Another Scientology Tour Report
Magoo
He can post his name if he chooses to, however it doesn't really matter.
We know each other, and decided to get together for dinner.
Pre dinner, we decided to go on the Scientology Tour.
First we drove by Celebrity Center, and he was shocked to see how small it
is. "That's IT?" I guess having heard about it for years, it was a surprise
to actually see it. Of course it was only from outside, and I pointed that
out to him. I still love CC, as I'd spent years at the old CC, got married
at this one, and have skillions of fond memories of it. Also, I remember the
OLD CC...and what a thrill it was to get this "huge Castle",
when it was purchased.
Then we cruised down the The Complex, on L. Ron Hubbard Way. It was, as
usual, pretty dead. LA org you could see was it's typical empty self. ( I
think we saw three people in there on the first floor, and it's quite open).
He was also amazed that you ~could~ actually see in, vs. where he had seen
where it is all closed off.
Next was ASHO and by here a young man came out on his bike,,,security. The
street was totally dead. No one on it, except for one or two people,
literally. We were there around 7 pm.
We then strolled to the end of the block, and by there another security
young man showed up. We were taking photographs, so I knew they'd bring out
the crew. One Scientologist walked by, saw me, and said, "Hey HI!!!"
I pointed out to them he obviously doesn't know I'm declared.
Also, I pointed out how friendly he was, and get the idea of 200 people all
treating you like that or about like that. It's pretty infectious. It was
surprising to them.
The buildings I am happy to report on. They have FINALLY...after what? 20
years or so (I forget when exactly we all moved into the Complex, but I
think it was in the late
'70's or early '80's.)---they have finally changed the color of the paint
from that God awful light blue to this very nice dark blue/grey almost.
Also, they gave the building on the corner (I think CMO is there) a new face
too. He pointed out, "They may not take care of their staff, but they sure
take care of their buildings".
As we got down by AOLA, and over to Bridge Publications, more security came
out. A few older men who looked almost like police came out, and stood on
the corner, talking into their cell phones.
Such importance.....when truly it's a whole lot of nothing.
As we walked back by AOLA, a younger man in uniform walked along with us. I
asked my friend if he wanted a picture there, and he said, "Sure!" I said,
"Maybe with him?"
Looking at the Sea Org man who was obviously following us.
He agreed, so we took a shot with him. Turns out he was from Gold, and was
also quite friendly.
My friend was amazed at how 'nice' they were here vs. the area where he is
from, where apparently they never say "hi" or smile. I reminded him there
are tons of "OT's" who live here in LA, and many of us have worked on this
for years.
It was always a ~huge~ 'out PR' thing where the Sea org would always frown,
and never say 'hi' to people walking by. Hopefully they really have it in
now.
We then drove by the HGB, and the Scientology Testing Center (also totally
dead, maybe two people in there), and then by Author Services. He has noted
the signs both at the Complex were semi-broken, as at Author Services. I
also pointed out there is no way into Author Services except for through
their gated garage entrance. He commented on how odd it is for a religion to
have SO much security everywhere.
That was the end of the tour for the night. We then went out to eat with
another critic, and all shared some fun stories of times past.
Hope you enjoyed the tour update :)
Tory/Magoo!
roger gonnet
"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Sxl4a.58363$zF6.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Tonight a critic and his wife arrived here in LA for a visit.
> He can post his name if he chooses to, however it doesn't really
matter.
> We know each other, and decided to get together for dinner.
>
> Pre dinner, we decided to go on the Scientology Tour.
>
> First we drove by Celebrity Center, and he was shocked to see how
small it
> is. "That's IT?" I guess having heard about it for years, it was a
surprise
> to actually see it. Of course it was only from outside, and I pointed
that
> out to him. I still love CC, as I'd spent years at the old CC, got
married
> at this one, and have skillions of fond memories of it. Also, I
remember the
> OLD CC...and what a thrill it was to get this "huge Castle",
> when it was purchased.
could you point the estimated surface? Just to compare with a really
huge castle, like Le Louvre, whose surface is 4,8 ha (19 ha habitable,
plus the last additions underground) that's 48000 acres.
The Chateau (stronghold, 12th C) de Crussols, now destroyed, was about 2
km long by 700 m, that's perhaps twice the Louvre.
When we bought (mostly with our own money) the building for the org of
Lyon, it was a 1100 qm, 50 rooms home (the second largest of europe at
the time, I believe). Since then, the org has moved to a three times
smaller building. The last time we went there with Gerry Armstrong,
there was probably only ONE person inside; no car parked before the
building.
roger
Thanks for your excellent post of picketing.
Zorrosblade........Z
wrote:
> I still love CC, as I'd spent years at the old CC, got married
>at this one, and have skillions of fond memories of it. Also, I remember the
>OLD CC...and what a thrill it was to get this "huge Castle",
>when it was purchased.
>
Are we going down scientology's 'nostalgia' memory lane from so many
*present* 'fond' feelings of past scientology association like your
present "love" for CC??? Interesting....I spent years at both the
'old' and 'new' CC's as well, and also got married at the CC franklin
address, where my mentally deranged ex-wife is still caught up in that
mind trap because she's a victim of it. Truth is; their buildings
*represent* what's going on inside, where your "love" for CC and what
it represents shows a fondness *still there* for the past, which means
your obviously not out.. Your 'Nostalgia' expressed = 'not out',
mentally speaking. It's for readers to think this through, on their
own.
>The buildings I am happy to report on. They have FINALLY...after what? 20
>years or so (I forget when exactly we all moved into the Complex, but I
>think it was in the late
>'70's or early '80's.)--->they have finally changed the color of the paint
>from that God awful light blue to this very nice dark blue/grey almost.
Your "happy" to report on their 'paint job'? Did I really hear you
correctly?? I've seen that grey/blue monstrosity and it's as *cold*
and calculating as what goes on inside. You've got freudian slips all
over this post Mag00--for anyone who isn't chicken ass not to see it.
....Boy, your wisping fond take of the "happy paint" complex coupled
with "memory lane" is not only a rapturous event of nirvanic
proportions, but also quite revealing. Your paint-job account sounds
more friendly than how I looked at those buildings when I was IN.
What's a feller to think about what might be creating that fondness
for the 'buildings color'?? Just the color irrespective of what goes
on inside? No, I don't think so. For anyone who's really out would
look at those buildings as mental machines of death that they are,
where, if they painted it lilliputian-egg-white looking like Da Vinci,
would still make that building hideous despite the "nice paint". But
no, you "love" the paint job. If readers want to buy into 'surface
logic' "nice paint job" postings that's their business, not mine.
There's stuff going on below the surface here, as to "feelings"
towards scientology 'buildings' reveals.
>Also, they gave the building on the corner (I think CMO is there) a new face
>too. He pointed out, "They may not take care of their staff, but they sure
>take care of their buildings".
>
I'm so architecturally 'moved' I think I'm going to cry from so much
fondness expressed towards scientology buildings in general. Listening
to your friend where *your* posting his account is almost like reading
Frank Lloyd Wright on the construction of the Guggenheim. Maybe we'll
hear your friends comparisons to "falling water' next for a
cantilever extension award to Celebrity Center. Your guard is down,
which is good for anyone who wants to *think* for themselves on what
your really saying below the surface.
>
>As we walked back by AOLA, a younger man in uniform walked along with us. I
>asked my friend if he wanted a picture there, and he said, "Sure!" I said,
>"Maybe with him?"
>Looking at the Sea Org man who was obviously following us.
>He agreed, so we took a shot with him. Turns out he was from Gold, and was
>also quite friendly.
>
Did you put your arm around that 'sweet' young man when your friends
took the photo shot? Sounds like you might have from so much
scientology nostalgia while "chatting it up" with the 'friendly
staff'. They're *abused* people needing help Tory. Period. Not
opportunities for 'photo shoots with smiles'. If I was a real prick
I'd say more, but I'll let readers be the judge from what's implied in
your words.
>My friend was amazed at how 'nice' they were here vs. the area where he is
>from, where apparently they never say "hi" or smile.
Nice to know programmed sea org members are "so much nicer here" than
'elsewhere'. With all this gushing forth of 'fondness' towards complex
personnel, maybe the idea of them being mentally abused by L rong
Hubbard is *all wrong*. Instead of looking at sea org staff as
casualties of Hubbard programming, your smiling alongside a 'staffer'
for a 'photo ops' feel-goody stroll with friends is the way to go as
a critic-post to ARS. Your 'fondness' for the complex abounds as
explicit not even needing implicit interpretations. Sorry...
>I reminded him there
>are tons of "OT's" who live here in LA,
Freudian slip. There are **no** OT's anywhere, not "there are tons of
OT's who live in LA". If readers want to buy into a slip of
syntax-structure that's their mistake. I'm not fooled.
>and many of us have worked on this
>for years.
Another freudian slip. Your using "have worked on this for years"
instead of "had at one time worked on this" to display a secret
fondness for doing some-or-most of the oTzZ Levels. I'm touched by
your unconscious coming clean.
>It was always a ~huge~ 'out PR' thing where the Sea org would always frown,
>and never say 'hi' to people walking by. Hopefully they really have it in
>now.
>
"Hopefully they 'really' have it in now"?? That their saying "hi", as
opposed to not, changes their 'PR' status for the BETTER?? Better
towards what? A 'better' scientology?? which is *impossible* because
of the very structure of scientology and it's died-in-wool operations?
If I saw a 'staffer' smiling at me while walking by the complex he'd
get *pity* out of me as paramount, because of knowing how programmed
he was, not being 'pleased' that he/she had smiled at me relevant to
the *smile* itself. If I viewed that staffer with 'good feelings'
because they smiled at me, for the smile, I wouldn't really see
Hubbard programming as the hideous mental contortion it is...Those
people are to be pitied and helped out, if possible, not smiled at
with photo-shoots in tow just because they 'smile' at you. If I did
what you did I'd only prove to the world I wasn't really OUT of the
scientology mind-set, because I'd be open to 'ARCing' with a staffer
because they 'smiled' at me.
>
>That was the end of the tour for the night. We then went out to eat with
>another critic, and all shared some fun stories of times past.
>
What "fun stories of times past"? Where these stories of 'fun times'
while being scientologists in the orgs or going out on the town as
scientologists? I laughed and had a *merry time* with dozens of
scientologists when I was in, but it was all a LIE because the
merriment was induced by an ARC license to 'communicate' which is
connected to all of Hubbards 'tech' by association. We weren't having
a 'merry time' *not* touched by Hubbard, we were induced to have a
merry time under the ARC 'tech' umbrella, not merriment *outside* of
Hubbards control. I'm assuming these "fun stories of times past" with
your friends around the complex had scientology 'sprinkled' in that
conversation, no? The deduction from what you write here is obvious.
>Hope you enjoyed the tour update :)
>
I have. It's been *very* revealing. Thank you :-)
Now I'm really gonna be a prick:
Arnie, you better do some re-thinking about who really supports your
interests as an inner circle ally. I would be remiss by not mentioning
the above because I respect your work on lermanet and elsewhere,
despite any differences between us.. If Tory-tagglers don't like my
pointing her obvious critic-discrepancies out as to her "critic
function" posing-capacity towards scientology----toooo bad....I don't
give a tinkers damn.
Diane Richardson may have been rough with the foul language, but she
had Tory's 'critic-spearheading' pretentious-posing-crap pegged. Sorry
but true.
I highly recommend Tory see's an exit-councelor asap if your serious
about wanting OUT of the scientology mind trap for good. I'm not
saying this to be 'hard' even though (I'm surmising) you could give a
rats ass what I have to say other than as re: fodder for a BS retort
to 'fudge' a requalifier of your words on this post. You need help
out.....Period. There's no lovely scientology buildings or "Skillions"
of "fond memories" to be had about past associations with scientology
or scientologists, unless one is not OUT of the scientology mind trap
for good..
There's someone I'm *very* fond of who was on the Apollo in the early
seventies, but she's 'out' today where 'fond' memories' of experiences
together in scientology never arises because we both realize it was a
NIGHTMARE, even though we thought we were having 'fun times' while
in!! Scientology with all it's buildings are a past/present/future
meme-loading-machine in the guise of ARC 'understanding', Not "fond
memories" of past associations with programmed scientologists. Can you
think this through instead of reacting, or maybe you don't care to
which would make me wonder where your real affiliations are...I'm not
into conspiracy theories so I'm not taking that 'affiliation' leap
(without more evidence).
Z-blade
(voted most popular critic on ARS for four years running from a
'Hollywood Reporter' news story. Pictures of Z-blade standing
alongside smiling sea org staff can be found in the same article. He
gives ' tours' around the scientology complex while conveying wisping
"fond" memories to friends like an Olivier soliloquy. He's truly 'out'
by displaying such behaviors. Why, of course....
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Magoo
"Zorrosblade........Z" <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:8hv35v83sbsanb213...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:46:58 GMT, "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I still love CC, as I'd spent years at the old CC, got married
> >at this one, and have skillions of fond memories of it. Also, I remember
the
> >OLD CC...and what a thrill it was to get this "huge Castle",
> >when it was purchased.
> >
>
> Are we going down scientology's 'nostalgia' memory lane from so many
> *present* 'fond' feelings of past scientology association like your
> present "love" for CC???
Yah...let me clarify that. I still love the Building (I'm a big architecture
fan) of Celebrity Center here in LA -first off.
Secondly, I have nice memories of the old days really at CC.
Ever since Yvonne (who was really the spirit of CC) died, and the new regime
moved in.....I and many "Old timers" (including many Celebrities) hated to
go to this CC, as it's so snotty, who's who, exclusive, etc. Not right when
you walk in the door, but you get the picture soon enough.
The first big upset with this was a Halloween party they threw years ago.
They charged some enormous fee (I didn't go, never did to that stuff, unless
I helped work the shows)....
and then would only allow "Certain upstat people" into the cool areas. What
BS!
That began a long standing upset with Celebrity Center, that still stands
today with many locals.
But yea...it was a bit of a trip down memory lane....and that's the rest :)
Tory/Magoo!
exscio
> could you point the estimated surface? Just to compare with a really
> huge castle, like Le Louvre, whose surface is 4,8 ha (19 ha habitable,
> plus the last additions underground) that's 48000 acres.
Good gosh almighty, CCI/Manor Hotel sure ain't the Louvre! The Louvre
would probably fill up much of Hollywood or at least the size of a big
studio like Universal or Paramount.
Remember the "castle" that is CCI is actually a *hotel* with a few
turrets stuck on top to make it look like an old French castle or
chateau. There's several places in H'wood that use the same sort of
neo-baroque trickery such as the nearby Hollywood Tower apartments.
The Manor Hotel sends out fliers occasionally advertising itself as a
place to stay while "on course" and so forth, billing itself as a "safe,
distraction free environment" (i.e. nothing to break you out of the
cult's hypnotic sway.) It's a fancy-pants place, too, and costs it. But
it's just a hotel, not a "castle."
exscio
ex-scios. The fact is, OUT means OUT, it means not supporting the
phatso-kult any longer and that's all that matters. Why bash the guy for
his "subconscious" feelings and memories? I bet there are people who
have a few good memories of times in prison too, but that's human
nature. I can appreciate a nice building as much as anyone else and I'm
not going to bash Magoo for mentioning that sort of thing in his tour.
Of course, there's nothing positive about smiling, friendly Sea Org
types, since that only means more people might get hooked into the scam.
BTW, I certainly did not misinterpret Magoo's reference to the "tons of
'OT's'" in L.A. to imply that he actually believes there are such things
as OT powers (other than those that can be explained by psychology).
That might be why he put 'OT' in quote marks. Clearly it simply refers
to the "tons" of folks who went up through the "OT" level of
brainwashing in the kult, nothing more.
Magoo
"exscio" <exs...@freeatlast.com> wrote in message
news:3E52A2...@freeatlast.com...
Totally correct. Orinally it was only a hotel: The Manor Hotel, which is
where I lived, and where I met my husband. That was also (on the same floor)
where the US GO (Guardian's office) was housed. The place was a bit like
Paton Place in the old days....pretty wild.
Now it is still a hotel a bit, although mostly Scientology uses it to run
course for Celebreties, artists, businesspeople, and kids. But it is
basically a hotel, and per general standards, just a 15 story hotel at
that...not one that zooms all over the land.
I hope to someday see these castles you speak of, Roger :)
Tory/Magoo!
Magoo
Totally correct, and thank you. The only correction is Magoo isn't a
"he"...I'm a she :)
The nick comes from one I gave to my Dad years ago,
which was "Magoo". He was extremely courageous, and I think I knew I needed
him as I was waking up. (He sadly died years ago, in the 1970's)....but his
spirit lives on today, here :)
Best!
Tory/Magoo!
Bedford McIntosh
> Truth is; their buildings
> *represent* what's going on inside, where your "love" for CC and what
> it represents shows a fondness *still there* for the past, which means
> your obviously not out.. Your 'Nostalgia' expressed = 'not out',
> mentally speaking. It's for readers to think this through, on their
> own.
Well I thought it through and I disagree with you. I think it is
entirely possible to be out of Scn and not hate everything about it
from top to bottom. Does being out mean you have to hate the
architecture of the buildings? Some good times you once had?
Denying the reality of those strikes me as being irrational.
they have finally changed the color of the paint
> >from that God awful light blue to this very nice dark blue/grey almost.
>
> Your "happy" to report on their 'paint job'? Did I really hear you
> correctly??
I guess you believe people even have to despise the paint colors if
they oppose Scientology.
>I've seen that grey/blue monstrosity and it's as *cold*
> and calculating as what goes on inside.
That's some powerful paint.
> >Also, they gave the building on the corner (I think CMO is there) a new face
> >too. He pointed out, "They may not take care of their staff, but they sure
> >take care of their buildings".
> >
>
> I'm so architecturally 'moved' I think I'm going to cry from so much
> fondness expressed towards scientology buildings in general. Listening
> to your friend where *your* posting his account is almost like reading
> Frank Lloyd Wright on the construction of the Guggenheim. Maybe we'll
> hear your friends comparisons to "falling water' next for a
> cantilever extension award to Celebrity Center.
That's effective picket sign material, for sure:
The Celebrity Centre
is no
Falling Water
> Did you put your arm around that 'sweet' young man when your friends
> took the photo shot? Sounds like you might have from so much
> scientology nostalgia while "chatting it up" with the 'friendly
> staff'.
What was she supposed to do, yell at him and try to put him into an
involuntary, hypnotic session? C'mon, that's supposedly Fred Rice's
crazy parlor trick, not Tory's.
What's wrong with civility?
>They're *abused* people needing help Tory.
Are you suggesting that one substitute one's own judgement for theirs?
Even deluded people have a right to be deluded, and free from
would-be do-gooders' best intentions (if they go beyond simply
providing information in a peaceful, non-threatening way of course).
>Period.
Technically that's two periods. It's redundant; like saying the same
thing twice. But I digress...
Not
> opportunities for 'photo shoots with smiles'. If I was a real prick
> I'd say more,
You would? But wait, there's more...
> >I reminded him there
> >are tons of "OT's" who live here in LA,
>
> Freudian slip. There are **no** OT's anywhere,
Guess you missed Tory's quote marks.
> >and many of us have worked on this
> >for years.
>
> Another freudian slip. Your using "have worked on this for years"
> instead of "had at one time worked on this" to display a secret
> fondness for doing some-or-most of the oTzZ Levels. I'm touched by
> your unconscious coming clean.
Dammit Tory, get the tenses right or else!
Have you ever changed jobs? How long did it take you to stop saying
"we" at the new place when you were actually thinking of the old
place?
Tory has never denied that she had some fun along the way, so the
fondness isn't surprising either.
(more of the same snipped)
> Now I'm really gonna be a prick:
You even predicted it!
> I highly recommend Tory see's an exit-councelor asap if your serious
> about wanting OUT of the scientology mind trap for good.
Tory, who stikes me as seeing her past experience in shades of gray,
strikes me as being far better off than someone who only sees things
in black and white.
> There's someone I'm *very* fond of who was on the Apollo in the early
> seventies, but she's 'out' today where 'fond' memories' of experiences
> together in scientology never arises because we both realize it was a
> NIGHTMARE, even though we thought we were having 'fun times' while
> in!! Scientology with all it's buildings are a past/present/future
> meme-loading-machine in the guise of ARC 'understanding', Not "fond
> memories" of past associations with programmed scientologists.
Sounds like it was all pretty crummy for you. I'm truly sorry to hear
it.
Hating the paint colors won't prevent your experience from happening
to someone else. My advice would be to focus on what can prevent
that.
Magoo
"Zorrosblade........Z" <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:8hv35v83sbsanb213...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >The buildings I am happy to report on. They have FINALLY...after what? 20
> >years or so (I forget when exactly we all moved into the Complex, but I
> >think it was in the late
> >'70's or early '80's.)--->they have finally changed the color of the
paint
> >from that God awful light blue to this very nice dark blue/grey almost.
>
>
>
> Your "happy" to report on their 'paint job'? Did I really hear you
> correctly?? I've seen that grey/blue monstrosity and it's as *cold*
> and calculating as what goes on inside. You've got freudian slips all
> over this post Mag00--for anyone who isn't chicken ass not to see it.
Well darlin, I guess 'a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the
rest".
You see the paint as that? Intersting,,,,for sure. I hated that old light
blue crap, and in the evening the darker blue did look much better. You have
~no idea~ how many things occurred in *MY* life re all of this, so sorry it
"pushed your buttons".
>
> ....Boy, your wisping fond take of the "happy paint" complex coupled
> with "memory lane" is not only a rapturous event of nirvanic
> proportions, but also quite revealing. Your paint-job account sounds
> more friendly than how I looked at those buildings when I was IN.
Well....do you think it's possible that you and I had maybe different
realities, in and out?
I certainly know we did! I actually had some great memories while in those
buildings...and I'm not too whacked out to say it, either. Painting
everything as ALL black, only makes you seem as though you're still in the
same "All white/all black" thinking Scientology tries to create.
> What's a feller to think about what might be creating that fondness
> for the 'buildings color'??
Well, what's a girl to think about someone who puts that much significance
into it? Hey...it's a F*** color, man. Lighten up!
Just the color irrespective of what goes
> on inside? No, I don't think so.
Oh puuuulease. I've made a skillion posts about all that goes on inside. The
fact that you negate ALL of that just because I happen to like the new color
is just as bad as the shit Scios do.
For anyone who's really out would
> look at those buildings as mental machines of death that they are,
That is your reality. The fact that you are trying to tell me what and how I
should think sounds not a whole lot different than the Scios who tell me how
bad I am for thinking for myself.
> where, if they painted it lilliputian-egg-white looking like Da Vinci,
> would still make that building hideous despite the "nice paint". But
> no, you "love" the paint job. If readers want to buy into 'surface
> logic' "nice paint job" postings that's their business, not mine.
Oh GOD! You're probably right! I'm sure many lurkers here were on the edge
of leaving Scientology...but now that Magoo likes the new color of the
Complex buildings, they no doubt will stay. Ya....damn it....what a tragic
mistake. Do you honestly think people are ~~that~~ stupid and shallow? The
fact that you imply that is insulting I'm sure to anyone lurking. It sure is
to me.
> There's stuff going on below the surface here, as to "feelings"
> towards scientology 'buildings' reveals.
Really? Goodness! I'm sure glad you pointed that out.....
If anyone is really concerned about how I feel about such things, please
see:
http://www.xenu.net Personal Stories/tory's story
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.xenutv.com (videos)
and where are YOUR videos, Zorroblade?
Also, they gave the building on the corner (I think CMO is there) a new face
> >too. He pointed out, "They may not take care of their staff, but they
sure
> >take care of their buildings".
> >
>
> I'm so architecturally 'moved' I think I'm going to cry from so much
> fondness expressed towards scientology buildings in general. Listening
> to your friend where *your* posting his account is almost like reading
> Frank Lloyd Wright on the construction of the Guggenheim. Maybe we'll
> hear your friends comparisons to "falling water' next for a
> cantilever extension award to Celebrity Center. Your guard is down,
> which is good for anyone who wants to *think* for themselves on what
> your really saying below the surface.
I'm not saying anything "Below the surface". Do I have some good memories
in 30 Y E A R S ???? I should certainly hope so. Anyone who says they have
NONE, is not telling the truth, or they sure are sorry people.
>
>
> >
> >As we walked back by AOLA, a younger man in uniform walked along with us.
I
> >asked my friend if he wanted a picture there, and he said, "Sure!" I
said,
> >"Maybe with him?"
> >Looking at the Sea Org man who was obviously following us.
> >He agreed, so we took a shot with him. Turns out he was from Gold, and
was
> >also quite friendly.
> >
>
> Did you put your arm around that 'sweet' young man when your friends
> took the photo shot?
I reported what one of the critics who has been quite active against
Scientology said. Those were his words. You don't like um? So Sorry. You're
the one making MUCH more out of this than what occurred. Why? Not sure. But
I know one thing...
It's weird.
Sounds like you might have from so much
> scientology nostalgia while "chatting it up" with the 'friendly
> staff'. They're *abused* people needing help Tory.
Did I say anything you are implying? No.
All I said was the colors of the buildings were nice,and my friend found
them much nicer than Sea Org where he lives.
That's what HE said.
Period. Not
> opportunities for 'photo shoots with smiles'. If I was a real prick
> I'd say more, but I'll let readers be the judge from what's implied in
> your words.
You know what? You will never help people get out...because of exactly how
you write here. It's people like you that ranted on to me when I was trying
to figure it out, and ONE person helped me::Andreas. Did he rant like this?
Never.
It doesn't work. It's hateful, it's over dramatic, and it totally lacks
compassion. That IS what Scientology is....and you doing the same is this
much help: ZERO.
>
>
> >My friend was amazed at how 'nice' they were here vs. the area where he
is
> >from, where apparently they never say "hi" or smile.
>
> Nice to know programmed sea org members are "so much nicer here" than
> 'elsewhere'.
He dude....that's what HE said. Sorry it upsets you.
With all this gushing forth of 'fondness' towards complex
> personnel, maybe the idea of them being mentally abused by L rong
> Hubbard is *all wrong*. Instead of looking at sea org staff as
> casualties of Hubbard programming, your smiling alongside a 'staffer'
> for a 'photo ops' feel-goody stroll with friends is the way to go as
> a critic-post to ARS. Your 'fondness' for the complex abounds as
> explicit not even needing implicit interpretations. Sorry...
jeesh. How many people call you who are leaving?
I get calls all the time, so whatever I'm doing, it's not as bad as you say.
The fact that you have flipped over this is YOUR black and white Scientology
thinking, over and over. "Sorry".
>
>
> >I reminded him there
> >are tons of "OT's" who live here in LA,
>
> Freudian slip. There are **no** OT's anywhere, not "there are tons of
> OT's who live in LA". If readers want to buy into a slip of
> syntax-structure that's their mistake. I'm not fooled.
You moron. I have written about "OT's" (and the lack of any real ones) over
and over. That's why it's in parenthesis.
I guess your too busy to read that, but you sure were here for this. Try
reading:
http://www.torymagoo.org
>
>
>
> >and many of us have worked on this
> >for years.
>
> Another freudian slip. Your using "have worked on this for years"
> instead of "had at one time worked on this" to display a secret
> fondness for doing some-or-most of the oTzZ Levels. I'm touched by
> your unconscious coming clean.
Man you are weird. So sorry you are such a black and white thinker. Try
working on it, it's very unhealthy.
>
>
> >It was always a ~huge~ 'out PR' thing where the Sea org would always
frown,
> >and never say 'hi' to people walking by. Hopefully they really have it in
> >now.
> >
>
> "Hopefully they 'really' have it in now"?? That their saying "hi", as
> opposed to not, changes their 'PR' status for the BETTER?? Better
> towards what? A 'better' scientology?? which is *impossible* because
> of the very structure of scientology and it's died-in-wool operations?
>
>
> If I saw a 'staffer' smiling at me while walking by the complex he'd
> get *pity* out of me as paramount, because of knowing how programmed
> he was, not being 'pleased' that he/she had smiled at me relevant to
> the *smile* itself. If I viewed that staffer with 'good feelings'
> because they smiled at me, for the smile, I wouldn't really see
> Hubbard programming as the hideous mental contortion it is...Those
> people are to be pitied and helped out, if possible, not smiled at
> with photo-shoots in tow just because they 'smile' at you. If I did
> what you did I'd only prove to the world I wasn't really OUT of the
> scientology mind-set, because I'd be open to 'ARCing' with a staffer
> because they 'smiled' at me.
You missed the point, again.
>
> >
> >That was the end of the tour for the night. We then went out to eat with
> >another critic, and all shared some fun stories of times past.
> >
>
> What "fun stories of times past"? Where these stories of 'fun times'
> while being scientologists in the orgs or going out on the town as
> scientologists? I laughed and had a *merry time* with dozens of
> scientologists when I was in, but it was all a LIE because the
> merriment was induced by an ARC license to 'communicate' which is
> connected to all of Hubbards 'tech' by association. We weren't having
> a 'merry time' *not* touched by Hubbard, we were induced to have a
> merry time under the ARC 'tech' umbrella, not merriment *outside* of
> Hubbards control. I'm assuming these "fun stories of times past" with
> your friends around the complex had scientology 'sprinkled' in that
> conversation, no? The deduction from what you write here is obvious.
You sure are good at putting words in my mouth...and all untrue, too.
>
>
>
> >Hope you enjoyed the tour update :)
> >
>
>
> I have. It's been *very* revealing. Thank you :-)
>
>
> Now I'm really gonna be a prick:
> Arnie, you better do some re-thinking about who really supports your
> interests as an inner circle ally. I would be remiss by not mentioning
> the above because I respect your work on lermanet and elsewhere,
> despite any differences between us.. If Tory-tagglers don't like my
> pointing her obvious critic-discrepancies out as to her "critic
> function" posing-capacity towards scientology----toooo bad....I don't
> give a tinkers damn.
I could care less. It just shows me more of who you are.
And what work you still need to do.
>
> Diane Richardson may have been rough with the foul language, but she
> had Tory's 'critic-spearheading' pretentious-posing-crap pegged. Sorry
> but true.
Oh GAWD>>>>yeah....now I get it.
You're the most popular with who?
Magoo
"Bedford McIntosh" <ploc...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:c5757860.03021...@posting.google.com...
Magoo
Tory/Magoo!
"Bedford McIntosh" <ploc...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:c5757860.03021...@posting.google.com...
Zorrosblade........Z
wrote:
>Great, we really need someone to act as the "conscience" for other
>ex-scios.
Hey monkey brain-- next time you stick your anthropoid head up your
ass make sure it really goes all the way this time so the Italian Flag
is flying el-Duce-free out of your mouth :-) It should be a cathartic
experience relevant to your thinking capacity, I'm sure..
>The fact is, OUT means OUT,
Your so stupid it's pathetic. Read Steven Hassan's first book for
starters to get a clue how that isn't the case as 'absolute terms',
which supposedly define each other ABSOLUTELY. The fact you see it
this way means your either an idiot/OSA-troll/ or still programmed
with the Hubbard 'access codes' while in recovery. Scientologists who
are recovering BUT still encoded with Hubbard 'think' FLOAT between
states of "good programmed feelings" versus "Recovery measures". OUT
means OUT as you put it is an idiocy that thinks once someone is
physically out of scientology their *mentally* out as well.
Sorry--doesn't work that way. I've seen too many ex-scios within my
experience go through the same 'drawn out' recovery process. That
process is almost the same depending how long one was imbued with
Hubbard think-tank. Tory was in for 30 years and FLOATS between "good
feelings towards scientology" vs. "recovery from scientology" ALL the
time when you read between the lines. If the NG doesn't see this in
the main, all is lost. The obvious has to be easy or complex issues or
scientology deception will never get resolved. Period. Tory is still
recovering, NOT mentally out as proven by my post points...
From the points I raised it's obvious Mag00 needs more recovery time
before trying to feign VANGUARD criticism towards scientology, and
don't be so stupid to think she doesn't try to 'sell this' vanguard
capacity by implication. Think!! When she gets through the floating
stage, she might be ready to take on such a vanguard position, not
now. But as her header shows to anyone with a clue, she is not ready
for such a position. Her EGO's taken her a long way, not her criticism
capacity. She still FLOATS which is a scientology criticism liability.
If you don't understand what that concept means *read* Hassans book(s)
along with Lifton/Singer--at least.. And if you have, you didn't get
it. Sorry. If she humbled herself as just another critic without
pasting her face everywhere she goes, I'd have no problem with this,
as she's a recovery victim, NOT recovered. Critics who have either
never been scientologists or gotten through the "good feelings"
floating stage towards scientology should be the vanguard, NOT her
right now. Tory's about *Tory* if you have the mental capacity to see
a mack truck. Her tagglers are sycophants to her implied 'vanguard'
position. Period. Don't just get pissed---think!
>it means not supporting the
>phatso-kult any longer and that's all that matters.
In the absolute physical sense, yes, but someone still recovering who
FLOATS between mental states shouldn't try to feign a vanguard
position of criticism which Tory try's to do. The day she humbles
herself to her actual critical-equity-capacity by first quitting the
*TORY SHOW* routine, is the day I'll retract such statements. If you
don't see her doing this your just a newbee or an idiot.
>Why bash the guy for
>his "subconscious" feelings and memories?
Did you see me using ANY foul language with Mag00 to warrant a
"bashing" retort? No---it's called an accurate observation where the
specifics can be found in my first post. Dead on accuracy doesn't need
to be repeated for the inane, like you lanyard boy who's still
recovering. That's right, I've been reading your stuff to give such an
accurate take :-)
>I bet there are people who
>have a few good memories of times in prison too, but that's human
>nature.
Because maybe that prisoner in your example WAS the guy he **was** to
*have* a few good times while in prison. Being programmed with
scientology means 'becoming' a scientologist-in-mind-set which equates
to *actual* repression of the self for the sake of becoming a
'thetan'. The more a scientologist becomes a 'thetan', the more they
subconsciously repress who they really are by inverse proportion. You
don't get that concept? Thought so...You still have work to do on
yourself before slogging off those terrier tirades against me, like
your good buddy Cerridwanker-the-mental-clam-come-critic. Idiot!
Supposedly having "good times" while not existing as your true self is
a contradiction of terms. Period. Hubbards 'Thetan' which
scientologists/FZers become is not the true self. It's a LIE. Prove an
OT and I'll retract.
>I can appreciate a nice building as much as anyone else and I'm
>not going to bash Magoo for mentioning that sort of thing in his tour.
Can't you READ??? Let me make the point I previously raised easier for
you just this once; OK??:
snip> (to Bedford)
Make the distinctions. #1) The architecture *as* architecture minus
what goes on inside (as scientology) is a totally neutral commodity
where abstract takes are infinite as to "good" or "bad" architecture.
What actually goes on *inside* that building which makes up the
buildings 'purpose' makes the building hideous eg; The 'Reichstag';
constructed for Nazi-Germany-administrators was designed by a gifted
architect named Albert Speer. Was the building by itself a decent work
of architecture? To me, yes. Was the building actually *hideous* for
the activities (purpose) that went on inside?? YES!....End of
argument. A building with it's purpose go hand in glove as how it's
viewed, where Tory's "good feelings" bleeds into the buildings purpose
by association. The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
reason; they *knew* it's purpose as a building even if it was
architecturally wonderful. They weren't fooled. If one was to say Tory
didn't have the capacity to make a connection between the purpose of
the "nicely painted" building with what goes on inside, they'd be
saying she's stupid beyond repair. I *don't* think Tory's stupid which
is why I'm making the connection between the building's exterior vs.
the buildings 'purpose' in her mind.
Example:
If we could bring back to life a Gladiator-slave who fought-and-died
in that "beautiful" looking 7th wonder of the world colosseum and ask
him what he thought of that magnificent structure, chances are he'd
see it as *hideous* because he knew it's purpose *as* a structure.
Tourists today can look at the Colosseum and have no such reaction
whatsoever because they were NEVER involved as gladiators. Tory WAS
INVOLVED with scientology as a major player. Get the complex building
connection?? Is that analogy-link waking a remote brain cell somewhere
or am I wasting my time here? If you deny the obvious psychological
connections in my analogy vis-a-vis Torys 'complex' take your just
another liar, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"
it's ME.--I was BORN at ASHO when it was Cedars of lebanon hospital
way back when. Yes---a fact. I out of anyone on ARS should have the
right to have some fond memories of that building just by having been
born there. Do I?? Of course not!!!. The original purpose of that
building (hospital) has been taken over by scientology. Only a total
idiot couldn't make a connection between a buildings exterior and it's
*purpose*, where Mag00 *is not* an idiot to not realize the connection
between the buildings exterior and what goes on inside. Therefore, her
'wisping' take around the complex is indicative of some-sense-of
*fondness* towards the building and what that psychologically means to
her either consciously OR subconsciously. Ask yourself---"Was her
fondness expressed towards the building totally divorced from what
goes on inside? Are you really that stupid to believe she did? I was
BORN at ASHO(cedars of lebanon) and I don't give a hoot what color
they paint the exterior. It's a hideous building because of purpose
which an honest mind can't divorce from.
>Of course, there's nothing positive about smiling, friendly Sea Org
>types, since that only means more people might get hooked into the scam.
>
EXCELLENT! You do have potential,, when you calm down from yapping.
>BTW, I certainly did not misinterpret Magoo's reference to the "tons of
>'OT's'" in L.A. to imply that he actually believes there are such things
>as OT powers (other than those that can be explained by psychology).
As I said if you read it closely; others might construe it was a
syntactical mistake on Mag00's part by her wording,, but I'm not
fooled by what's really going on; she FLOATS between a scientology
mind set of "fondness" for her scientology experience versus recovery
measures taken *from* that experience. When an individual *stops*
floating they *don't* see their past involvement with the cult or
players as "good times".
If she ever gets through the "fondness" stage which means through
FLOATING---she could claim a recovered personal state which would be
great. But to pretend a VANGUARD position in scientology criticism
while in this floating state is ludicrous! Are you really that new
around here? If you are I apologize for everything I've said as "rough
language" put forth. I'm assuming you've been around, but might be
mistaken.
>That might be why he put 'OT' in quote marks. Clearly it simply refers
>to the "tons" of folks who went up through the "OT" level of
>brainwashing in the kult, nothing more.
For whatever reason your apparently trying to rationalize how she said
it and why to fit into whatever mental box you've got going on to give
Tory a break, because you just love yappin at me to take such a
'reverse plunge' in the opposite direction :-) Don't think I don't
see you son. You and Cerridwanker make an almost clam like tag-team
together when it suits you. Sheeesh--did I just say something that
might be obvious for those who can *think*?? Probably didn't.
If your blood isn't too boiled from our 'wonderful' chat together I
challenge you to re-read my first post when your not yapping-in-heat,,
to weigh factors I've mentioned here while reading the first one
again. I've only ever asked readers to think with the material,
nothing more. Whether they agree with me or not is their business, not
mine. It's called freedom of choice which is sacred. I mean it.
Z-blade
Zorrosblade........Z
McIntosh) wrote:
>Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<8hv35v83sbsanb213...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:46:58 GMT, "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I still love CC,
>
>> Truth is; their buildings
>> *represent* what's going on inside, where your "love" for CC and what
>> it represents shows a fondness *still there* for the past, which means
>> your obviously not out.. Your 'Nostalgia' expressed = 'not out',
>> mentally speaking. It's for readers to think this through, on their
>> own.
>
>Well I thought it through and I disagree with you. I think it is
>entirely possible to be out of Scn and not hate everything about it
>from top to bottom. Does being out mean you have to hate the
>architecture of the buildings? Some good times you once had?
>
There's a contradiction of terms in your argument. Let me explain;
Your major premise of; "it is entirely possible to be out of Scn and
not hate everything about it" coupled with; "Does being out mean you
have to hate the architecture of the buildings? Some good times that
you had?".
Before breaking those terms down though; did I write anywhere about
hating it from top to bottom? I did not. I said for fully *recovered*
ex-scientologists they would rationally look at a 'smiling' sea org
staffer in *pity* as paramount emotion knowing of their programmed
plight. Not go smiley pooo in ARC with 'photo ops' around the complex.
Pity has actual compassion behind the emotion, not 'sympathy as
Hubbard finagled as 'low tone' characteristic. Hubbard was full of
shit as a manipulator so I have no problem whatsoever giving pity
where it's 'rationally' needed, as with the case of viewing 'smiling'
sea org staffers around the complex, not smiley-pooo photo shoots to
'post' on ARS.
Now to your terms; 1) "I think it is entirely possible to be out of
Scn"
Yes and no. As a life experience an ex will never be able to erase
that experience (as it happened) unless you have a time machine. I
don't. *Mentally* being out is an ongoing process of recovery
depending how long one was in with how far they went up the bridge to
madness. Tory was in for 30 years--you figure out her "nice paint
job"; :"I still love CC"; "Skillions of fond memories" take when
weighed against my arguments. For the fully recovered there is NO
skillions of fond memories to be had in scientology unless one is NOT
out of the scientology mind trap. Period! No middle ground.
Being entirely out of scientology is a relative term, NOT absolute.
The *easy* part is physically breaking free (for most non-so-members
who are 'walk-aways'), the hard part is breaking free *mentally* which
can take years, especially when you were in for 30 years. I suggest
you read my response to ex-scio on this thread as to the FLOATING
phenomenon to get my point relative to Tory's "Skillions of fond
memories" post. Tory proved she's still in the floating phase of
recovery where she feigns a vanguard position as a scientology critic
at the same time. THAT my friend, is a living contradiction and ARS
needs to wake up to it.
>Well I thought it through and I disagree with you. I think it is
>entirely possible to be out of Scn and not hate everything about it
>from top to bottom. Does being out mean you have to hate the
>architecture of the buildings? Some good times you once had?
>
>Denying the reality of those strikes me as being irrational.
>
Your implying that a *you* AS the real YOU even exists to have good
times while programmed with scientology. Scientologists are
debilitated hapless victims of Hubbard induction under an OT guise of
'freedom', where ARC is part of that programming tool box. Yes! ARC
with friends can deliver good feelings, but ARC *links* to the
scientology mind set by association where 'good times' as
scientologists link to Hubbard, NOT the untampered individual having a
good time as they *really* are. The friend I mentioned in the first
post who worked on the Apollo is still a friend today and have truly
fun times together---NOW, because we're back as people (for better or
worse) where pretending to have had "good times" when we *thought* we
did in a 24/7 programmed state never comes up as "fond memories"
between us, because the whole period was a LIE and we know it. She and
I NEVER discuss so-called "skillions of good times" or "Love for CCLA"
etc etc because ALL those feelings had as their base the belief we
were 'thetans', with all the Hubbard mental- baggage connected to it.
You *can't* have great times or feelings when those feelings hinge on
a cult programmed base NOT of your true self. The true self isn't even
THERE to have good times!! It's sublimated under the 'Thetan'
personality which gradually (on a gradient scale) takes over. The more
sublimated the real self becomes by trying to become an OT, the more
psycho the individual becomes even though they 'smile' with ARC and
can look quite rational from outward appearances, but those outside
appearances don't tell the true 'inner' story.. This *explains* the
mental temperament of scientologists who feel their 'being attacked by
SP's'. They believe it Joe Q SP--- and they want you dead or out of
the way by any means necessary. The more they become scientologists in
their programming base, the *easier* it is to get rid of Hubbard's
SP's with no conscience as to the 'means' of doing it..
Are long-term scientologists who joined the SO/go-on-course/go-OT//
really that programmed??? ..... YES
Critics who've worked their asses off to expose the many aspects of
the con have my deepest respects because that psycho train of thinking
has billions behind it to do away with what they will. We've seen it
too many times for any doubts.
To Mag00:
Ohhh---and Mag00. Nice try at gathering 'thread' momentum against my
arguments through your standard BS 'agreement' seeking device.
Since that 'trick' device to conjure momentum behind the "ohhh darling
--thank you so much for agreeing" ploy is too obvious to me, it might
be obvious to others as well, at least I hope they can see it. If they
don't, ARS might have truly lost it's backbone. I don't believe it has
which is why I'm writing this.
Z-blade
--
"But to make this transfer from the
feudal-gambling-game-for-gold-stakes to a genuine medium-of-exchange
for-the-whole-people compatible with democracy, we the people must lay
aside all party allegiances."
Frank Lloyd Wright (1941)
Bedford McIntosh
First, I wanted you to know I read this, since it was in the middle of
this reply to exscio
> snip> (to Bedford)
cutting to the succinct explanation:
>A building with it's purpose go hand in glove as how it's
> viewed
I understand that, and I can understand how for some it cannot be
separated from ideas like "pure evil." But I can also understand how
some can compartmentalize things. A building can be separated from
purpose.
I actually think this is an interesting discussion, but the event that
started it, Tory's passing comments on a paint job hardly rise to a
triggering event for the discussion.
Let's say in 10 years Scientology is defunct and Cedars is abandoned.
A new developer wants to tear it down. Someone from a historic
preservation commission argues to preserve the building because of its
historic look and/or connection to Scientology. That's the kind of
event where your response would be more appropriate. You've used a
$10 argument on a 2 cent comment.
> The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
> reason;
My historical ignorance: what, then, was the building Christo wrapped
just a few years ago?
>I *don't* think Tory's stupid which
> is why I'm making the connection between the building's exterior vs.
> the buildings 'purpose' in her mind.
Yes: you are suggesting a "way of seeing." She is doing the same to
you.
>
>Tory WAS
> INVOLVED with scientology as a major player.
With all due respect to Tory, I wouldn't describe her as that. She
was a long term public member. With respect to the people running the
show, she was a fringe player to the semi-major players. She had a
limited volunteer role for a brief time. The fact that she is the
only one who participates here makes her the biggest player here, but
that's about it.
> Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"
> it's ME.
Your rights don't exclude anyone else's rights, of course. Based on
your apparent history (have you shared the details?), if you have a
comment on the building I'd certainly listen.
>I out of anyone on ARS should have the
> right to have some fond memories of that building just by having been
> born there. Do I?? Of course not!!!.
Yes, one would have hoped you had some fond memories. It sounds like
you got totally screwed in your experience. I mean it when I say I'm
sorry to hear that.
The original purpose of that
> building (hospital) has been taken over by scientology. Only a total
> idiot couldn't make a connection between a buildings exterior and it's
> *purpose*,
The same could be said for someone who ALWAYS makes the connection
between a building's exterior and its purpose.
>Was her
> fondness expressed towards the building totally divorced from what
> goes on inside?
Probably not. The problem is that, in 30 years, she probably had some
good times in there.
It's not her fault she had some good times. My armchair psych
suggestion is that you begrudge the fact that she actually had some
good experiences that she refuses to deny, while your experience was
in your mind all bad (even the "good times" which you now see with
revisionist eyes). Tory was at a simple level, like you, a victim.
She is on the same side as you, even if she doesn't say the same
things.
Bedford McIntosh
> On 18 Feb 2003 19:00:14 -0800, ploc...@deltanet.com (Bedford
> McIntosh) wrote:
>
> >Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<8hv35v83sbsanb213...@4ax.com>...
I'm replying in two different components of this thread, but at
different times. Add that to how things propagate. The result is
that your and my comments may be crossing in cyberspace. Just keep
that in mind.
> >Well I thought it through and I disagree with you. I think it is
> >entirely possible to be out of Scn and not hate everything about it
> >from top to bottom. Does being out mean you have to hate the
> >architecture of the buildings? Some good times you once had?
> >
>
> There's a contradiction of terms in your argument. Let me explain;
> Your major premise of; "it is entirely possible to be out of Scn and
> not hate everything about it" coupled with; "Does being out mean you
> have to hate the architecture of the buildings? Some good times that
> you had?">
Your explanation doesn't make the supposed contradiction clear to me.
When you finally get around to the contradiction, it is about
something else (see below).
> Before breaking those terms down though; did I write anywhere about
> hating it from top to bottom? I did not. I said for fully *recovered*
> ex-scientologists they would rationally look at a 'smiling' sea org
> staffer in *pity* as paramount emotion knowing of their programmed
> plight.
You seem to suggest that all recovered ex's will end up at the same
point, or by definition they are not truly recovered. I just think
that the variety we find in human personality applies. Also depends
on your involvement: a 30 year public can easily have a different
experience -- and opinions of that experience -- than a 30 year SO
member. And surely you must have seen different levels of acceptance
in Scn. Not every Scn is a "Rondroid."
> I suggest
> you read my response to ex-scio on this thread as to the FLOATING
> phenomenon to get my point relative to Tory's "Skillions of fond
> memories" post. Tory proved she's still in the floating phase of
> recovery where she feigns a vanguard position as a scientology critic
> at the same time. THAT my friend, is a living contradiction and ARS
> needs to wake up to it.
Not my contradiction. Maybe not even a contradiction at all. What
you are saying is that recovering Scns don't make the best critics.
The only way I can see a contradiction is if you are positing one
can't be recovering and be a critic at the same time.
Nor do I accept this idea of Tory as a vanguard critic, self appointed
or otherwise. Because of her extensive history, she has a lot more to
say than some. And thankfully she has said it and done videos. I
don't even know who I would call a vanguard critic. Maybe that term
applies to every person who is willing to publicly challenge
Scientology's bad behavior?
> >Denying the reality of those strikes me as being irrational.
> >
>
> Your implying that a *you* AS the real YOU even exists to have good
> times while programmed with scientology. Scientologists are
> debilitated hapless victims of Hubbard induction
I just don't accept that they are all inducted to the same degree, and
consequently suffer from the same degree of "haplessness." And will
not necessarily (if they leave) require the same recovery and end up
with the same view of the past.
>
> To Mag00:
> Ohhh---and Mag00. Nice try at gathering 'thread' momentum against my
> arguments through your standard BS 'agreement' seeking device.
I can't figure out why a disagreement on how to approach criticism
results in such a smirking comment. Have you ever spent any time with
Tory? Why not try it? I think you'd find she's light hearted and
quick to laugh. It's just how she see things.
If recovery means she always has to look back in anger, I hope she
continues to float forever.
Zorrosblade........Z
news:<fde65v4aeade6p46r...@4ax.com>..
>First, I wanted you to know I read this, since it was in the middle of
>this reply to exscio
> snip> (to Bedford)
>cutting to the succinct explanation:
>>A building with it's purpose go hand in glove as how it's
>> viewed
>I understand that, and I can understand how for some it cannot be
>separated from ideas like "pure evil." But I can also understand how
>some can compartmentalize things. A building can be separated from
>purpose.
Yes it can when someone's *not* intimately involved with a building's
history, which doesn't include Tory regarding the complex. In general;
known structures with benevolent overtones, even if experiencing a
'few' rough times within those walls, won't get in the way of
appreciating an upgrade to the exterior, like viewing the replastered
facade of a high school one attended even if the person had fights
within those walls years back. Appreciation for "exterior painting" as
"nice" is possible in that example even with some personal 'scrapes'
involved inside. I fully disagree that a trauma-inducing structure
that embeds *delusions-come-theta* as a cult programming operation can
conjure 'nostalgia' or even 'appreciation' when an ex- *really*
understands how abused they were within those walls. The Complex is
not high school or ones childhood home to feel nostalgic about or
comment how "nice" the paint job is with the rest of her scientology
pining. Tory has *intimate* 30 year knowledge of the complex's purpose
and don't try to ruse me when you suggest their might be a mental
'separation' on her part when she makes those forelorn comments.
Tory's floating-problem expressed in the header is obvious because she
KNOWS the purpose of those buildings and is not divorced from it's
meaning when making those comments; "Nice paint job",, "skillions of
fond memories",, "smiling sea org staff should 'help' public PR" etc.
Who are you trying to kid. Not me, and hopefully not ARS readers.
>Let's say in 10 years Scientology is defunct and Cedars is abandoned.
>A new developer wants to tear it down. Someone from a historic
>preservation commission argues to preserve the building because of its
>historic look and/or connection to Scientology. That's the kind of
>event where your response would be more appropriate. You've used a
>$10 argument on a 2 cent comment.
Now your really proving my previous point: thanks for the "$10
argument on a 2 cent comment", even though that 'complement' implies
I'm 'over-reacting'. Nice try at 'damage control', but no cigar :-)
Torys "SKILLIONS of Fond Memories" and "I just LOVE CCLA" *theme* is
anything but "2 cents" by way of her floating liability when she
pretends staunch 'scientology criticism' on ARS. Her floating
liability linked to pretended 'vanguard' status is a facade and a
living hypocrisy, where I'm simply pointing that out to readers if
they'll get out of denial: (denial is a river in Egypt) I
know...that's an old one, but I still think it's cute...
ARS is not a venue to 'work out one's programming problems' while
feigning scientology criticism when in fact their not *mentally* out.
The reason for my first post was to show this hypocritical discrepancy
by bringing her own words to bear as to how she just "LOVES CCLA", and
has "SKILLIONS of fond memories in scientology" with the rest of her
pining quotes.
Observation:
This 'subtle' follow-up by you that I'm 'over-reacting' on "2 cents"
is a covert measure to get reader attention onto ME as the
'over-reactor' and off of Tory.. Sorry--I'm not stupid to fall for
your 'thread help'.
Case in point:
Your implying I'm "angry" when saying you'd rather see Tory 'floating
forever 'in scientology mind-programming' than be 'angry' which is
implicit back stabbing bull shit. By doing this you obviously think
readers are stupid enough for hood-winking measures by your damage
control 'angry' implication...They're not, at least I hope so.
>I actually think this is an interesting discussion, but the event that
>started it, Tory's passing comments on a paint job hardly rise to a
>triggering event for the discussion.
BULL SHIT. Now your "with intent" trying to deflect attention from the
main theme of my arguments as damage control for Tory, which is
covert. Next time you chat with Tory, say hi for me, will ya? Shall I
reiterate for the hundredth time the main theme found in Torys post
which we should be commenting on? Tory: "Skillions of fond memories"
(towards experiences in scientology); "I just LOVE CC";; "recent ARC
applied to a staffer and photo ops with friends next to the staffer"
"Nice paint job"; "If they keep smiling (staff) that should help their
PR with the public" etc. Why do you purposely bypass my running
time-line points by instead trying to give me 'advice' through OUT OF
CONTEXT snipping to forward your obvious agenda? Helllo? Your messing
with the wrong guy here... Deflecting reader attention onto me 'to
question me' as your bulwark measure is the obvious answer. Again, say
HI to Tory for me when you chat with her next on the phone or by
e-mail...Your doing a lousy job on her behalf. Truly scrubbo...Your
not even hiding it well. :-)
>Let's say in 10 years Scientology is defunct and Cedars is abandoned.
>A new developer wants to tear it down. Someone from a historic
>preservation commission argues to preserve the building because of its
>historic look and/or connection to Scientology. That's the kind of
>event where your response would be more appropriate. You've used a
>$10 argument on a 2 cent comment.
Within the broad *social* spectrum as to context in your "preservation
commission" example---YES! But what your veering from to get your "2
cent comment" in, is that we're not talking about social-dynamics
relevant to a 'historic preservation commission', we're talking about
Torys psychological *Take* on those buildings with her "fondness
expressed" in HER POST. Sheeesh---I wonder why you won't make
*Real-time* comments TOO my posts specifics as they run instead of
answering to out of context snipping to create a pseaudo-header in the
guise of a reply. Go fuck yourself for the covert attempt. I'm keeping
thread comments focused on my original points whether you like it or
not :-) If Norle told me I was full of shit, I'd listen to his points
with respect, not you from what your running here.
>> The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
>> reason;
>My historical ignorance: what, then, was the building Christo wrapped
>just a few years ago?
The original Reichstag intact as it was before 1945, for renovating
'christo wrapped'? Nice try you twerp.. Here's how the Reichstag
looked after the Russians took care of business in 1945:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/7002/Reichstag1945.html
Your not fooling me a bit behind that snippy comment BedFord. Your a
Tory damage control apologist at best,, probably by phone. Your trying
to grab at ANYTHING including the Reichstag, showing nervousness. I
wonder why?? :-)
>>I *don't* think Tory's stupid which
>> is why I'm making the connection between the building's exterior vs.
>> the buildings 'purpose' in her mind.
>Yes: you are suggesting a "way of seeing." She is doing the same to
>you.
Bull shit! Don't even try that slug nut ploy. Her 'tone' giveaway
under the guise of "ohhh wellll z-blade Honey" sarcasm was
playing-me-down 'damage control' to grab agreement where she could get
it,, with pats on the head to her 'thread' sycophants, as usual. I'm
so far beyond Tory as a recovered ex (19 years) she doesn't have the
right to kiss my ex-shorts in "how to see" anything. Get it?? It's a
fact and take the medicine.
>>
>>Tory WAS
>> INVOLVED with scientology as a major player.
>With all due respect to Tory, I wouldn't describe her as that. She
>was a long term public member.
Not true. *Networking-with-SO-OSA* scientology Public is *rare*
compared to standard 'on-course' scientologists who go on course after
work, or getting auditing as paid public. Tory has a lot to offer as a
public-OSA-insider *because* it's so rare for a public person. MOST
public I knew stayed away from SO 'business' as much as possible
unless they were going to join anyway. PUBLIC 'chatting' with OSA reps
is not common for most public scientologists, which makes Tory unique,
not that she's the only one. But it's rare compared to the over-all
number of public scientologists. Period. Nice try at protecting
Tory---no cigar once again.
>With respect to the people running the
>show, she was a fringe player to the semi-major players. She had a
>limited volunteer role for a brief time.
BULL SHIT. Tory's OSA 101 (as one example) is *not* 'limited volunteer
work'. Now I know your running a damage control ruse. Screw off, and
say "Hi" to Tory for me when you chat, will ya?
>> Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"
>> it's ME.
>Your rights don't exclude anyone else's rights, of course. Based on
>your apparent history (have you shared the details?), if you have a
>comment on the building I'd certainly listen.
Bedford,, my comments are *in* the posts already but you won't get the
details of my 'birth records' originally compiled at Cedars (ASHO). An
OSA troll might want that information..hmmmm...not you,...ehhh?,
didn't think so :-))))
>>I out of anyone on ARS should have the
>> right to have some fond memories of that building just by having been
>> born there. Do I?? Of course not!!!.
>Yes, one would have hoped you had some fond memories.
Fuck You asshole. Your actual intent is loud and clear from that way
out of context snide remark from what it was originally addressing.
For that covert attempt, FUCK you again slug. I say that with an
honest heart :-)
>It sounds like
>you got totally screwed in your experience. I mean it when I say I'm
>sorry to hear that.
Fuck you. Your 'damage control' game by trying to point reader
attention onto me instead of my argument thrust is obvious for such a
comment; Ibid to all my posts on this thread. Readers only have to
read it. I can't make it any easier than that :-)
>>The original purpose of that
>> building (hospital) has been taken over by scientology. Only a total
>> idiot couldn't make a connection between a buildings exterior and it's
>> *purpose*,
>The same could be said for someone who ALWAYS makes the connection
>between a building's exterior and its purpose.
One follows the other instantly if one isn't brain dead. A Home?
(yes/no) An Apartment? (yes/no) An Office building? (yes/no)
Complex-equals-scientology when in for 30 YEARS? (YES YES YES). Go lay
an egg dummy. You've lost the match. Take your back-stabbing covert
toys somewhere else because you make me utterly sick with your wormy
ass brain :-) Don't think others don't see this even if you try to
'play it down'. 'Playing it down' is another ARS trick for 'upmanship'
aims. Old timers know what I'm talking about.
>My armchair psych
>suggestion is that you begrudge the fact that she actually had some
>good experiences that she refuses to deny, while your experience was
>in your mind all bad (even the "good times" which you now see with
>revisionist eyes).
Again; Fuck you (in context). Your 'revisionist eyes' comment is a BS
attempt at directing readers onto me-personally for taking attention
off of my running time arguments in this thread. FUCK YOU.. ARS
readers in the main are not stupid to that age old ploy of
'misdirection'. There's covert intent behind it, and your it baby....
>Tory was at a simple level, like you, a victim.
>She is on the same side as you, even if she doesn't say the same
>things.
Thanks for the "victim" crack and don't think I'm not aware of the
real intent behind that crack :-) I hold no hatred towards Tory even
if she now thinks I'm a prick, which at this point doesn't interest me
either way,, unless she finally drops "THE TORY SHOW" bit,, where I'll
be more than happy to back up good work if I see it.
Thanks for letting me know where your real interests lie BeDfOrd. I'll
be prepared if there's ever a "next time" :-) Over and out for
now---sukker
Z-blade
(Friend to all and ARS bon vivant. Martini's anyone? Shaker or
stirred? Drinks will be ready shortly at the ARS bar, where the "ptsc
experience" will be playing their hit single on stage; "PURPLE ARS
HAZE")
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Bedford McIntosh" <ploc...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:c5757860.03021...@posting.google.com...
news:<fde65v4aeade6p46r...@4ax.com>...
>
> First, I wanted you to know I read this, since it was in the middle of
> this reply to exscio
>
>
> > snip> (to Bedford)
>
> cutting to the succinct explanation:
>
> >A building with it's purpose go hand in glove as how it's
> > viewed
>
> I understand that, and I can understand how for some it cannot be
> separated from ideas like "pure evil." But I can also understand how
> some can compartmentalize things. A building can be separated from
> purpose.
>
> I actually think this is an interesting discussion, but the event that
> started it, Tory's passing comments on a paint job hardly rise to a
> triggering event for the discussion.
>
> Let's say in 10 years Scientology is defunct and Cedars is abandoned.
> A new developer wants to tear it down. Someone from a historic
> preservation commission argues to preserve the building because of its
> historic look and/or connection to Scientology. That's the kind of
> event where your response would be more appropriate. You've used a
> $10 argument on a 2 cent comment.
Since none of what she says is a "use once" argument, this doesn't matter.
It will be as true in 10 years as it is today. If one were to wait it would
certainly give the opportunity for a court to ask "why haven't you come
forward before?", a favorite tactic of attempted invalidation.
> > The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
> > reason;
>
> My historical ignorance: what, then, was the building Christo wrapped
> just a few years ago?
I believe it was the Brandenburg Gate ... still standing.
> >I *don't* think Tory's stupid which
> > is why I'm making the connection between the building's exterior vs.
> > the buildings 'purpose' in her mind.
>
> Yes: you are suggesting a "way of seeing." She is doing the same to
> you.
> >
> >Tory WAS
> > INVOLVED with scientology as a major player.
>
> With all due respect to Tory, I wouldn't describe her as that. She
> was a long term public member. With respect to the people running the
> show, she was a fringe player to the semi-major players. She had a
> limited volunteer role for a brief time. The fact that she is the
> only one who participates here makes her the biggest player here, but
> that's about it.
And this means, what, exactly.?
> > Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"
> > it's ME.
>
> Your rights don't exclude anyone else's rights, of course. Based on
> your apparent history (have you shared the details?), if you have a
> comment on the building I'd certainly listen.
Since that's not what was said, your off-sides remark is irrelevant.
> >I out of anyone on ARS should have the
> > right to have some fond memories of that building just by having been
> > born there. Do I?? Of course not!!!.
>
> Yes, one would have hoped you had some fond memories. It sounds like
> you got totally screwed in your experience. I mean it when I say I'm
> sorry to hear that.
This potentially-ingratiating comment, however, doesn't somehow infuse your
assumed opinion with verity.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
- LRH's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
Rod Keller
> "Bedford McIntosh" <ploc...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
>> just a few years ago?
> I believe it was the Brandenburg Gate ... still standing.
Cristo, not Christo, wrapped the Reichstag in 1995.
http://www.structurae.de/en/photos/img2401.php
The building was completed in 1895, burned once in 1933 probably by the
Nazi party, but it was blamed on Communists as part of Hitler's rise to
power. The building burned again in 1945 when the Russian army came to
Berlin. (The Russians destroyed a lot of buildings in Germany, the most
famous is probably blowing up the swastika on top of the grandstand at
Nuremberg.) The Reichstag was renovated in the 1960s and converted to its
present use in 1999 as the home of the Bundestag, the main German
Parliament.
The burning of the building in 1933 prevented Hitler from actually ruling
Germany from the Reichstag, but it's still a symbol of the idea of a
German empire. Reich meaning Empire.
It's a nice place to visit, and has a great view of the city from the
glass dome and spiral observation platforms on top.
I don't know that Scientology has a signature building. There are several
good candidates, including Big Blue, CC Int., the Saint Hill Castle, the
Fort Harrison, the Ship at Gold Base, and possibly a few others. In the
future, I think the Super Power building may become the symbol of
Scientology, surpassing all of these.
All of this has no bearing on how a simple comment from Tory about the
state of the paint on Big Blue means anything about her as a former
Scientologist and activist.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Bedford McIntosh
> Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:<fde65v4aeade6p46r...@4ax.com>..
>
> feigning scientology criticism when in fact their not *mentally* out.
ARS hasn't been around long enough to know whether it might useful for
someone in Tory's position. I'm not sure there are any previous
analogs to it. People have expressed opinions on it, but I don't
think there is a clear answer. I for one suspect ex's are best served
by getting some books on the topic and getting the hell away from it
all (including both ARS and the COS).
That said, Tory feels it's good for her to be here, and who am I (or
you) to say otherwise? In many ways, arsers filled a huge gap that
was created in her life when she was declared. That had to have some
beneficial effect. Still, the argument has been made that it is
swapping (in loose terms) one cult for another, but we see that all
the time (methadone for heroin; a patch for a cigarette, etc.) for the
mitigating effects the new "addiction" can have.
> Observation:
> This 'subtle'
I'd say "deft" and "well written" but that's just me...
>follow-up by you that I'm 'over-reacting' on "2 cents"
> is a covert
Nothing covert about it, no matter how many times you say so...
>measure to get reader attention onto ME as the
> 'over-reactor' and off of Tory.. Sorry--I'm not stupid to fall for
> your 'thread help'.
Uh...I was just countering your argument. That would tend to involve
you.
> Case in point:
> Your implying I'm "angry" when saying you'd rather see Tory 'floating
> forever 'in scientology mind-programming' than be 'angry' which is
> implicit back stabbing bull shit.
Well, in (the unsnipped version of) this post alone of yours you
dropped:
1 - "fuck you asshole"
4 - "fuck you"
1 - "screw off"
1 - "go fuck yourself"
...and we've never even met. Nah, you're not angry.
> Shall I
> reiterate for the hundredth time the main theme found in Torys post
> which we should be commenting on? Tory: "Skillions of fond memories"
> (towards experiences in scientology); "I just LOVE CC";; "recent ARC
> applied to a staffer and photo ops with friends next to the staffer"
> "Nice paint job"; "If they keep smiling (staff) that should help their
> PR with the public" etc.
Yeah, but she currently despises the church in many other ways, like
up to a gazillion or so, which is a heck of a lot more than skillions.
Why do you purposely bypass my running
> time-line points by instead trying to give me 'advice' through OUT OF
> CONTEXT snipping to forward your obvious agenda?
No more snipping than you, man.
>Your
> not even hiding it well. :-)
This from an anonymous poster. Oh the irony.
> >> The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
> >> reason;
>
>
> >My historical ignorance: what, then, was the building Christo wrapped
> >just a few years ago?
>
>
> The original Reichstag intact as it was before 1945, for renovating
> 'christo wrapped'? Nice try you twerp.. Here's how the Reichstag
> looked after the Russians took care of business in 1945:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/7002/Reichstag1945.html
>
> Your not fooling me a bit behind that snippy comment BedFord. Your a
> Tory damage control apologist at best,, probably by phone. Your trying
> to grab at ANYTHING including the Reichstag, showing nervousness.
That wasn't a snippy comment, this is a snippy comment: It's "you're"
darn it, not "your" when you mean "you are." You've written that like
20 times now in this thread; 3 in that last paragraph alone. I just
can't take it anymore.
I
> wonder why?? :-)
Uh...reality check: you introduced the Reichstag to the thread. I
just ran with it.
> I'm
> so far beyond Tory as a recovered ex (19 years) she doesn't have the
> right to kiss my ex-shorts in "how to see" anything. Get it?? It's a
> fact and take the medicine.
(saving this for later)
>
>
> >>
> >>Tory WAS
> >> INVOLVED with scientology as a major player.
>
> >With all due respect to Tory, I wouldn't describe her as that. She
> >was a long term public member.
>
>
> Not true. ... But it's rare compared to the over-all
> number of public scientologists. Period.
Just because it is rare (I have no quibble with that) doesn't mean her
role was major.
> Bedford,, my comments are *in* the posts already but you won't get the
> details of my 'birth records' originally compiled at Cedars (ASHO). An
> OSA troll might want that information..hmmmm...not you,...ehhh?,
> didn't think so :-))))
OK, pulling out that comment from above: you're out 19 years, post
anonymously and don't want OSA to know who you are.
Tory is out two years, is very public, and doesn't seem to care one
bit about OSA.
Is there a contradiction with that information and your statement
that: "I'm so far beyond Tory as a recovered ex"? Whose life is today
more controlled by the COS?
> >Yes, one would have hoped you had some fond memories.
>
> Fuck You asshole. Your actual intent is loud and clear from that way
> out of context snide remark from what it was originally addressing.
I typed it sincerely. You read it as snide. I can only control my
end of things.
>
> Thanks for letting me know where your real interests lie BeDfOrd. I'll
> be prepared if there's ever a "next time"
Yes, prevailing in an argument with me takes many years of practice
and preparation.
Rod Keller
> Cristo, not Christo, wrapped the Reichstag in 1995.
My goof. Despite a few sites that spell it Cristo, it appears to be
Christo. He still wrapped the Reichstag.
Bedford McIntosh
> "Bedford McIntosh" <ploc...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
> news:c5757860.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:<fde65v4aeade6p46r...@4ax.com>...
> > A new developer wants to tear it down. Someone from a historic
> > preservation commission argues to preserve the building because of its
> > historic look and/or connection to Scientology. That's the kind of
> > event where your response would be more appropriate. You've used a
> > $10 argument on a 2 cent comment.
>
> Since none of what she says is a "use once" argument, this doesn't matter.
> It will be as true in 10 years as it is today. If one were to wait it would
> certainly give the opportunity for a court to ask "why haven't you come
> forward before?", a favorite tactic of attempted invalidation.
Get a grip, man. This is a somewhat-less-than obscure corner of the
internet. The failure to make a specific argument here WRT this topic
could have no effect on a legal proceeding 10 years hence.
>
> > > The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
> > > reason;
> >
> > My historical ignorance: what, then, was the building Christo wrapped
> > just a few years ago?
>
> I believe it was the Brandenburg Gate ... still standing.
No, it was the Reichstag, and the Germans spent a fortune to renovate
it. Apparently there were those who shared Z-blade's point of view on
the general topic, but the Germans chose to fix it up.
> > With all due respect to Tory, I wouldn't describe her as that. She
> > was a long term public member. With respect to the people running the
> > show, she was a fringe player to the semi-major players. She had a
> > limited volunteer role for a brief time. The fact that she is the
> > only one who participates here makes her the biggest player here, but
> > that's about it.
>
> And this means, what, exactly.?
It means that the concept of "major" in ars does not necessarily
translate to "major" in RTC.
Actually Jesse Prince is probably the most "major player" (i.e.
ex-formal RTC personnel) here, but he doesn't post all too frequently.
>
> > > Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"
> > > it's ME.
> >
> > Your rights don't exclude anyone else's rights, of course. Based on
> > your apparent history (have you shared the details?), if you have a
> > comment on the building I'd certainly listen.
>
> Since that's not what was said, your off-sides remark is irrelevant.
After re-reading this my comment strikes me as on point, so I
disagree.
> > > Yes, one would have hoped you had some fond memories. It sounds like
> > you got totally screwed in your experience. I mean it when I say I'm
> > sorry to hear that.
>
> This potentially-ingratiating comment, however, doesn't somehow infuse your
> assumed opinion with verity.
I never claimed it would or should.
Your apparent non-sequitor, however, doesn't somehow make Ford produce
more blue cars.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
> "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <noteart...@removehotmail.com> wrote in
message news:<b32pcn$r1o$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > "Bedford McIntosh" <ploc...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
> > news:c5757860.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > > Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> > news:<fde65v4aeade6p46r...@4ax.com>...
> > > Let's say in 10 years Scientology is defunct and Cedars is abandoned.
> > > A new developer wants to tear it down. Someone from a historic
> > > preservation commission argues to preserve the building because of its
> > > historic look and/or connection to Scientology. That's the kind of
> > > event where your response would be more appropriate. You've used a
> > > $10 argument on a 2 cent comment.
> >
> > Since none of what she says is a "use once" argument, this doesn't
matter.
> > It will be as true in 10 years as it is today. If one were to wait it
would
> > certainly give the opportunity for a court to ask "why haven't you come
> > forward before?", a favorite tactic of attempted invalidation.
>
> Get a grip, man. This is a somewhat-less-than obscure corner of the
> internet. The failure to make a specific argument here WRT this topic
> could have no effect on a legal proceeding 10 years hence.
Ahem, use English when communicating. And be consistent for Pete's sake!
On one hand you attempt to invalidate using non-applicable means, as if to
distract from your failed effort to do PR tactics on Tory. On the other you
attempt to argue based upon your debate opponent not sticking to the
"subject". But since you try to change the subject, it can only be assumed
that you're letting loose with every Co$ tool you can in order to "silence"
Tory, and invalidate her statements.
Hint. Doesn't work.
> > > > The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a
> > > > reason;
> > >
> > > My historical ignorance: what, then, was the building Christo wrapped
> > > just a few years ago?
> >
> > I believe it was the Brandenburg Gate ... still standing.
>
> No, it was the Reichstag, and the Germans spent a fortune to renovate
> it. Apparently there were those who shared Z-blade's point of view on
> the general topic, but the Germans chose to fix it up.
Ah, on this one I stand corrected.
> > > With all due respect to Tory, I wouldn't describe her as that. She
> > > was a long term public member. With respect to the people running the
> > > show, she was a fringe player to the semi-major players. She had a
> > > limited volunteer role for a brief time. The fact that she is the
> > > only one who participates here makes her the biggest player here, but
> > > that's about it.
> >
> > And this means, what, exactly.?
>
> It means that the concept of "major" in ars does not necessarily
> translate to "major" in RTC.
Who gives a flying patootie what the RTC thinks?
> Actually Jesse Prince is probably the most "major player" (i.e.
> ex-formal RTC personnel) here, but he doesn't post all too frequently.
> >
> > > > Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"
> > > > it's ME.
> > >
> > > Your rights don't exclude anyone else's rights, of course. Based on
> > > your apparent history (have you shared the details?), if you have a
> > > comment on the building I'd certainly listen.
> >
> > Since that's not what was said, your off-sides remark is irrelevant.
>
> After re-reading this my comment strikes me as on point, so I
> disagree.
And your point is...? Be precise. We're all waiting. Yawn!
Chris Leithiser
>
> Rod Keller <rke...@unix01.voicenet.com> wrote:
> > Cristo, not Christo, wrapped the Reichstag in 1995.
>
> My goof. Despite a few sites that spell it Cristo, it appears to be
> Christo. He still wrapped the Reichstag.
And gave my area deadly yellow umbrellas.
NotAScn
McIntosh) wrote:
>Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<ile95vk6ff8aguaii...@4ax.com>...
>> Zorrosblade........Z <zorro...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>> news:<fde65v4aeade6p46r...@4ax.com>..
>>
>>> ARS is not a venue to 'work out one's programming problems' while
>> feigning scientology criticism when in fact their not *mentally* out.
>
>ARS hasn't been around long enough to know whether it might useful for
>someone in Tory's position. I'm not sure there are any previous
>analogs to it. People have expressed opinions on it, but I don't
>think there is a clear answer. I for one suspect ex's are best served
>by getting some books on the topic and getting the hell away from it
>all (including both ARS and the COS).
I've always been of that opinion, however ..
>That said, Tory feels it's good for her to be here, and who am I (or
>you) to say otherwise? In many ways, arsers filled a huge gap that
>was created in her life when she was declared. That had to have some
>beneficial effect.
Valid point.
He :)
FWIW, I think your posts show admirable control and are well
considered and thoughtful. I can't understand how they have generated
such negative reaction.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Chris Leithiser" <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3E564F62...@bc.cc.ca.us...
It's a shame they gave in to the whiners and took them down, the week before
I was going to drive up and see them. But that's California fer yez.