critics say and Stupidology goes
out of its way on a weekly basis to prove it.
Losers and nasty losers at that.
I point out Scientology's lies and you claim this is an atrocity?
I sneer at you Scientologists and your libel and hate campaigns full of
obvious lies and you claim that is an atrocity.
You are a loser RonsAsshole.
>
>Well, the hell with all of you.
Sorry, not going to hell. I am going to be here on your sorry ass every
day, exposing your incompetence and lack of cluefulness.
Because you have such little traffic
>with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
>with you. The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
>threatens you that you can not even consider or view well-intended
>communication directed your way.
The bad in Scientology far, far, far outways and incidental good
that might have accidently crept into Scientology by accident.
Let me remind you again of teh lies in WIS? on www.Scientology.org.
When Scientology can stop lying, maybe you can get it to reform itself to
the point Scientology does not cause reasonable people to sneer in utter
disgust at this nasty, hatefilled ,bizarre cult.
>
>Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset.
It is the usual Scientology mindset of hate, and threat and harassment.
It's an old trick and the smell won't go away. Ingram et al,
your cults hired bullies and harassers have pulled this stunt
far too many times.
I have heard of this trick being pulled ten years ago, long before
I got to the net.
Even
>though there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation
>that a dead cat was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists,
>most of you bastards embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus
>responses on the thread.
Because you bastards do these sort of things. It's an old
hoary, ancient, Scientology hate cult stunt. You have a history
of this sort of shit. You will never live it down.
Because your hate cult keeps on doing it!
You just *know* this is the kind of thing
>Scientology does and that is proof enough for you. And that "know"
>is at the heart of your bigotry.
Not bigotry, simple knowledge born of long experience that this is
how Scientology does things. Has done such things, does them, will do them
in the future. And then gets furious and denies the obvious when
it backfires and becomes an issue. Sorry, when the old trick gets played
again on a critic, a cult 'enemy', you get the blame for doing it again.
Don't like that? Screaming "Bigot! Bigot!" won't help you now.
It just makes us despise you for being so clueless.
Rather than seek any real understanding
>of Scientology and Scientologists you only seek further proof
>that your fixed ideas and blind bigotry are sane. And a dead
>cat turning up on somebody's doorstep is proof enough that
>you are indeed acting in a rational manner when you devote
>your time attacking my friends and my religion.
You religion is no religion. It is a stinking cult founded on deceit
and falsehood. A fake, a fraud, a "matter for soliciters and
accountants only" as Hubbard wrote.
And PIs and harassment and hateful libel attacks.
>
>Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
>you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
>one a rest too because it is pure crap.
>
Nope, it's the cult, but then, the cult is made up of individuals
who do things. Often stupid and ugly things.
And you cannot change the fact your cult is nasty and hateful and does
hateful and nasty things by ranting at us critics.
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack.
We have been attacked for years, collectively and individually.
Think more of the same will end the criticism?
You just make more enemies.
I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
>should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
>joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church.
You going to sue me for showing the world your cult is vicious and stupid
and that Hubbard was a lying sunuvabitch?
That your cult lies about what you can achieve with Dianetics or
Scientology?
For exposing the fact that much of Scientology is the useless exorcising
of imaginary BTs and clusters for powers nobody can prove Scientology
gains one by this nonsense?
Rant and rave assshole, you won't stop me.
There is no legal means to rightfully halt my efforts here.
I don't give a
>damn if they think or honestly believe that they are engaged in
>some noble endeaver of just cause. If resources aren't available
>for this purpose, they should be made available.
Well, RonsAsshole, you just get that second job and hire a mean ol'
lawyer. Go ahead son.
Scientologists as a
>rule are passionate about defending their Church from this kind of
>rabble.
Yeah we saw how passinate when your hate cult harrassed the Youngs
and tried to get their cat shelter shut down for pure spite. For pure
mean spiritedness of it. For the hate of it.
For the purely hateful drooling spitefulness of it all.
It is this 'passion' combined with bad judgement and hate that causes
you to be despised as a cult of hate by all and sundry.
Do it some more, dig that hole deeper.
I don't see any reason why there should be any scarcity of
>resources on these lines.
>
Little things like lack of legal standing to sue people like me.
Unless your hate cult wants to deal in purely vexatious
legal activities and open harassment. Note here in Texas, a whole passle
of laws against just this sort of crap was passed and enacted two years
ago in Texas. So, whatchya gonna do about me, huh, huh, huh?
Well!?
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
What do you mean all out attack? More little Scientology tricks? More
dead cats? More loosened lug nuts? (Another old Scientology hate cult
trick.) More of the old PI 'noisy investigation' libel attacks you cult
is so famous for? Assaults?
Thank you for illustrating the hatefulness of Scientology again to the
world RAG.
You are what we fight.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Anti-Cult
On 19 Dec 1997 19:57:20 GMT.
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo).
From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: About the "truce":
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
>
>Amigo
>
>
>
Amigo, please have a talk with Rshaw first. We made a deal, but that
deal is in jeopardy if you act like this. I urge you not to destroy this
that at least I have agreed to. I had a onesided truce last year, and
this year I had planned the same over Christmas. I replaced my anti-scn
site last year with a Christmas page, and that was my plan this year
too. We may be on different sides of the fence here amigo, but I do
think that we at least could agree to some peace over Christmas. I only
wished that your organization could follow the conventions of the rest
of the world, and close it's orgs and give the staff some days off.
Dec 22-Jan 2, is my anti-scn site replaced with pure Christmas.
Sten-Arne
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********* http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ***********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victimized by the Co$. "Deadfiled" in at least one Org. Seen too
much, heard to much, lived too much. Security Coded hard disks
too much. Have been reading NOTS too much. Having chronic
pneumonia. As Arnold said: I'll be back......
------------------------------------------------------------------
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
>From: Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Sat, Dec 20, 1997 00:12 EST
>Message-id: <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
>
>In article <67e78i$m...@netaxs.com>,
> rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>
>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to
>>claim we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>
>What? It *does* seem reasonable. If i'm walking around town shouting
>Merry Christmas to my fellow townsfolk..ok, if I say it to guy in the
>cubicle next to mine...I can't very well come on ars and call RonsAmigo a
>dimwit without tarnishing my brassy and festive Christmas spirit. Jeez,
>just say Merry Christmas, smile and enjoy your eggnog. I thought it was
>hilarious that people were trying to show that Russell couldn't say Merry
>Christmas and still be a loyal Scientologist. Even it that were true,
>Russell would only get extry-bonus Jolly points for respecting and
>furthering a holiday he himself does not observe. My G*d!!! The
>Scientologist said something pleasant! Hit the dirt!!
>
I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that *anyone*
else was talking truce, either.
It was just something I felt like saying. It still is.
There are some issues where we may not ever agree. But I can't see how being
rude to one another is going to help resolve anything. On either side.
If one is really trying to reach another to get them to look at a different
viewpoint, namecalling is seldom going to be productive.
>While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the insanely paranoid responses
>are telling. Perhaps Freedom could find a story here.
>
> "Shadow Boxing: The Fitness Craze of the Usenet Crowd"
>
>Please, Russell, for the sake of ars, don't wish anyone a Happy Birthday.
>
>Stephen Jones
Let me know yours in e-mail and I'll send you a birthday greeting in private.
No sense getting into the "Can an OT really believe in birthdays" issue at
~this~ time.
Russell
Martin Hunt
>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to claim
>we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>
>But what I find so interesting is that they come up with these ideas in
>synch with each other. One day last week, they all decided that critics
>are being paid to post here, or paid to picket. AOL folks suddenly decided
>that, OSA shills came to that realization at the same moment. All together
>now, we'll give you your opinions for this week.
Scientology has a top-down heirarchical structure; I have little
doubt that David Miscavige himself personally oversees such decisions.
Command Intention, and all that. It's amazing how little power even
the ED of an org has. People are there (the Flag Rep, the local DSA
folks) to ensure that the orders from "up lines" are followed to
the letter, even as far as pictures to hang on the wall, and how
to hang them. Nothing's left to the 'droids.
Right, Ron's Amigo? You have very little power or control over
what you do, wouldn't you agree? Total freedom from decision
making.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"I don't 'think' anymore. I mean, it's actually an effort to go back
down into that level again." - Success story from "P.S.", an OT V.
Jack
On 20 Dec 1997 05:50:47 GMT, nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote:
>In article <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
><snj...@ix.netcom.com> patters out the following half cocked cult-induced
>empty blitherings typical of a mindless robot:
>
< snip >
Thanks for identifying Stephen Jones as a cult-induced mindless
robot. And all this time I thought he was one of Scientology's most
effective critics.
Oh well...
Merry Christmas?
jack
>
>NoGoot
Mike O'Connor
In article <19971219195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
[...]
> It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
> than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
> bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
> avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
It's not about religion. It's about abuse of people and the law.
You went from "Peace?" to "all out attack" in only two days. Exactly as
you planned.
As for my plans, I think discussing Scientology in this forum is
appropriate. And that learning more about Scientology's beliefs about
Christ is appropriate now, in the Christmas season. I see nothing warlike
in an effort to learn about the cult.
I've already posted a few messages to start things off. Now your turn, how
about responding to one of my messages which discuss Scientology's beliefs
about Christ? Thanks! -Mike
Paul
I never have seen the original message from RonsAmigo. I'm still
flabbergasted at this explosion, though, and can't help wondering what
caused it. I wonder if his own doubts are getting to him and this is
his way of handling them.
Matt Ouimette wrote:
>
> RonsAmigo read from his script:
> >
> > Why is it okay for you to devote so much of your time attacking a
> > people and a religion about which you know practically nothing?
a) We're not attacking a "people".
b) Most of us are not attacking a "religion"; we're *criticizing* the
*abusive actions and policies* of the leaders of the Church of
Scientology[tm].
c) The average critic on a.r.s. knows far more about the Church of
Scientology[tm] than does the average member of the Church of
Scientology[tm].
> Well, I for one (And I'm certainly NOT the minority in this) have
> attacked neither the people nor the religion, but I HAVE voiced my views
> on the CRIMINAL tactics of the CO$.
Precisely.
[snip]
> > I believe the primary motivation
> > for the majority of ARS "critics" is simple blind bigotry.
You are entitled to your beliefs, of course, but you'll have to forgive
the rest of us if we don't take your word for it. You see, there's this
small matter of evidence that you continue to fail to supply....
Moreover, it's not "bigotry" to complain about *documented abuses*,
RonsAmigo. You really should invest in a dictionary.
> > They are
> > so imprisoned by their own fixed ideas that they are virtual slaves
> > to their own ignorance. They are incapable of seeing anything but
> > bad in Scientology and Scientologists.
Once again, there's this small matter of evidence, RonsAmigo--evidence
that we are "imprisoned by our fixed ideas" or that we are "virtual
slaves to our own ignorance."
Moreover, it's not that we are "incapable of seeing anything but bad in
Scientology," it's that the Church of Scientology[tm] has *never*
provided *any* evidence to support *any* of its claims. Do you truly
believe that I'm supposed to blindly accept anything the Church of
Scientology[tm] says as gospel, without questioning it in any way?
The problem for you, and the thing that I suspect is driving you nuts,
is that we are not ignorant, that the abuses we have documented really
have taken place, and that the Church of Scientology[tm] genuinely needs
to reform. Unfortunately, as long as you, and the others like you,
refuse to face the facts, the reform will not and cannot take place.
The first step toward solving a problem is to recognize that it exists.
Sadly, neither you nor the leaders of the Church of Scientology[tm] seem
ready to take that first step.
> > And anything that they do to
> > a Scientologist or Scientology is a triumph and fully justified.
And, naturally, you have evidence to support this assertion? And, of
course, you have a list of documented abuses committed by critics of the
Church of Scientology[tm]?
No? I thought not.
> > Of
> > course anything a Scientologist or Scientology do to them is an
> > attrocity of magnitude.
>
> Pot. Kettle. BLACK.
Precisely. And we should note the complete lack of evidence that
RonsAmigo provides. Whereas, the abuses committed by Scientologists are
well-documented. The most recent examples include the dead-agenting
posts by tveracity and wgert, the picketing of individual critics'
homes, etc.--the list is long.
> Considering what the CO$ has said in the last year about ANYONE who
> speaks critically of them, I find it hard to give credence to ANYTHING
> you guys say anymore. Funny that.
Even RonsAmigo's name belongs on that list for his dead-agenting of
Steve Keller and for his assertion that Bob Minton is a "head case", who
is being used by the critics because of his money.
I don't know how other people react to dead-agenting posts like wgert's,
but my reaction has always been to wonder just what the hell is wrong
with someone who would post garbage like that.
> The critics are able to defend their views with court cases, actual CO$
> scripture (That you deny till they post it, then sue them for posting,
> nice tactic, that one!), scientific theory, and public records.
Yup.
> The CO$ uses Dead Agenting, threats to ISP's, Picketing *individual
> homes*, leafleting *individual's neighborhoods*, bait-and-switch,
> outright lies, secrecy, harassment, fraud, and a host of other shady
> practices.
>
> Which would you believe? Which would you prefer to be? I know which
> side *I* want to be on, thank you.
Yup.
> > Well, the hell with all of you. Because you have such little traffic
> > with reason and sanity, I see no good coming from trying to reason
> > with you.
Is this a tactic that you were going to try someday? To date, very few
Scientologists have participated in open debate on this newsgroup.
You're not one of those very few. Personally, I don't consider sniping,
mocking, degrading, or dead-agenting as examples of "reason".
> > The idea that there is anything good about Scientology so
> > threatens you
I've heard several Scientologists make this claim, but I've never
understood it. Why the hell should I feel threatened by something good
in Scientology[tm]? What possible reason could I have for feeling
threatened?
Moreover, I have no problem recognizing and admitting that quite a few
people claim that Scientology[tm] has helped them. Why do you believe I
should a problem with this?
Of course, it must be pointed out that the Church of Scientology[tm] has
*never* provided *any* evidence to support *any* of its claims.
> > that you can not even consider or view well-intended
> > communication directed your way.
Actually, we can. In fact, we're eager for it. Those very few
Scientologists who have actually engaged in communication with people on
this newsgroup have been eagerly welcomed. The others, like yourself,
who refuse to engage in any kind of meaningful communication are
alternatively ignored or mocked. Are you surprised?
> You have yet to try reason, brightboy.
I know; I thought that was hilarious coming from him. I wonder if he's
referring to the dead-agenting post he made about Steve Keller? Was
that supposed to be "open communication" and "reason"?
> You have also not yet presented one *single solitary bit* of actual
> scientific evidence that the 'tech' works, in any way, shape, or form,
> even so much as the placebo effect. You can tout your 'Big Wins!' till
> you're blue in the face, but whenever you're asked to present an actual
> peer-reviewed study, you vanish, or just conveniently ignore it.
Yup.
> > Minton's dead cat threat is evidence of the bigot mindset. Even
> > though there is NO evidence of any kind to support the allegation
> > that a dead cat was placed on Minton's doorstep by Scientologists,
> > most of you bastards embrace the idea as almost gospel with 70 plus
> > responses on the thread.
Of course, what RonsAmigo conveniently forgets to mention is that quite
a few of those postings, including my own, pointed out that there was a
lack of real evidence in the case, circumstantial evidence
notwithstanding.
> Most? I counted over 500 people posting last week. you've got 70 or so
> responses TOTAL.
And quite a few of those were multiple responses from the same people,
so you have probably have only about 40 unique individuals--less than
10%.
> Kindly explain how you arrived at 'most of you
> bastards'
Oh hell, RonsAmigo has been doing things like that since he got here.
He's made it quite clear in the past that he considers this a "bigoted
hate group" and that he simply cannot recognize evidence to the
contrary.
[snip]
> > Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
> > you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
> > one a rest too because it is pure crap.
> Why? Explain yourself, sirrah! More undocumented rantings.
I'm curious about that, myself. I have no quarrel with RonsAmigo,
except when he posts a disgusting dead-agent attack, as he did on Steve
Keller recently. I also have no quarrel with the other thousands of
Scientologists worldwide. As far as I'm concerned, they are free to
continue doing whatever they want to do without interference from me.
I do have a problem with the well-documented abusive practices and
policies of the leaders of the Church of Scientology[tm], but I don't
see how criticizing those practices and policies can possibly be
interpreted as an attack on individual Scientologists. I'm simply
asking the Church of Scientology[tm] to reform.
> It's a
> documented fact that the CO$ is the one picketing INDIVIDUAL HOMES, and
> NOT the critics. Kindly explain how critics are attacking individuals
> and not the organization?
Well, he can probably point to a recent posting from Roland, and he'd be
right, but that can hardly be claimed to be representative of the
literally hundreds of critics who post here.
> Can't do it, can ya?
Nope, that's why he's never even tried to document his claims. At
least, Bernie has the guts to try to come up with some evidence, flimsy
as it is. RonsAmigo simply has his mind made up; don't confuse him with
facts.
The rest of this snipped because I responded to RonsAmigo's call for an
"all out attack" in another posting.
-Paul
Rod Keller
RonsAmigo (rons...@aol.com) wrote:
: Nothing is as it seems, is it, Keller. A Scientologist offers a "truce"
: and you assume it is part of some coordinated "OSA shill" program.
: Did you even for a moment think that just maybe that person was
: acting as an individual and trying to forward the spirit of Christmas?
Multiple Scientologists offer the same thing simultaneously. Hmmm. And
your comments on Scientologists are your own. Please don't put words in my
mouth.
: It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
: than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
: bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
: avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Is this a threat? What do you plan to do? Re-start the campaign for
soc.religion.scientology.moderated, perhaps. That'll show us. But what
makes you think I want to destroy Scientology? I think we'd all be pretty
satisfied with three reforms: stop abusing staff and members, stop the
medical quackery, stop harassing critics. How can you argue with that?
Stanley Anderson
Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> writes:
>I don't know how other people react to dead-agenting posts like wgert's,
>but my reaction has always been to wonder just what the hell is wrong
>with someone who would post garbage like that.
>
confront the allegations made, has no evidence to contradict the allegations
made, and is thus reduced to attacking the poster, in hopes of somehow
convincing lurkers the poster shouldn't be believed. I'm still waiting for
RonsAmigo to post evidence contradicting Steve Keller's report on Delphi
Academy, for example. In the absence of such evidence, we can safely con-
clude that Delphi Academy lied about state accreditation, lied about the
universities and colleges its graduates attended, lied about its graduation
rates...as Steve Keller reported.
STan Anderson
NoGoot
In article <67fpmv$7...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
<snj...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>In article <19971220055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, nog...@aol.com
(NoGoot) wrote:<
>>In article <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
<snj...@ix.netcom.com> patters out the following half cocked cult induced
empty blitherings typical of a mindless robot:<<
>Hiya, NoGoot!<
Hi, Stephen Jones. Nice to see a proScientologist with enough decency to
respond. Are you a current member?
>>>While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the insanely paranoid responses
are telling.<<<
>>That's good, Stevie-boy.<<
>YES! My very first funny-name thing! Thank you, NoGoot. Personally I thought
I might get a "Jones" thing. Stevie-boy works, though.<
Glad to be able to bring some joy into the lackluster life of a fellow
a.r.s'er. ((Not that I know your life is 'lackluster', I just like the sound
of the word, and the nice way it fits into the phrase. Don't you agree? (Not
that your life is lackluster, of course; that it fits into the sentence well.))
>>Now I'll ask you to "be specific about who said what" and you'll pick out two
lines out of the probably more than 1000 lines that this thread has generated
in half a day, while conveniently ignoring the rest of the posts which are
bursting at the seams with questions that we SP's just want answered so we
won't be SP's anymore.<<
>Here, let me go pick two lines out of....HEY, you are on to me. Dang. Ok,
here is what you can do so you won't be an SP anymore. First, you must love
L.Ron Hubbard. Second, you must show your love of L.Ron Hubbard by sending
oodles of money to L.Ron Hubbard care of Stephen Jones. Third, you must walk
The Unbalanced Plank to Happiness while holding a vibrating Tickle Me Elmo in
one hand and a bottle of Peppermint Schnapps in the other. Fourth, must crave
the delicious taste of a meatball hoagie. In order to prove your craving, you
must send a meatball hoagie to L.Ron Hubbard. Write ATTN: Stephen Jones in bold
marker on the front of the package. Fifthly, L.Ron Hubbard demands you do a
little dance. You must dance a good (not overly "thrusting" and not underly
thrusting) dance for L.Ron Hubbard. Dance, NoGoot. Sixetherly, you must write
a funny song using only the letters found in L.Ron Hubbard's name. Make it
funny or you are still an SP.<
I guess I'll have to remain an SP -- I could never do the Sixetherly one.
>>So, what have you proved, little fellow? Are you feeling like a big being
now? Do you feel like you *control* this thread because you and RonsAmidget
don't answer questions?<<
>I think I speak for all little fellows when I say we feel shamed by your
harsh, yet loving, post. Until I read your taunts, I felt I knew it all.
Now...i'm not so sure. What questions can RonsAmigo and I answer for you?<
Well, although you certainly have me at a disadvantage because I can't tell if
you're still joking, and I don't know what your connection with the CoS is,
here goes:
(I just erased the 5 questions I have for the leaders of the church. That's
another issue to be addressed at a later time.)
1st Q: Is Stephen Jones your real name? (A yes or a no would suffice. I'm not
asking you to out yourself if you don't want to.)
2nd Q: Don't you think it's odd that I, a former Scientologist, Sponsor of the
I.A.S., still in a position in which I could walk into my local CoS and start a
course--today, a donator to the Ship, a "Clear", a trained auditor, a Scn book
reader, an LRH tape listener, an owner of all the Tech Vols and all the Admin
Vols, an adherent to the philosophy from 1977 till 1993; I say don't you think
it's odd that I have to post anonymously, for fear that the Church will start
to harass and sue me for relating my experiences and speaking out about my
disagreements with Church policy?
3rd Q: Why would any Scientologist in good standing, whose purpose it is to
defend his faith and beliefs, post anonymously to this newsgroup?
4th Q: Is the RonsAmigo screen name used by more than one poster? (I know you
can't answer this, because you could get into trouble with AOL, but if the
answer is "yes", just say "maybe", and then why the intent to confuse?)
5th Q: Why did RonsAmigo use a process intended to "spin in" David Alexander?
And why did RonsAmigo not answer my attack of him which included specific
questions? (See the thread from a month or two ago entitled "David Alexander
to the white courtesy phone")
6th Q: What is your purpose for posting to a.r.s?
7th Q: What is RonsAmigo's and MikeSmith3's purpose for posting here? And
what planet did wgert come from?
8th Q: Why continue the flaming tactic of dead agenting someone? It does not
work in this forum. We are not personal friends of each other, so you can't
make us feel disdain for someone by saying he's an alcoholic, drug addict,
credit card fraud, etc. People in this forum are for the most part looking at
the message -- we can't even *see* the messenger -- so stop attacking the
messenger. We are all *individually* looking at posts. You can't use the
tactic of trying to turn the group against the critic. I learned that tactic
on the "Dissemination Course" -- you remember, don't you? When you're talking
to two or more people in a group about Scientology and someone chimes in with a
statement like, "I heard that Scientology is a *cult*!". Then you're supposed
to make a "look of disbelief" that anyone could be so rude, and ignore the
person, and on, and on? Do you see how this tactic won't work in UseNet forum?
9th Q: Why do Scientologists fear criticism so much? (And nobody really cares
about the words WOG or CLAM -- so if somebody calls you a clam, call him a wog!
Big deal! There's no criticism in that, just a minor service facsimile, heh?)
Do you realize, Steve, the number of questions that could be asked and answered
in this forum? These are just mine!
>>I will give you shills one thing: you can generate a lot of electronic
transfers with a few carefully chosen phrases -- you're getting to be experts
at it.<<
>Yeah, who knew? At the meeting Russell suggested the "Merry Christmas" thing
and we all shouted him down. Bah, it will never work, we said. Some keen
critic will just respond with a heartfelt "Merry Christmas" and that will be
the end of it, we said. Man, who knew.<
Some *did* respond with a heartfelt "Merry Christmas" right back at you. But
then *RAmgo* had to go on the warpath, and look at the number of responses and
sub-threads that have resulted -- all negative toward him!
>>I don't believe the desired effect is being created in the public eye though.
Do you? Do you really think that the lurkers on a.r.s are fooled by your
tactics?<<
>I believe someone is fooled by my tactics and I don't think it is lurkers.<
Touche, my friend. Do you believe you have helped Scientology in this way?
>>I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I think the lurkers would have a lot
higher opinion of Scientology if you pro-Scientology / active Scientologists
posters would openly answer questions posed, and stop with the diversionary
tactics. In your attempt to paint yourselves as being "above it all", you come
off as being evasive, distrustworthy, and paranoid -- not socially desirable
qualities.<<
>Distrustworthy and paranoid? You know, you are right. These are not socially
desirable qualities. I'm just glad down to earth people, like yourself, are
not above it all.<
That's true. I'm not perfect, nor do I have the deluded opinion that I'm
better than anyone else. I just post my ideas when they come up, ask questions
when I have them, and answer questions as honestly as I can when they are
asked.
>>>Perhaps Freedom could find a story here. <<<
>>Perhaps "Freedom" the Scientology Magazine could. Perhaps there's also a
story here about the inhibition of the freedom of speech that the CoS puts upon
its membership.<<
>I can't say a word about that.<
Without an emoticon after that sentence, I'll have to take it as being your
truthful response. I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope you will find a way to
speak freely in the future.
>Stephen Jones<
Thanks for your response. Feel free to ask me any questions, even by e-mail.
I believe what I believe, and if I am an SP, I'm sorry for that, but at this
point I have big concerns about the effects Scientology has on individuals and
their families.
NoGoot
Bev
WONDERFULR wrote:
> I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that *anyone*
> else was talking truce, either.
I know you weren't, from you I honestly feel it was a wish from
your heart, and I wish you a Merry Christmas also :-)
Other Co$ members jumped in on your idea who have shown no sincerity
in the past.
I find the idea of a truce rather moot because to me a.r.s. has
simply been an exchange of information (and a few flames <g>).
I guess maybe it could be deemed similar to a battle as it is obviously
a desire of each poster to reach their points and ~data~ to those who
may be reading the NG. But that is far from a war, that's just life!
> It was just something I felt like saying. It still is.
That's what I saw in your words.
> There are some issues where we may not ever agree. But I can't see how being
> rude to one another is going to help resolve anything. On either side.
I think your statement is correct. Maybe sometimes people just blow
off steam. Some people know how to release it before it becomes
explosive, others don't.
> If one is really trying to reach another to get them to look at a different
> viewpoint, namecalling is seldom going to be productive.
Yep. Relevant information is more effective in getting a point
of view across.
> >While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind,
I don't believe it was on your part. However, the fact that is was
jumped on so quickly by other Co$, especially while at the same time
they were requesting a truce there was still nasty DA's being put on
a.r.s. by Co$ members, lacked sincerity.
> the insanely paranoid responses are telling.
Now Russ, you are getting "paranoid" if you beleive that the majority
of the resonses were "insanely paranoid". Don't join in on that which
you condemn.
> Perhaps Freedom could find a story here.
Co$'s Freedom Magazine can find a story anywhere :-)
Oh, and to save making seperate posts elsewhere, while Christmas at
one time was to celebrate the birth of Christ, it has become very
commercialized and now in our culture represents more Santa Clause,
presents, and at least basic good will.
I think it's great if people who are NOT Christians get festive (as
long as they don't get drunk and drive) and wish to celebrate and
be with family, whether they beleive in Christ, Xenu or Barney the
Purple Dinosaur, so have a Merry Christmas!!
I think it would do quite a few people on BOTH sides of the issue not
to worry about a "truce", but for Pete's sake, at least take a break,
kick back and relax. All things will come to pass in due time. :-)
Beverly
NoGoot
In article <349bce68....@NEWS.MIA.BELLSOUTH.NET>, inm...@bellsouth.net
(Jack) writes:
>On 20 Dec 1997 05:50:47 GMT, nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote:
>>In article <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
<snj...@ix.netcom.com> patters out the following half cocked cult-induced
empty blitherings typical of a mindless robot:<<
>< snip >
>Thanks for identifying Stephen Jones as a cult-induced mindless robot. And all
this time I thought he was one of Scientology's most effective critics.<
Well, I certainly may have been mistaken about Stephen's loyalties, but if you
will look at the line of mine that you posted, you'll notice that I simply said
it was the "half-cocked, cult-induced, empty blitherings *typical* of a
mindless robot".
See, I was attacking the message moreso than the messenger. Even though it may
not look that way. :-)
Besides, he responded, and I responded back to him already -- so now I'll
really look ridiculous. (I need to make a list of names to keep everyone
straight.)
>Oh well...<
"Oh well" is right. I hope I've provided some mirth and merriment to some here
on a.r.s
>Merry Christmas?<
Merry Chrismas, Hanukkah, Qwanza, Xenumas, etc. to ALL.
>jack<
NoGoot (slightly blushed with embarrassment)
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
>Yeh, I know. It's not the individual Scientologists you think
>you are attacking. It is the "organization." Well you can give that
>one a rest too because it is pure crap.
You've a point. Sure it is a bogus thought, the organization consists
of people and I admit my "double-think" in that regard. Same thoughts
on how the raw meat is pressured for more courses. Is it improper for
Scn to do that? What about the guy who does it, is he not a victim too,
pressured by _his_ superiors? Where does it end, was Patrice Vic a
victim but not Jean-Jacques Mazier, regardless if/of how much pressure
was put on him to get his "stats up"? Those are not easy questions, for
me at least.
However the mad-dog policies of Hubbard are for real.
>I believe that the only correct response to the ARS bigot brigade
>is all out attack. I believe that by any and all legal means the battle
>should be brought to the front door of those *individuals* who take
>joy in harrassing me, my friends and my Church.
Nah, won't work anymore. Too many people speak up "Enough! No more!"
It's simple, I and lots of other people just had it with the attacks
of your group. You had your change to become a "turn the other cheek
religion," instead Scn has still not learned that you can only attack
so many people before the actions will cause a public outcry. Look at
the stupid attempt to get rid of the newsgroup by a lawyer of your fond
sect. Did you guys learn? No, you had to try it once more. Although it
was a sneaky one this time. :8)
>I don't give a damn if they think or honestly believe that they
>are engaged in some noble endeaver of just cause.
Funny, I see the rank and file scientologist as a honest (wog
definition) person who wants to better themselves and the world
at large.
>It is not time for a "truce." It is time to take the gloves off and rather
>than just engage in a few token moves like picketing a few of the
>bigot's homes, it is time for an all out attack on those who as an
>avocation or vocation seek to destroy my religion.
Amigo, Scn is a subject which is clearly close to your heart. But not
only yours. Regardless, critic/member, I just don't buy it that
whoever participates here, does that solely without some emotional
motives. So yes, discussions sometimes get a bit heated and people
do make statements they don't really mean. I think the above one of
yours is such a statement. But I could be mistaken..
Something else, one of my ideas for a long time is that critics and
members should at least once meet each other. Sit around a table and
notice that the person in front of you isn't a "brainless zombie" or a
"suppressive person" akin to Hitler. Sure it won't change dramatically
the options of each group, after all Hubbard's policy is sort of law in
Scn, it couldn't harm either. It's a shame that something like that has
never happened yet. Some people are on a.r.s. for years and have never
met a "real" scientologist, is my believe. Here's a proposition of mine,
out of the blue, if you're ever in the neighborhood of Holland, give me
a call (my phone# is now in your mailbox) and I'll give you a tour of
the city. Deal?
Before I forget, merry Xmas to you and your family!
Mike
Stephen Jones
In article <19971220180...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote:
>Besides, he responded, and I responded back to him already -- so now I'll
>really look ridiculous. (I need to make a list of names to keep everyone
>straight.)
I've done very similiar things and still do. I think the fevered pitch we
sometimes reach makes it easier. I remember when I first began posting I
was working up what I thought was a pretty good froth. I was calling
Russell Shaw all sorts of things and attributing statements to him...I was
trying my best to rake him over the coals. Unfortunately he didn't say
some of the things I said he said, another Scientologist did. I realized
my mistake and posted an apology. To my surprise, Russell accepted the
apology very graciously. He was kind in the face of my unjustified
unkindness. While I probably should have learned more from this example
than I've demonstrated on ars to date, I just feel like telling anyone
within earshot my weepy Christmas story.
(Speaking of Christmas stories...does anyone have information regarding a
Christmas special called Santa vs the Snowman?? It was brilliant! I thought
good network television Christmas specials had gone the way of Barbara
Mandrell's Hokey-Pokey Humdiggery Christmas Shindig....man, I was wrong.
Santa vs the Snowman was genius.)
>>Oh well...
>"Oh well" is right. I hope I've provided some mirth and merriment to some
>here on a.r.s.
>>Merry Christmas?
>
>Merry Chrismas, Hanukkah, Qwanza, Xenumas, etc. to ALL.
Merry Christmas NoGoot and Jack
Stephen Jones
Anti-Cult
On 20 Dec 1997 08:46:00 GMT.
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
>>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
>>From: Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Sat, Dec 20, 1997 00:12 EST
>>Message-id: <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
>>
>>In article <67e78i$m...@netaxs.com>,
>> rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>>
>>>Why are the Scientologists simultaneously offering a truce? I'm thinking
>>>it's a little test, to see if we are all completely unreasonable or if
>>>there are some who will listen to "reason". Or perhaps a PR stunt to
>>>claim we don't respect Christmas in some Freedom Magazine article.
>>
>>What? It *does* seem reasonable. If i'm walking around town shouting
>>Merry Christmas to my fellow townsfolk..ok, if I say it to guy in the
>>cubicle next to mine...I can't very well come on ars and call RonsAmigo a
>>dimwit without tarnishing my brassy and festive Christmas spirit. Jeez,
>>just say Merry Christmas, smile and enjoy your eggnog. I thought it was
>>hilarious that people were trying to show that Russell couldn't say Merry
>>Christmas and still be a loyal Scientologist. Even it that were true,
>>Russell would only get extry-bonus Jolly points for respecting and
>>furthering a holiday he himself does not observe. My G*d!!! The
>>Scientologist said something pleasant! Hit the dirt!!
>>
>
>I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that *anyone*
>else was talking truce, either.
>
>It was just something I felt like saying. It still is.
>
>There are some issues where we may not ever agree. But I can't see how being
>rude to one another is going to help resolve anything. On either side.
>
>If one is really trying to reach another to get them to look at a different
>viewpoint, namecalling is seldom going to be productive.
>
[posted/mailed]
Russell, shall we make an agreement between you and me. Since I already
have decided to pull down my site between Dec 22- Jan 2, and you say
above that name calling is seldom going to be productive, can't you for
the sake of confidence building in this little truce, (that obviously
only seems to be between you and me) take down your site? You can't say
that it is very moderate, and without name calling, can you? Pointing to
critics as KKK or nazis, isn't very productive, is it? Let's do this, if
only for the period of Dec 22 - Jan 2.
I also want to add a few more points after reading all threads about
this truce. It's totally out of line IMO for the critics to jump all
over scientologists that celebrate Christmas with the LRH quote of *no
Christ*. In the secular society we live in today, and maybe especially
in my country, 90% of people celebrate Christmas despite the fact that
they maybe never goes to a church, or believe that Christ was the son of
God, or maybe not believe in god at all. I'm not a Christian in any
definition worth the name either. Christmas for me, and for most other
people in my country, and maybe also in other countries, is more of a
traditional season of meeting your friends and family, to exchange gifts
with love and affection. To have the time to sit together and reflect
over where we are in this particular period of our lives.
I therefore suggest that we at least will extend the same
interpretations of Christmas even to other people that might not see it
as a pure celebration of the birth of Christ. On top of that, we must
also be aware of that only a very few scientologists have ever heard
LRH, say this about Christ.
Now, i'm open for attacks from all directions, and if that is what you
want out there, so be it. I will put my site at rest over Christmas as I
earlier said. However, I will of course read and post to this NG, and I
will also only be polite towards those that are polite towards others.
Be that anti or pro scientologists.
Now Russell, can you also let your site rest over Christmas? Maybe we
even can share the same base Graphics, wouldn't that be something?. The
small amount of text I have, is of course up to you to change, it's only
a few words. The other part that points to me in the multiple-block GIF
file is also easily changed to your name if you want. Tell me and I'll
mail you the necessary files if you like them. You can have a preview at
the site at http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/jul.htm
From Dec 22 and to Jan 2 the jul.htm will be index.htm.
All the best.
Sten-Arne
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure
the orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm **********
Frank Copeland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> wrote:
>I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that *anyone*
>else was talking truce, either.
>
>It was just something I felt like saying. It still is.
Well, that's fine and dandy. If you feel like toning down your usual nasty
style over Christmas that's great. Don't do anything flameable and you won't
get flamed, that's the closest to a 'truce' you are ever likely to see on
Usenet.
>There are some issues where we may not ever agree. But I can't see how being
>rude to one another is going to help resolve anything. On either side.
Hypocrite. I see your web page is still there.
>If one is really trying to reach another to get them to look at a different
>viewpoint, namecalling is seldom going to be productive.
Does that include names like 'bigot'?
- --
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/scn/>
Keep it in Usenet. E-mail replies and 'courtesy' copies are not welcome.
If you're selling, I ain't buying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNJxMVYBOXdsElwbdAQFhlAP/d6/2PhqNeWoa5FMEIqNuKxpIKFHkmZeq
YIVW5P4CBYiX4heC9VG7U7SQooCx3WrM1BRZgr3i8GrRDdj48V/NHA3l8/rpyDZn
y9y0zvtD5QDyUiQj10t2qHJiluETdG3ravps7lj/fWUvl88l8CUR0ZaMV6FSwb+w
RDQMuml/KVw=
=CjT4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
>Date: Sat, Dec 20, 1997 12:44 EST
>Message-id: <349C03...@iag.net>
>
>WONDERFULR wrote:
>
>> I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that
>*anyone*
>> else was talking truce, either.
>
>your heart, and I wish you a Merry Christmas also :-)
>
Thanks, Bev.
>> the insanely paranoid responses are telling.
>
>Now Russ, you are getting "paranoid" if you beleive that the majority
>of the resonses were "insanely paranoid". Don't join in on that which
>you condemn.
>
The above - while a statement I liked ~reading~ - was not a statement MADE by
me.
The very talented Stephen Jones wrote it.
Even though a few now seem to think so - I don't think he is a Scientologist.
Yet. :-)
Russell
WONDERFULR
In a message dated 97-12-20 17:14:44 EST, you write:
> Subj: Re: About the "truce"
> Date: 97-12-20 17:14:44 EST
> From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
> Sender: Fo...@aol.com (The Fifth Galactic Invader)
> To: wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
>
> On 20 Dec 1997 08:46:00 GMT.
> wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
> From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: About the "truce":
> >I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that *
> anyone*
> >else was talking truce, either.
> >
> >It was just something I felt like saying. It still is.
> >
> >There are some issues where we may not ever agree. But I can't see how
> being
> >rude to one another is going to help resolve anything. On either side.
> >
> >If one is really trying to reach another to get them to look at a different
> >viewpoint, namecalling is seldom going to be productive.
> >
>
> [posted/mailed]
>
> Russell, shall we make an agreement between you and me. Since I already
> have decided to pull down my site between Dec 22- Jan 2, and you say
> above that name calling is seldom going to be productive, can't you for
> the sake of confidence building in this little truce, (that obviously
> only seems to be between you and me) take down your site? You can't say
> that it is very moderate, and without name calling, can you?
I agree with you. It is neither moderate, nor without name calling.
But I don't know if I can take it down - as I don't know what is involved in
doing that. I am not much of a "computer guy" and can not do it myself.
> I also want to add a few more points after reading all threads about
> this truce. It's totally out of line IMO for the critics to jump all
> over scientologists that celebrate Christmas with the LRH quote of *no
> Christ*. In the secular society we live in today, and maybe especially
> in my country, 90% of people celebrate Christmas despite the fact that
> they maybe never goes to a church, or believe that Christ was the son of
> God, or maybe not believe in god at all. I'm not a Christian in any
> definition worth the name either. Christmas for me, and for most other
> people in my country, and maybe also in other countries, is more of a
> traditional season of meeting your friends and family, to exchange gifts
> with love and affection. To have the time to sit together and reflect
> over where we are in this particular period of our lives.
>
This is exactly the point that I was trying to make.
> I therefore suggest that we at least will extend the same
> interpretations of Christmas even to other people that might not see it
> as a pure celebration of the birth of Christ. On top of that, we must
> also be aware of that only a very few scientologists have ever heard
> LRH, say this about Christ.
>
Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ - very POSITIVE
things.
> Now, i'm open for attacks from all directions, and if that is what you
> want out there, so be it. I will put my site at rest over Christmas as I
> earlier said. However, I will of course read and post to this NG, and I
> will also only be polite towards those that are polite towards others.
> Be that anti or pro scientologists.
>
> Now Russell, can you also let your site rest over Christmas?
The reason I did not volunteer to take it down for the holidays is I do not
know if I can. I do not do the web page work myself and do not know how to
take it down - or put it back up, either.
The Fishman link was broken for some time, and even that was a problem to get
handled. As I am - in this case - dependant upon others to get the actual work
done, I did not want to promise to have it down by Christmas, as I did not
know if that was a promise I could keep.
I have e-mailed my web guy and asked him to take it down through Christmas.
But as this is - now - late on a Saturday night, I have no idea if he will even
~see~ my mail to him prior to Monday. And I don't know if he is even in town
or not, either.
> Maybe we
> even can share the same base Graphics, wouldn't that be something?. The
> small amount of text I have, is of course up to you to change, it's only
> a few words. The other part that points to me in the multiple-block GIF
> file is also easily changed to your name if you want. Tell me and I'll
> mail you the necessary files if you like them. You can have a preview at
> the site at http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/jul.htm
>
I know how to go look at a site. But have no idea of how to take what you
could send me and "put" it on a site.
But I **DO** appreciate your willingness to share your graphics with me.
Thanks!
> From Dec 22 and to Jan 2 the jul.htm will be index.htm.
>
> All the best.
>
> Sten-Arne
>
Thank you, Sten-Arne. I will let you know if I can get my site down for the
holidays.
Russell
p/m
David Gerard
On 20 Dec 1997 05:50:47 GMT, nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote:
:In article <67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
:<snj...@ix.netcom.com> patters out the following half cocked cult-induced
:empty blitherings typical of a mindless robot:
:>While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the insanely paranoid responses
:are telling.
:That's good, Stevie-boy. Now I'll ask you to "be specific about who said what"
:and you'll pick out two lines out of the probably more than 1000 lines that
:this thread has generated in half a day, while conveniently ignoring the rest
:of the posts which are bursting at the seams with questions that we SP's just
:want answered so we won't be SP's anymore. So, what have you proved, little
:fellow? Are you feeling like a big being now? Do you feel like you *control*
:this thread because you and RonsAmidget don't answer questions?
You have greatly misunderstood the postings of Stephen Jones.
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/fun
- down the bottom of the page.
(Anyone else got favourites that would be suitable? Send 'em in!)
Marina Chong
On 20 Dec 1997 00:40:29 GMT nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote in article
<19971220004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
[snip]
>
>Sorry, you're wrong here. We got the idea *from* the Church of
>Scientology. The policy is called "Fair Game" and its practice has never
>been cancelled. It led Scientologists to put a snake in Paulette Cooper's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>mailbox when she was criticizing them. A Judge's dog is drowned during
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They didn't.
M
[if replying by email please replace everything after the @ with
super.zippo.com]
--
Marina Chong <*> SP4+, KoX, GGBC#13, KBM#5, Joker/Degrader
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The criminal cult $cientology was largely responsible for the demise of:
Noah Lottick Richard Collins Albert Jaquier John Buchanan Patrice Vic
Lisa McPherson anon.penet.fi utopia.hacktic.nl
http://www.entheta.net/ Marina's Manor: http://www.best.com/~mchong/
Alec
Marina Chong wrote in message <349cb785...@snews.zippo.com>...
>On 20 Dec 1997 00:40:29 GMT nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote in article
><19971220004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>>Sorry, you're wrong here. We got the idea *from* the Church of
>>Scientology. The policy is called "Fair Game" and its practice has never
>>been cancelled. It led Scientologists to put a snake in Paulette
Cooper's
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>mailbox when she was criticizing them. A Judge's dog is drowned during
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>They didn't.
>[Marina]
very informative article, or at least two words.
"What" didn't "Who"?
Alec
Dear Wonderfulr,
On the surface this appears to be a very kind communication. Can you
confirm that you are sincere in this? It's hard to tell on this newsgroup.
Imagine what could be done if we could convey our Hellfire messages back and
forth with such grace??
I've always supposed that Scientologists MUST react to entheta information
ONLY as if reacting to an enemy. I don't doubt that I/we have some of the
info wrong, but I think that what each side has that is correct is important
to the other. And there is no communication without... er, communication.
Imagine me thinking that that the two sides could communicate freely, with
high ARC, on ARS... Pinch me!
I can't help thinking, though, that for you to address the research findings
we present on ARS will either get you into trouble with Ethics and OSA
officials, or it will put you in an uncomfortable situation with yourself.
I reiterate now that Scientologists are my kind of people--the kind who
respond to a religion that represents that it can award immortality through
its practices (and occassionally get taken by leaders with ulterior
motives). I personally had some trouble with the coercion to block out any
thoughts that suggested something that differs with "Source" or "TECH".
Anyway I don't know how far this goes, but I want to communicate--and you
ARE my kind of people.
Yours very truly,
David Alexander
WONDERFULR wrote in message
<19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>In a message dated 97-12-20 17:14:44 EST, you write:
>
>> Subj: Re: About the "truce"
>> Date: 97-12-20 17:14:44 EST
>> From: The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult)
>> Sender: Fo...@aol.com (The Fifth Galactic Invader)
>> To: wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
>>
>> On 20 Dec 1997 08:46:00 GMT.
>> wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR).
>> From: AOL http://www.aol.com.
>> Wrote on the subject: Re: About the "truce":
>
>> >I swear I wasn't trying to "pull a fast one" - and I didn't know that *
>> anyone*
>> >else was talking truce, either.
>> >
>> >It was just something I felt like saying. It still is.
>> >
>> >There are some issues where we may not ever agree. But I can't see
how
>> being
>> >rude to one another is going to help resolve anything. On either side.
>> >
>> >If one is really trying to reach another to get them to look at a
different
>> >viewpoint, namecalling is seldom going to be productive.
>> >
>>
>> [posted/mailed]
>>
>> Russell, shall we make an agreement between you and me. Since I already
>> have decided to pull down my site between Dec 22- Jan 2, and you say
>> above that name calling is seldom going to be productive, can't you for
>> the sake of confidence building in this little truce, (that obviously
>> only seems to be between you and me) take down your site? You can't say
>> that it is very moderate, and without name calling, can you?
>
>I agree with you. It is neither moderate, nor without name calling.
>
>But I don't know if I can take it down - as I don't know what is involved
in
>doing that. I am not much of a "computer guy" and can not do it myself.
>
>> I also want to add a few more points after reading all threads about
>> this truce. It's totally out of line IMO for the critics to jump all
>> over scientologists that celebrate Christmas with the LRH quote of *no
>> Christ*. In the secular society we live in today, and maybe especially
>> in my country, 90% of people celebrate Christmas despite the fact that
>> they maybe never goes to a church, or believe that Christ was the son of
>> God, or maybe not believe in god at all. I'm not a Christian in any
>> definition worth the name either. Christmas for me, and for most other
>> people in my country, and maybe also in other countries, is more of a
>> traditional season of meeting your friends and family, to exchange gifts
>> with love and affection. To have the time to sit together and reflect
>> over where we are in this particular period of our lives.
>>
>
>This is exactly the point that I was trying to make.
>
>
>> I therefore suggest that we at least will extend the same
>> interpretations of Christmas even to other people that might not see it
>> as a pure celebration of the birth of Christ. On top of that, we must
>> also be aware of that only a very few scientologists have ever heard
>> LRH, say this about Christ.
>>
>
>Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ - very
POSITIVE
>things.
>
>> Now, i'm open for attacks from all directions, and if that is what you
>> want out there, so be it. I will put my site at rest over Christmas as I
>> earlier said. However, I will of course read and post to this NG, and I
>> will also only be polite towards those that are polite towards others.
>> Be that anti or pro scientologists.
>>
>> Now Russell, can you also let your site rest over Christmas?
>
>The reason I did not volunteer to take it down for the holidays is I do not
>know if I can. I do not do the web page work myself and do not know how
to
>take it down - or put it back up, either.
>
>The Fishman link was broken for some time, and even that was a problem to
get
>handled. As I am - in this case - dependant upon others to get the actual
work
>done, I did not want to promise to have it down by Christmas, as I did not
>know if that was a promise I could keep.
>
>I have e-mailed my web guy and asked him to take it down through Christmas.
>But as this is - now - late on a Saturday night, I have no idea if he will
even
>~see~ my mail to him prior to Monday. And I don't know if he is even in
town
>or not, either.
>
>> Maybe we
>> even can share the same base Graphics, wouldn't that be something?. The
>> small amount of text I have, is of course up to you to change, it's only
>> a few words. The other part that points to me in the multiple-block GIF
>> file is also easily changed to your name if you want. Tell me and I'll
>> mail you the necessary files if you like them. You can have a preview at
>> the site at http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/jul.htm
>>
>
>I know how to go look at a site. But have no idea of how to take what you
>could send me and "put" it on a site.
>
>But I **DO** appreciate your willingness to share your graphics with me.
>Thanks!
>
>> From Dec 22 and to Jan 2 the jul.htm will be index.htm.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sten-Arne
>>
>
Mike O'Connor
In article <19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
[...]
> Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ [...]
Other things in addition to "There was no Christ."?
In addition to "There was no Christ." he said other things?
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
There was no Christ.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did L. Ron Hubbard teach in the sacred scripture that "There was no
Christ."? Why won't you answer yes or no? -Mike
Ron Newman
> > Russell, shall we make an agreement between you and me. Since I already
> > have decided to pull down my site between Dec 22- Jan 2, and you say
> > above that name calling is seldom going to be productive, can't you for
> > the sake of confidence building in this little truce, (that obviously
> > only seems to be between you and me) take down your site? You can't say
> > that it is very moderate, and without name calling, can you?
>
> I agree with you. It is neither moderate, nor without name calling.
>
> But I don't know if I can take it down - as I don't know what is involved in
> doing that. I am not much of a "computer guy" and can not do it myself.
Who put the files up if you didn't?
It is generally a VERY bad idea to give your username and password to
someone else. You never know what could be done with them, either
on purpose or by mistake. A lot of Internet providers ask users
to never do this -- I don't know if dancris.com is one of them.
Do you have a Unix shell account at dancris.com ? Do you understand
what "FTP" is? Without knowing more about your accounts and your
computer configuration it's hard for me to give good advice.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <lepton-2112...@lepton.dialup.access.net>,
lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
>In article <19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>> Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ [...]
>Other things in addition to "There was no Christ."?
Gee Mike, can't you give it a rest? Russell has told that he is not a
Christian, I'm neither. Will you now tell me that I'm not allowed to
wish someone a merry Xmas?
I understand that proably you want to warn the raw meat that Scn is
after it's inital round a anti-Xtian cult. Well, we know that now.
And of course a merry Xmas to you.
Mike
Stephen Jones
In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>,
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>In article <19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>
>> > Russell, shall we make an agreement between you and me. Since I
already
>> > have decided to pull down my site between Dec 22- Jan 2, and you say
>> > above that name calling is seldom going to be productive, can't you
for
>> > the sake of confidence building in this little truce, (that obviously
>> > only seems to be between you and me) take down your site? You can't
say
>> > that it is very moderate, and without name calling, can you?
>>
>> I agree with you. It is neither moderate, nor without name calling.
>>
>> But I don't know if I can take it down - as I don't know what is
involved in
>> doing that. I am not much of a "computer guy" and can not do it myself.
>
>Who put the files up if you didn't?
>
>It is generally a VERY bad idea to give your username and password to
>someone else. You never know what could be done with them, either
>on purpose or by mistake. A lot of Internet providers ask users
>to never do this -- I don't know if dancris.com is one of them.
>
>Do you have a Unix shell account at dancris.com ? Do you understand
>what "FTP" is? Without knowing more about your accounts and your
>computer configuration it's hard for me to give good advice.
Russell can go here:
http://www.dancris.com/internet/support/
to read the section of the FAQ that deals with putting up your own webpage.
He can use the FTP program Dancris says they provide their subscribers to
log into their FTP server. Using the username and password he types to log
into his Internet account he can log into their FTP site and into his
private directory www.dancris.com/~rshaw/. Next he should look for a file
called "index.html" or "index.htm". Rename that file to "indexold.html"
and upload via the FTP program a new home page named "index.html". When he
is ready to switch back to his old page he simply deletes the new
"index.html" and renames "indexold.html" back to "index.html". Voila!
Instant Holiday Happiness. It is really easy, Russell. If you want, I'll
make you a page that says anything you want and e-mail to you. Just tell
me what you want it to say (as long as it is a general Merry Christmas
type of thing)...i'll even throw in a goofy/cheerful orignial animated gif
for your holiday viewing pleasure! If you think mine sucks, I'm know there
are loads and loads of people here on ars who could make a page for you.
Deal?
Stephen Jones
Mike O'Connor
In article <34a76cf2...@news.wxs.nl>, mike_...@wxs.nl (Michael
'Mike' Gormez) wrote:
> In article <lepton-2112...@lepton.dialup.access.net>,
> lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
> >In article <19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> >wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ [...]
>
> >Other things in addition to "There was no Christ."?
>
> Gee Mike, can't you give it a rest? Russell has told that he is not a
> Christian, I'm neither. Will you now tell me that I'm not allowed to
> wish someone a merry Xmas?
>
> I understand that proably you want to warn the raw meat that Scn is
> after it's inital round a anti-Xtian cult. Well, we know that now.
>
> And of course a merry Xmas to you.
Thank you. All I'm doing is asking if L. Ron Hubbard said "There is no
Christ." The question has to do with the teachings in the sacred
scriptures of the cult. Did L. Ron Hubbard say "There is no Christ."? An
important question. That's what I'm asking wonderfulr. Why can't he answer
yes or no? -Mike
NoGoot
In article <34af411d...@202.12.87.97>, f...@thingy.apana.org.au (David
Gerard) writes:
>On 20 Dec 1997 05:50:47 GMT, nog...@aol.com (NoGoot) wrote:
:In article
><67fjs5$q...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, Stephen Jones
:<snj...@ix.netcom.com>
>patters out the following half cocked cult-induced
:empty blitherings typical
>of a mindless robot:
>>>:>While I doubt it was a stunt of any kind, the
>>>insanely paranoid responses:are telling.
>>:That's good, Stevie-boy. Now >I'll ask you to "be specific about who said
what"
>>:and you'll pick out two >lines out of the probably more than 1000 lines that
>>:this thread has >generated in half a day, while conveniently ignoring the
rest
>>:of the posts >which are bursting at the seams with questions that we SP's
just
>>:want >answered so we won't be SP's anymore. So, what have you proved,
>>little :fellow? Are you feeling like a big being now? Do you feel like you
>>*control* :this thread because you and RonsAmidget don't answer
>>questions?
>You have greatly misunderstood the postings of Stephen Jones.
Yes, David, I certainly did misunderstand that one. But I think I'm back in PT
now. :-)
NoGoot
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
He did answer that. Maybe not a in a form you like, nevertheless it
is an answer. In a post to Anti-Cult:
====
From: wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: About the "truce"
Date: 21 Dec 1997 07:01:57 GMT
Message-ID: <19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
In a message dated 97-12-20 17:14:44 EST, you write:
[snip - mg]
> I therefore suggest that we at least will extend the same
> interpretations of Christmas even to other people that might not see it
> as a pure celebration of the birth of Christ. On top of that, we must
> also be aware of that only a very few scientologists have ever heard
> LRH, say this about Christ.
>
Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ - very
POSITIVE things.
=====
Besides, would Mrs. Hotlips Kobrin complain over the audio files
containing that gem if it wasn't a Hubbard quote? It isn't exactly
good PR[tm]. Cut Russell some slack, for Helatrobus sake (or an
implant-station or two). :8)
Mike
Mike O'Connor
In article <34ade2d1...@news.wxs.nl>, mike_...@wxs.nl (Michael
'Mike' Gormez) wrote:
> In article <lepton-2112...@lepton.dialup.access.net>,
> lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
> [...] Did L. Ron Hubbard say "There is no Christ."? An
> >important question. That's what I'm asking wonderfulr. Why can't he answer
> >yes or no? -Mike
>
> He did answer that. Maybe not a in a form you like, nevertheless it
> is an answer. In a post to Anti-Cult:
>
> ====
> From: wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR)
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Subject: Re: About the "truce"
> Date: 21 Dec 1997 07:01:57 GMT
> Message-ID: <19971221070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
> In a message dated 97-12-20 17:14:44 EST, you write:
[...]
> > I therefore suggest that we at least will extend the same
> > interpretations of Christmas even to other people that might not see it
> > as a pure celebration of the birth of Christ. On top of that, we must
> > also be aware of that only a very few scientologists have ever heard
> > LRH, say this about Christ.
> >
>
> Plus there are other things he *also* had to say about Christ - very
> POSITIVE things.
> =====
My question is if L. Ron Hubbard said "There was no Christ." I see no
answer to that here. But just in case, I responded to the post. I asked if
he is saying that Mr. Hubbard said other things in addition to "There was
no Christ." No answer so far. Why can't any active Scientologist here
answer the question yes or no? -Mike
Kat
They don't like straight yes and no questions.
They prefer the 'Scieno Shuffle'--dance around the question till the
asker gets tired or disgusted and goes away.
Particularly if it's something that makes LRH look bad.
NoGoot
>Thank you [mike_...@wxs.nl (Michael 'Mike' Gormez)]. All I'm doing is
asking if L. Ron Hubbard said "There is no Christ." The question has to do with
the teachings in the sacred scriptures of the cult. Did L. Ron Hubbard say
"There is no Christ."? An important question. That's what I'm asking
wonderfulr. Why can't he answer yes or no? -Mike<
Hi Mike,
Even though you aren't asking the question of me (and I think you might be
playing devils advocate -- which is perfectly legitimate IMO) I would like to
answer you.
I spent a long time in Scientology but never heard or read L. Ron Hubbard
saying "There is no Christ." I believe he could have said it, but the only
people who might have *heard* it, as Scientologists, would be the Class VIII
auditors and/or above. It may not even be a part of the OT levels. Most of
the "OT's" in Scn are not trained that high as auditors, so it is possible that
no current Scieno who reads a.r.s has *ever* read or heard it from LRH.
NoGoot
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
>Date: Sun, Dec 21, 1997 08:16 EST
>Message-id: <349d1...@news2.lightlink.com>
>
>Dear Wonderfulr,
>
>On the surface this appears to be a very kind communication. Can you
>confirm that you are sincere in this? It's hard to tell on this newsgroup.
I understand that.
I don't know how to confirm sincerity. It will either seem sincere or it
won't.
There are many who will say "NO" - and to them I say MERRY CHRISTMAS.
>Imagine what could be done if we could convey our Hellfire messages back and
>forth with such grace??
>
>I've always supposed that Scientologists MUST react to entheta information
>ONLY as if reacting to an enemy.
I usually just ignore it.
> I don't doubt that I/we have some of the
>info wrong, but I think that what each side has that is correct is important
>to the other. And there is no communication without... er, communication.
>
>Imagine me thinking that that the two sides could communicate freely, with
>high ARC, on ARS... Pinch me!
>
<pinch>
>I can't help thinking, though, that for you to address the research findings
>we present on ARS will either get you into trouble with Ethics and OSA
>officials, or it will put you in an uncomfortable situation with yourself.
>
It does nothing of the sort. I am not "in trouble" nor do I feel
uncomfortable.
>Anyway I don't know how far this goes, but I want to communicate--and you
>ARE my kind of people.
>
>Yours very truly,
>David Alexander
>
Thanks David. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.
Russell
WONDERFULR
>>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
>Date: Sun, Dec 21, 1997 15:47 EST
>Message-id: <lepton-2112...@lepton.dialup.access.net>
>Thank you. All I'm doing is asking if L. Ron Hubbard said "There is no
>Christ." The question has to do with the teachings in the sacred
>scriptures of the cult. Did L. Ron Hubbard say "There is no Christ."? An
>important question. That's what I'm asking wonderfulr. Why can't he answer
>yes or no? -Mike
>
>
Mike,
I do not wish to debate anything about Christ - here or elsewhere.
That Jesus lived and walked the earth about 2000 years ago is not really
something any thinking person is going to say "didn't happen". He was here.
Period.
The issue of was he **__THE__** son of God is a whole differnt thing.
No matter *WHAT* "LRH quote" is being ~used~ to say otherwise.
I hope that answers your question.
Merry Christmas!!
Russell
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
>Date: Sun, Dec 21, 1997 15:05 EST
>Message-id: <67jsja$c...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
>
>
>Russell can go here:
>
>http://www.dancris.com/internet/support/
>
>to read the section of the FAQ that deals with putting up your own webpage.
>He can use the FTP program Dancris says they provide their subscribers to
>log into their FTP server. Using the username and password he types to log
>into his Internet account he can log into their FTP site and into his
>private directory www.dancris.com/~rshaw/. Next he should look for a file
>called "index.html" or "index.htm". Rename that file to "indexold.html"
>and upload via the FTP program a new home page named "index.html". When he
>is ready to switch back to his old page he simply deletes the new
>"index.html" and renames "indexold.html" back to "index.html". Voila!
Voila or no voila - I still think I'll let my web page guy do it. :-)
>Instant Holiday Happiness.
Well I think you KNOW I want ~that~!!
Tilman Hausherr
WONDERFULR (wonde...@aol.com) wrote:
: >http://www.dancris.com/internet/support/
: Voila or no voila - I still think I'll let my web page guy do it. :-)
Another fine example that "study technology" works!
ROFL
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <lepton-2212...@lepton.dialup.access.net>,
lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) wrote:
>My question is if L. Ron Hubbard said "There was no Christ." I see no
>answer to that here. But just in case, I responded to the post. I asked if
>he is saying that Mr. Hubbard said other things in addition to "There was
>no Christ." No answer so far. Why can't any active Scientologist here
>answer the question yes or no? -Mike
I give up. If this gives you a fussy feeling, by all means go for it.
ARSCC(wdne) member in doubt - Mike
Rob Carr
WONDERFULR wrote in message
>That Jesus lived and walked the earth about 2000 years ago is not really
>something any thinking person is going to say "didn't happen". He was
here.
>Period.
But the interesting thing is that LRH claims he never existed. Does this
mean LRH wasn't a thinking person?
>No matter *WHAT* "LRH quote" is being ~used~ to say otherwise.
Are you claiming the quote is out of context? Or that the quote never
occurred?
>Merry Christmas!!
You, too.
Rob
Mike O'Connor
In article <19971223073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: About the "truce"
> >From: lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
> >Date: Sun, Dec 21, 1997 15:47 EST
> >Message-id: <lepton-2112...@lepton.dialup.access.net>
>
> >Thank you. All I'm doing is asking if L. Ron Hubbard said "There is no
> >Christ." The question has to do with the teachings in the sacred
> >scriptures of the cult. Did L. Ron Hubbard say "There is no Christ."? An
> >important question. That's what I'm asking wonderfulr. Why can't he answer
> >yes or no? -Mike
> >
> Mike,
>
> I do not wish to debate anything about Christ - here or elsewhere.
>
> That Jesus lived and walked the earth about 2000 years ago is not really
> something any thinking person is going to say "didn't happen". He was here.
> Period.
>
> The issue of was he **__THE__** son of God is a whole differnt thing.
>
> No matter *WHAT* "LRH quote" is being ~used~ to say otherwise.
>
> I hope that answers your question.
>
> Merry Christmas!!
>
> Russell
Thank you. My question is: Did L. Ron Hubbard say "There was no Christ."?
So, did he? -Mike
Mike O'Connor
In article <34a4a53a...@news.wxs.nl>, mike_...@wxs.nl (Michael
'Mike' Gormez) wrote:
Thanks. I guess this difference helps to show we are all individuals here.
To me, these discussions point out the following: The cult can't talk
about this quote or the celief that Christ the Messiah is a delusion
mainly caused by the ALIEN MIND IMPLANT we have all been given by Galactic
Confederation ruler Xenu. They have to omit these facts of the cult's true
beliefs. The truth is upper level stuff and they feel they have to
withhold it until a member is indoctrinated enough and has paid enough in
time and cash value.
But it is more than just an understandable omission for the good of the
public and most cult members. It is compounded by the outright lie that
the cult religion is compatible with Christianity. There is no need for
this lie. This lie is an abuse of people and it should stop, in my
opinion. This lie should be brought into the light. One way to do it is to
ask a simple question of cult spokespersons "Did L. Ron Hubbard say 'There
was no Christ.'?"
A couple of years ago I asked cult spokesperson Cory Brennan this question
several times. I also asked Andy Milne. The same patterns occurred. And I
think to the same effect. The torturous evasion inevitibly leads to a
discussion of, and the bringing to light of, the compatibility lie. It is
not the withholding of info about Xenu's ALIEN MIND IMPLANT which bothers
me. People can believe what they want, present those beliefs as they want.
It is the unnecessary compatibility lie, the abuse of people, which seems
objectionable to me. The compatability lie, it just seems like something a
cult of greed would do, not a cult of integrity and ethics. -Mike
[I renamed the subject from 'Re: About the "truce"' so for some readers it
would come out near my main thread on this subject.]
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 17:07:33 -0500, lep...@panix.com (Mike O'Connor)
wrote:
> People can believe what they want, present those beliefs as they want.
>It is the unnecessary compatibility lie, the abuse of people, which seems
>objectionable to me. The compatability lie, it just seems like something a
>cult of greed would do, not a cult of integrity and ethics. -Mike
Mike, what can I say.. ethics (wog def) is foreign to the cult. We
all know that - "greatest good.." ect - and I do appreciate your
work in exposing that, however sometimes a feeling that both we,
critics as well as members, take a too radical stance. Which imo
isn't good.
.. I had a lot more in my head to write, but that would probably only
confuse matters more.
>[I renamed the subject from 'Re: About the "truce"' so for some readers it
>would come out near my main thread on this subject.]
Okay, and thanks for your thoughtful post. It cleared some M/Us
<G> I had regarding your motivation.
(posted & mailed)
Mike