Another foot bullet comming
_home.com
of the disaster in New York. Take a longer range view though. Just imagine
what will happen when the firemen they claim to have assisted start getting
calls from the New York Org. Maybe the fireman might even visit the Org.
Take the silly personality exam, then the scammers will show themselves for
what they are, they will start asking for money, lots of money, and they
don't ask nicely. The folks that got sucked in will storm out and tell
their families,coworkers, friends what a nasty high pressure crazy bunch
Scientologists are. The press might hear , run a couple articles, and
presto another foot bullet for the clams.
Remember most everything they try eventually backfires because at heart the
cult is only about money and control. This is a criminal activity that is
only successful when it stays in the shadows.
clay
Fluffygirl
<claygill@nospam _home.com> wrote in message
news:lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com...
> I know it makes us angry to watch the crime cult trying to take advantage
> of the disaster in New York.
Just because the church sees this as a PR opportunity- which they certainly
do- does not in any way mean that the individual Scientologists going there
to help are not sincere. Many of them are quite sincere.
But since they are members of CofS- since they feel they are supposed to be,
then this is the frame of reference in which they act.
Since this happened, I've talked to many Scientologists, both in and out of
CofS. All are uniformly horrified at what happened. Many are donating blood.
Many are going to NYC to help. Some are making donations. (like me)
I've also seen, on another forum, postings from one or two individuals whom
I'm sure are PR or OSA. In those postings an entirely different vibe, if you
will, is given off. I've seen them start out talking about this horrible
disaster and then segue into critic and disaffected Scn'ist bashing. This is
a pretty negative thing for them to do but then again it's not too
dissimilar to what some others here are doing in their posts. Starting out
talking about the tragedy and then seguing into bitching about Scn'ists.
Bitching about touch assists, bitching about tshirts being worn, on and on.
Those particular posts are virtually identical - just change the names and
nouns- to what PR-minded church staff or operatives are writing.
And in any case, the majority of Scn'ists- the individual members who are
going down following their church management- THOSE people - by and large
just want to help.
They just happen to have church leaders who are what I'd call PR'centric.
They believe that this is the framework in which they should act.
As someone who was active in the church for a long time, who used to utterly
believe everything I was told, I completely understand this.
Bottom line= these people for the most part intend to help and are going to
help.
This should be commended.
One can condemn the things worth condemning and commend other aspects of the
same set of deeds. It calls for differentiation but it can be done.
So many critics have, historically and rightly, been angry at the church for
not differentiating about critics and "evil psychs" and I myself always
wince when I hear Scn'ists get going and bash those individuals, but you
know what, I'm seeing some lack of differentiation right here coming from
the other direction.
Claire
Phil Scott
. if the firemen complaint the cult will send thugs after them and shudder them
into silence like usual.
clay...@nospamhome.com
>
><claygill@nospam _home.com> wrote in message
>news:lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com...
>> I know it makes us angry to watch the crime cult trying to take advantage
>> of the disaster in New York.
>
>Just because the church sees this as a PR opportunity- which they certainly
>do- does not in any way mean that the individual Scientologists going there
>to help are not sincere. Many of them are quite sincere.
But they in service to an evil system. That reminds me of the "good German"
stories you used to hear.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
><claygill@nospam _home.com> wrote in message
>news:lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com...
>> I know it makes us angry to watch the crime cult trying to take advantage
>> of the disaster in New York.
>
>Just because the church sees this as a PR opportunity- which they certainly
>do- does not in any way mean that the individual Scientologists going there
>to help are not sincere. Many of them are quite sincere.
Sincerity is neutral. Terrorists are sincere. Sincerity can easily be
manipulated. Scientologists are sincere in their hatred of wogs (R)
and wog (R) institutions. The Scientologists in New York are sincere
in their desire to prevent traumatized wogs (R) from getting real
help.
>
>But since they are members of CofS- since they feel they are supposed to be,
>then this is the frame of reference in which they act.
So here, for this argument, you see Scientologists as having a group
frame of reference. Elsewhere you insist Scientologists are
individuals all thinking individually.
>
>Since this happened, I've talked to many Scientologists, both in and out of
>CofS. All are uniformly horrified at what happened. Many are donating blood.
>Many are going to NYC to help. Some are making donations. (like me)
Are they all uniformly horrifed at their cult's effort, clearly
involving the $ea Org and organized, to prevent traumatized wogs (R)
from getting real help?
>
>I've also seen, on another forum, postings from one or two individuals whom
>I'm sure are PR or OSA. In those postings an entirely different vibe, if you
>will, is given off. I've seen them start out talking about this horrible
>disaster and then segue into critic and disaffected Scn'ist bashing. This is
>a pretty negative thing for them to do but then again it's not too
>dissimilar to what some others here are doing in their posts. Starting out
>talking about the tragedy and then seguing into bitching about Scn'ists.
Bullshit. This is alt.religion [$]cientology. Everything here relates
to $cientology, or it shouldn't be here. But $cientology injected
itself in a fraudulent manner into the disaster scene, and with an
evil purpose: to prevent traumatized wogs (R) from getting real help.
This is sickening in a sickening scene. You better believe we bitch.
>Bitching about touch assists, bitching about tshirts being worn, on and on.
>Those particular posts are virtually identical - just change the names and
>nouns- to what PR-minded church staff or operatives are writing.
Bullshit. We're bitching about your cult's fraud, taking advantage of
the disaster, its attacks on mental health professionals at the scene,
and its hiding of its criminal actions. You might wish that we bitch
about t-shirts and touch assists, but that's just your bullshit wish
for us. Address the real wrong evidenced in the $cientology staffers'
posts exposed here on a.r.s.
>
>And in any case, the majority of Scn'ists- the individual members who are
>going down following their church management- THOSE people - by and large
>just want to help.
Sure they do. And your cult has a decades long history of manipulating
people's desire to help for its antisocial, criminal purposes. That is
the issue and you're obfuscating it.
>
>They just happen to have church leaders who are what I'd call PR'centric.
The Islamic terrorists are/were PR'centric too, right. Congressman
Ryan called Scientologists jackals. The hateful actions by
Scientologists trying to prevent traumatized wogs (R) from getting
real help sure proves Ryan right.
>
>They believe that this is the framework in which they should act.
Yes, and terrorists believe that they have the framework in which they
should act too.
>
>As someone who was active in the church for a long time, who used to utterly
>believe everything I was told, I completely understand this.
Do you? You haven't shown that in your defense of the jackals running
the cult.
>
>Bottom line= these people for the most part intend to help and are going to
>help.
>
>This should be commended.
>
>One can condemn the things worth condemning and commend other aspects of the
>same set of deeds. It calls for differentiation but it can be done.
Then do it. Condemn all of $cientology that should be condemned and
set an example.
>
>So many critics have, historically and rightly, been angry at the church for
>not differentiating about critics and "evil psychs" and I myself always
>wince when I hear Scn'ists get going and bash those individuals, but you
>know what, I'm seeing some lack of differentiation right here coming from
>the other direction.
What from wogs (R)?
You Scientologists put this premium on "differentiation," but it's
like the premium you put on "sincerity." Differentiation can be used
for harm or for good. $cientology teaches it to be used for harm, for
manipulation of wogs (R).
And how about this:
"Michael Faenza, president and chief executive of the National Mental
Health Association, called the hotline number [1-800-for-truth]
"outrageous" and said Scientology "is the last organization"
emotionally vulnerable people should call."
Do you think Faenza is just an undifferentiating "critic?"
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Claire
>
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3ba629a7$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> <claygill@nospam _home.com> wrote in message
> news:lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com...
> > I know it makes us angry to watch the crime cult trying to take
advantage
> > of the disaster in New York.
>
> Just because the church sees this as a PR opportunity- which they
certainly
> do- does not in any way mean that the individual Scientologists going
there
> to help are not sincere. Many of them are quite sincere.
The cowards on the planes were sincere too, clam.
> But since they are members of CofS- since they feel they are supposed to
be,
> then this is the frame of reference in which they act.
This doesn't excuse their aiding and abetting a criminal operation like
$cientology, which uses them to achieve its own ends, and could give a
flying fart about anyone's suffering, unless it helps the nut-cult's bank
accounts.
> Since this happened, I've talked to many Scientologists, both in and out
of
> CofS. All are uniformly horrified at what happened. Many are donating
blood.
> Many are going to NYC to help. Some are making donations. (like me)
It still doesn't excuse the criminal behavior of your nut-cult, in NYC nor
anywhere else. You are being revealed for what $cientology is, worldwide.
> I've also seen, on another forum, postings from one or two individuals
whom
> I'm sure are PR or OSA. In those postings an entirely different vibe, if
you
> will, is given off. I've seen them start out talking about this horrible
> disaster and then segue into critic and disaffected Scn'ist bashing. This
is
> a pretty negative thing for them to do but then again it's not too
> dissimilar to what some others here are doing in their posts. Starting out
> talking about the tragedy and then seguing into bitching about Scn'ists.
> Bitching about touch assists, bitching about tshirts being worn, on and
on.
> Those particular posts are virtually identical - just change the names and
> nouns- to what PR-minded church staff or operatives are writing.
Bad mirroring, and a lie. It wasn't just "tshirts being worn", as you've
edited it carefully. It's "yellow t-shirts being worn in order to get past
security checkpoints, in the hope of fooling police and national guardsmen
into thinking you're actually performing humanitarian efforts.
> And in any case, the majority of Scn'ists- the individual members who are
> going down following their church management- THOSE people - by and large
> just want to help.
It still doesn't excuse the criminal intent of your ufo nut-cult. Get
outside the cult and get your life back, then come back to us and let us
know how you're doing.
> They just happen to have church leaders who are what I'd call PR'centric.
"I was just following orders", huh? We've heard that before, at the
Nuremburg trials. It wasn't a valid excuse then, either.
> They believe that this is the framework in which they should act.
So if they believe they're doing good enough, it becomes a good thing?
Flunk, start again.
> As someone who was active in the church for a long time, who used to
utterly
> believe everything I was told, I completely understand this.
You don't understand any of it. You're under mind-control by a cult that
recommends against and persecutes independent thought.
> Bottom line= these people for the most part intend to help and are going
to
> help.
Whether we like it or not, huh? Ennnh, wrong answer.
> This should be commended.
I'm sure your cult will print up a lot of stuff commending the criminal
behavior of its members, and will also attempt to get good PR out of this.
They're already attempting, and have been revealed for what they are:
GHOULS.
> One can condemn the things worth condemning and commend other aspects of
the
> same set of deeds. It calls for differentiation but it can be done.
This is planting ground for lies and excuses for criminal behavior. By this
standard, killing jews and gypsies was "crowd control". You can't have it
both ways, clam. You're wandering in a grey area that the cult calls
"humanitarian advocacy" but the rest of the world sees more and more as
criminal desception.
> So many critics have, historically and rightly, been angry at the church
for
> not differentiating about critics and "evil psychs" and I myself always
> wince when I hear Scn'ists get going and bash those individuals, but you
> know what, I'm seeing some lack of differentiation right here coming from
> the other direction.
That's because you're misled by your criminal nut-cult. It's a given.
Fluffygirl
<clay...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
news:05ddqtktckerkl0lo...@4ax.com...
The intentions matter. And the deeds. Here you have Scn'ists donating blood
and helping out at Ground Zero.
And there (heaven forgive you for invoking Godwin's law!) what you had was
people looking the other way when Jews, learning disabled people.
homosexuals and others were rounded up for the gas chambers.
Here we are discussing the intentions of people going down to help other
people.
Unlike the "good Germans" (in many a documentary I've seen including "Shoah"
and in many a book I've read) who were helping no one except themselves.
Your analogy does not work.
C
Fluffygirl
"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
news:1thdqts74975blh58...@4ax.com...
If you think I've defended church management you really must not have read
anything I've written for the past very long while.
C
Fluffygirl
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
<snip irrelevant text>
What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such thing.
I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
C
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
><clay...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
>news:05ddqtktckerkl0lo...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:50:55 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><claygill@nospam _home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com...
>> >> I know it makes us angry to watch the crime cult trying to take
>advantage
>> >> of the disaster in New York.
>> >
>> >Just because the church sees this as a PR opportunity- which they
>certainly
>> >do- does not in any way mean that the individual Scientologists going
>there
>> >to help are not sincere. Many of them are quite sincere.
>>
>> But they in service to an evil system. That reminds me of the "good
>German"
>> stories you used to hear.
>
>The intentions matter. And the deeds. Here you have Scn'ists donating blood
>and helping out at Ground Zero.
>
>And there (heaven forgive you for invoking Godwin's law!) what you had was
>people looking the other way when Jews, learning disabled people.
>homosexuals and others were rounded up for the gas chambers.
In the $cientology case, we have the intention, which is very close to
the nazi intention: to dispose of (downtone, or undesirable, take your
pick) wogs (R) quietly and without sorrow.
We wogs (R) recognizing the horror of Scientologists' intention speak
out and act before your organization can perform its evil deed.
Why don't you speak out against this insane Hubbard intention in your
"scriptures?" It will bring your organization only ignomy. Wogs (R)
are waking up across the world to this evil $cientology intention.
>
>Here we are discussing the intentions of people going down to help other
>people.
Sure, and it is patently clear that Hubbard thought disposing of
people, including the disabled and homosexuals, would be a big
planetary help. Do you believe Hubbard is right in what he writes
about people below 2.0 on your tone scale? Do you agree with this evil
intention?
>
>Unlike the "good Germans" (in many a documentary I've seen including "Shoah"
>and in many a book I've read) who were helping no one except themselves.
And exactly who are Scientologists helping when they prevent trauma
victims from getting professional help? Or when they leave stand their
evil intention of disposing of wogs (R) quietly and without sorrow.
Doesn't Hubbard's intention here give you pause about $cientology at
all?
>
>Your analogy does not work.
The $cientology/naziism analogy works well enough to prevent the
slaughter of billions of wogs (R).
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>C
>
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
>"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
><snip irrelevant text>
>
>What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
Here's a small and pathetic defense of your cult.
You know very well that your cult is the $cientology cult.
>
>You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such thing.
A pathetic defense. It's like saying that a Christian church goer has
no church because he or she isn't the boss of the church.
Your cult is the same $cientology cult run by David Miscavige which
you have been a part of and defender of from the day or your arrival
on a.r.s.
The fact that you're not in your cult building taking courses or being
audited right now doesn't change the fact that it's your cult. I don't
have a cult, but you do.
If that isn't your cult then make it not your cult. Don't play these
uncute word games.
>
>I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
Are you a Scientologist in good standing? If so, it's your cult. If
you don't want your cult to be your cult then publicly announce your
desire to no longer be a Scientologist in good standing. Otherwise we
wogs (R) will call your cult your cult.
I really recommend that you do publicly announce your departure from
$cientology and announce that you're now a wog (R). You could start a
revolution, a reformation.
If you stand with us wogs (R) in opposition to your cult there will be
less chance that any of us will be by your cult disposed of quietly or
noisily or sorrowlessly or any other way.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>C
>
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Really! This differs greatly from the things you've said pre-WTC. But why
should I be surprised?
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
You must not have read much of what Claire has said. She's said
quite clearly that she doesn't follow the "Church" of Scientology in
all things, that Hubbard said many things, some of which she
considers to be quite useful, and that she follows the things she
thinks are useful.
She hasn't changed this position a bit, except to acknowlege that
there are abuses which she wasn't aware were so ubiquitous within the
"Church", and that she did long before the WTC tragedy.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6ee+kktf2e/DGsoEQK4EQCg7ifY12LU2ddX6ZfTsetsSqg0JX4An2lb
hI5JbH7FvWRG784rrcQzhSrz
=YPC8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fluffygirl
"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
<Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:23:15 GMT.
> In Message-ID: <DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
> From: "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com>.
> Organization: All Your Ron Are Belong To Us.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: Another foot bullet comming:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
> >message news:1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
> >> > in message
> >> > news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> >
> >> > <snip irrelevant text>
> >> >
> >> > What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
> >> >
> >> > You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such
> >> > thing.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
> >>
> >> Really! This differs greatly from the things you've said pre-WTC.
> >> But why should I be surprised?
> >>
> >>
> > You must not have read much of what Claire has said. She's said
> >quite clearly that she doesn't follow the "Church" of Scientology in
> >all things, that Hubbard said many things, some of which she
> >considers to be quite useful, and that she follows the things she
> >thinks are useful.
>
> said wht it is she doesn't agree with, and what it is that she do agree
> with. Time after time, people have asked her, but she refuse to give any
> specifics.
That's just not true. I've been quite specific. My "Compassion" post of
several months ago is one. And MANY before and after that one, as well. I've
decried the church's handling of critics, how Finn McMillan (Stress Centre)
was treated, the treatment of the Woodcraft Children, treatment of SO
members, enforced disconnection, prices, slamming of "psychs", treatment of
"illegal pcs" and a bunch of other things. Those are specific statements.
Your info is well over a year out of date.
Why is that?
>
> >
> >She hasn't changed this position a bit, except to acknowlege that
> >there are abuses which she wasn't aware were so ubiquitous within the
> >"Church", and that she did long before the WTC tragedy.
And Norle Enturbulata knows that even if he's forgotten it now as he and I
had discussion on that over a month ago or so.
>
> She wants to have one foot in each camp.
I just wanna be me.
C
Fluffygirl
"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
<Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:40:57 -0700.
> In Message-ID: <3ba7a2fd$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
> From: "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>.
> Organization: Lightlink Internet.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: Another foot bullet comming:
>
> >
> articles the last year or so, just because I got tired of never getting
> any specifics pro or con.
Understandable.
But now I hope that you see that I've been pretty specific as of late.
C
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
>"ŠAnti-CultŽ - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
How about your cult's treatment of Gerry Armstrong?
Or do you still maintain that the following statement of yours is true
and accurate?
[Quote]
And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
[End Quote]
How about this?
[Quote]
You were self serving as a church member and you are self serving now.
There are many critics with whom I disagree but whom I can see have
integrity. I do not number you as one of those.
[End Quote]
What exactly do you mean by self serving?
Are you self serving?
Do you know anyone who isn't self serving?
And what exactly do you know about my 12 1/2 years inside your cult
which leads you to the black PR conclusion that I was self serving all
those years? Were my 25 months on the RPF all spent self serving?
How about your black PR that I'm not for freedom of speech? When your
cult is flagrantly, illegally, stupidly, insanely trying and paying
millions of your Scientologists' dollars to suppress my freedom of
speech?
How can you be so two-faced and call for the same standard for
Scientologists? Should we wogs (R) have Scientologists' speech
suppressed as your cult suppresses ours?
Yes, Claire, do you still stand by your black PR attacks on me?
What exactly is the source of your black PR assertion that I'm doing
the same things out of the cult that I did when I was in?
What did $cientology or Scientologists ever tell you about me anyway?
Do you decry your treatment of me?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
>"ŠAnti-CultŽ - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
I don't know. You made these black PR attacks on me in February and
April this year:
[Quote]
And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
[End Quote]
[Quote]
You were self serving as a church member and you are self serving now.
There are many critics with whom I disagree but whom I can see have
integrity. I do not number you as one of those.
[End Quote]
Oh, and this statement?
[Quote]
Thus sayeth Gerry Armstrong, living proof of what happens when a
robotic, overt-y Scientologist leaves the Church.
You act just like the sorts of Scientologists you despise, only you do
it in a different venue, is all.
[End Quote]
All of these were within the last year. And I'm just one wog (R). You
treat all wogs (R) the same right?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > <snip irrelevant text>
> > >
> > > What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
> > >
> > > You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
> >
> > Really! This differs greatly from the things you've said pre-WTC.
> > But why should I be surprised?
> >
> >
> You must not have read much of what Claire has said. She's said
> quite clearly that she doesn't follow the "Church" of Scientology in
> all things, that Hubbard said many things, some of which she
> considers to be quite useful, and that she follows the things she
> thinks are useful.
>
> She hasn't changed this position a bit, except to acknowlege that
> there are abuses which she wasn't aware were so ubiquitous within the
> "Church", and that she did long before the WTC tragedy.
That put her on the level of people who support the IRA but aren't really
"part of the organization", huh?
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000853884.13818....@news.demon.co.uk...
Nothing like a little hyperbole and a few straw men to cut off
communication with people, huh, "Rev"??
Nice of you to feed the OSA trolls assertation that you aren't
willing to dialogue, that you are interested in nothing less than
destruction of what THEY think is a valid and real religion.
Some of us on the critic side like to distinguish ourselves from
those who would condemn every Scn'ist wholesale. Some of us would
like to see the abuses end but don't particularly care what people
believe.
And despicable as the CofS is I don't see public Scn'ists (or even
the CofS, for that matter) setting off bombs.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6fZC0ktf2e/DGsoEQJCYwCg9CuNB26+KO9pybd0lFqmOGijjJoAn15k
ruxXY/fBOyppsKr1CGprarUz
=RGge
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
It's obvious she doesn't like you, Gerry. I can't speak for her
opinion of you. But I can say that *I'm* a wog (R) and she certainly
doesn't treat me that way. She doesn't treat Raptavio, another
wog(R), nor anyone else she doesn't personally dislike.
What, you are saying she's not allowed to dislike any wog(R) ? That
if she dislikes any wog (R) it is evidence that she's mouthing OSA
lines or something?
Hell, Gerry, I don't like certain wogs(R). Does this mean I'm serving
OSA unless I stand in solidarity with all wogs(R) and hate all
Scn'ists (R) ??
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6fbhkktf2e/DGsoEQJKCwCdF2hQtXDtK8Bc7Bo1DgL0D4qujC8An1FD
WjpiKGzBKZrgelahw02vOsNU
=gqTr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LronsScam
Cu...@galacticfederation.homeip.net>,
In article ID
<00afqtsq42209th6e...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
On or about Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:01:45 +0200,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/ says...
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:57:56 -0700.
>In Message-ID: <3ba7a6f8$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
Sten Apologizes!!?? Wow, the world is ending.
>>
>>Understandable.
>>
>>But now I hope that you see that I've been pretty specific as of late.
>>
>>C
>>
>
>I may see that, when I stop my U.S bashing, and go back into my archives
>to read your articles :-)
>
>SAZ
>
>
>
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
>news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:40:57 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
I know. That's why I addressed it to her. It's fine that she doesn't
like me, and it's fine that I give her all these opportunities to
change her mind.
> But I can say that *I'm* a wog (R) and she certainly
>doesn't treat me that way.
I know that. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why she says she
opposes the cult's treament of certain people but seems to not oppose
its treatment of me.
I think she misinterprets what I write and what I'm all about.
Scientologists universally do that. I think their misinterpretations
flow from their cult's black PR of me. And from their
misinterpretations flow their actions, which have been to me
threatening and extremely costly for going on twenty years.
Claire has been claiming that she's had these cognitions, that she
used to believe everything the cult told her, that she now doesn't,
and that she has come to see that $cientology is wrong about its
attacks on certain critics.
I would hope she'd come to see that the cult is also wrong about its
attacks on me. And that she is wrong about her attacks on me. I think
it's appropriate here on a.r.s. to confront her with her attacks and
ask for her basis or reason for them.
She has been defending the cult, and the cult has attacked me rather
ruthlessly for these twenty years. I think that's a good issue for her
to address. I think it's good too to invite her to be born again as a
wog (R), just as her cult tries to recruit wogs (R) into their
mindset.
The cult's hatred of Gerry Armstrong is quite monstrous. Tory, Jesse,
Stacy and perhaps others who have left can talk about the
organization-wide Miscavige-directed $cientology hatred of me. Tory,
Jesse and Stacy also came to stop fearing, hating and attacking me and
to accept me once they broke from the cult's domination of their
thinking. I think that's a good thing to work toward with Claire as
well.
The organization black PRs me to Scientologists, and it is clear from
Claire's statements of her "knowledge" of my time inside and outside
of $cientology that she's been the recipient of that black PR. I think
it's appropriate here on a.r.s. to try to get Claire to confront that
black PR and confront her misjudgments of me and everyone else which
are based on $cientology's black PR.
>She doesn't treat Raptavio, another
>wog(R), nor anyone else she doesn't personally dislike.
That's cool.
>
>What, you are saying she's not allowed to dislike any wog(R) ?
Not at all. In fact she's allowed to hate us all, and hate me with all
her heart and all her soul and all her might. And I'm allowed to try
to dissuade her in what I see as a silly choice, that is, to dislike
me based on false data. I'm allowed to pester her on a.r.s. about
falsehoods she's been told or she's told here, or whatever. She and
everyone else are allowed to pester me too.
> That
>if she dislikes any wog (R) it is evidence that she's mouthing OSA
>lines or something?
Not at all. But remember, we are at war. Claire has been doing her
part for $cientology's war machine by being a "reasonable"
representative of the organization. She has practiced a sort of
obfuscation, and sometimes my part is to shred her obfuscatory
efforts.
It is true that she has, since her arrival on a.r.s., in my opinion,
come to actually criticize "management," even after (I think I recall
correctly) she undertook to not criticize them here. I really admire
her for standing up as she has, and for the progress out of
$cientology she's made; and I'm not belittling or mocking her in the
least when I say this.
I actually like Claire, which is why, I suppose, I spend time
communicating to her here on a.r.s.. My heart goes out to her, because
wising up to $cientology, when a person has spent a great part of her
life making it "work," is not an easy task, and for me and others has
been quite dangerous. My heart goes out to her too because $cientology
doesn't deserve her.
>
>Hell, Gerry, I don't like certain wogs(R). Does this mean I'm serving
>OSA unless I stand in solidarity with all wogs(R) and hate all
>Scn'ists (R) ??
Of course not. Nothing in my thousands of posts over the years would
logically lead to that conclusion, or even the conclusion that I hate
Scientologists.
But again remember, we are at war. I want the war $cientology declared
on me, and every other wog (R) ended. I think I've been pretty
unshakeable in that pursuit, and pretty consistent in my
communications and philosophy throughout this time.
It is true that I almost never type smileys to indicate my postulated
jokes, and I poke fun at $cientology, which is a terrible thing :-).
I'm not educated and I'm unread, but I have my own voice and style,
and I strive to be clear in my communications. I also strive to be
accurate in my facts, and differentiate fact from my opinions. I think
Claire is not being truthful when she states that I "write these
strange not-too coherent posts." If wogs (R) can understand them,
superliterate Scientologists should have no trouble :-).
I also try to punctuate my communications to make them easily
understandable, and to spell correctly. I did piss Claire off one time
by mistyping her name, and for that, and all my typos, spelling
errors, grammatical fuckups, and other overts, I apologize.
My message is that Scientologists and wogs (R) are equal in every
significant way, and that $cientology's teaching that Scientologists
are superior to wogs (R) is false and the source of their dirty war on
us.
I have no organization. There is no organization of "critics" as there
is an organization of Scientologists. I fight this war the best I can
as one individual. Claire is not a neutral, she's a combatant. I wish
she were on this side in the war, and I do what I can to woo her to
the wogs (R). But until that happens, or until $cientology sues for
peace, she and every Scientologist should expect unshakeable
opposition.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Kindly give examples. Are you then implying that I'm working on the Third
Party Rule? Don't be an idiot.
> Nice of you to feed the OSA trolls assertation that you aren't
> willing to dialogue, that you are interested in nothing less than
> destruction of what THEY think is a valid and real religion.
OSA Trolls don't really participate in dialogue, they just say enough to
keep people taking up bandwidth.
I vivisect the lies put here by $cientology proponents in their various
forms, like a good number of critics here. This doesn't make $cientology OR
FZ valid, nor a religion, by any stretch of the imagination. The OSA
assertion that I'm not willing to "dialogue" is, like everything else the
OSA puts forth, a lie. How is this not evident to you?
> Some of us on the critic side like to distinguish ourselves from
> those who would condemn every Scn'ist wholesale. Some of us would
> like to see the abuses end but don't particularly care what people
> believe.
I found a great deal of success in the past dealing in-person with clams in
this manner. How is it that just now you're having a problem with the way I
operate here? Collaboration with Evil isn't a tea party. It's just
collaboration with Evil, whether one is apologizing for the cult, shilling
for them, handing out leaflets, or performing specious "touch assists" under
the claim of "helping people" in a disaster area. It disguises itself, but
it's still Evil. That's the way Hubbard designed it.
> And despicable as the CofS is I don't see public Scn'ists (or even
> the CofS, for that matter) setting off bombs.
And you say I'm putting out Straw Men? This is an invalid argument, which
justifies NOTHING.
roger gonnet
Fluffygirl <csw...@home.com> a écrit dans le message :
3ba629a7$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> <claygill@nospam _home.com> wrote in message
> news:lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com...
> > I know it makes us angry to watch the crime cult trying to take
advantage
> > of the disaster in New York.
>
> Just because the church sees this as a PR opportunity- which they
certainly
> do- does not in any way mean that the individual Scientologists going
there
> to help are not sincere. Many of them are quite sincere.
yes. Sincere has not to be equivalent of stupid, d'you know?
r
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000890880.23483....@news.demon.co.uk...
I'm leaving that to you, "Rev.". You seem to be much better at it
than I. After all, I'm not the one who claims that the IRA = Cof S or
just Scn'y as a religion or philosophy in so many words.
> > Nice of you to feed the OSA trolls assertation that you aren't
> > willing to dialogue, that you are interested in nothing less than
> > destruction of what THEY think is a valid and real religion.
>
> OSA Trolls don't really participate in dialogue, they just say
> enough to keep people taking up bandwidth.
No, but real Scn'ists, like Claire are not OSA trolls. And more than
just long time critics read their posts, "Rev.".
> I vivisect the lies put here by $cientology proponents in their
> various forms, like a good number of critics here. This doesn't
> make $cientology OR FZ valid, nor a religion, by any stretch of the
> imagination. The OSA assertion that I'm not willing to "dialogue"
> is, like everything else the OSA puts forth, a lie. How is this
> not evident to you?
You have said it yourself. You don't believe that Scn'y (official
brand) nor FZ is a religion. Care to put forth your argument as to
why your definition of religion should be the one all right thinking
people should adhere to? Like for instance GIVING your definition of
religion, and why you think Scn'y (official brand) or FZ brand isn't
one?
And you seem to think that Claire is OSA. This itself is erroneous,
if you do in fact believe this.
> > Some of us on the critic side like to distinguish ourselves from
> > those who would condemn every Scn'ist wholesale. Some of us would
> > like to see the abuses end but don't particularly care what
> > people believe.
>
> I found a great deal of success in the past dealing in-person with
> clams in this manner. How is it that just now you're having a
> problem with the way I operate here? Collaboration with Evil isn't
> a tea party. It's just collaboration with Evil, whether one is
> apologizing for the cult, shilling for them, handing out leaflets,
> or performing specious "touch assists" under the claim of "helping
> people" in a disaster area. It disguises itself, but it's still
> Evil. That's the way Hubbard designed it.
I see. You think in Black and White. That explains a lot.
Tap the nerve center, watch the knee jerk. Sorry, dear, but I prefer
thinking and rationality. That you don't is evident. But don't expect
others to fall into your little white hat v.black hat trap. You'd
make a great little soldier.
You cannot concieve that GOOD PEOPLE are Scn'ists, and that as usual
there is a mixed bag out there of self serving and selfless in the
religion itself. You are hell bent on being on the path of
righteousness and that you know which camp you belong in. This puts
you in a majority, but honey, it doesn't make you right.
No matter what you believe fervently.
> > And despicable as the CofS is I don't see public Scn'ists (or
> > even the CofS, for that matter) setting off bombs.
>
> And you say I'm putting out Straw Men? This is an invalid
> argument, which justifies NOTHING.
>
You are the one who brought up the IRA. I merely carried the argument
to its logical conclusion.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6jJD0ktf2e/DGsoEQLYvACfTjxH9NxvJwaGUmzayUwSOwBUtW4AoN+P
tqx9SzC6rc/UWyxOqoYjCCT3
=hLda
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fluffygirl
No, I don't. And I don't treat all Scn'ists the same, either.
Anyone who is nasty to me does not fare well in return. Whether that person
be a Scn'ist or a non Scn'ist or whatever.
I already explained that to you weeks ago.
I am not nice to people who are nasty to me. Maybe I can be too bitchy, too
aggressive, whatever. Fine with me if that's how it strikes people.
But everything I wrote was in response to your having slammed me. I'm not
nice when I'm being fucked with. Sorry, but that's how it is.
You don't like it? Then don't fuck with me.
Coming onto the forum with a rude rejoinder to a nasty post does not
constitute a black PR campaign. It only constititutes a rude rejoinder to a
nasty post. Period.
C
Fluffygirl
<snip>
I suggest you figure out the difference between CofS member and Scn'ist.
Then go direct some of this sort of communication at Free Zone members and
such.
Claire Swazey
Do-it-yourself Scientologist
Starshadow
(snip some for brevity)
But you asked her if she treats all wogs (R) the same, so that was an
answer.
> > But I can say that *I'm* a wog (R) and she certainly
> >doesn't treat me that way.
>
> I know that. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why she says she
> opposes the cult's treament of certain people but seems to not oppose
> its treatment of me.
She apparently didn't like something nasty you said to her. Don't ask me
what. I don't want in the middle, I'm only addressing the fact that you
think it's black PR and I'm seeing it as personal dislike, not black PR.
(Not to be interpreted as I agree with that dislike)
> I think she misinterprets what I write and what I'm all about.
> Scientologists universally do that. I think their misinterpretations
> flow from their cult's black PR of me. And from their
> misinterpretations flow their actions, which have been to me
> threatening and extremely costly for going on twenty years.
No question, but she isn't an official Scn'ist. She's a public Scn'ist, and
not saying what she thinks her "Church" wants her to say, but what she
evidently believes.
> Claire has been claiming that she's had these cognitions, that she
> used to believe everything the cult told her, that she now doesn't,
> and that she has come to see that $cientology is wrong about its
> attacks on certain critics.
>
> I would hope she'd come to see that the cult is also wrong about its
> attacks on me. And that she is wrong about her attacks on me. I think
> it's appropriate here on a.r.s. to confront her with her attacks and
> ask for her basis or reason for them.
You can certainly do that. It's a free Usenet, thank the Gods. Just as I can
say that I'm not seeing it the way you are seeing it, "it" being her opinion
of you personally, and my assumption of what you are seeing, if I'm correct,
being you thinking it's just repetitions of black PR.
> She has been defending the cult, and the cult has attacked me rather
> ruthlessly for these twenty years. I think that's a good issue for her
> to address. I think it's good too to invite her to be born again as a
> wog (R), just as her cult tries to recruit wogs (R) into their
> mindset.
But she's said she is still a Scn'ist, and thus wouldn't identify as a
wog --or rather, in her nomenclature, as a non-Scientologist, since she
finds the word "wog" abbhorant and does not use it herself.
> The cult's hatred of Gerry Armstrong is quite monstrous. Tory, Jesse,
> Stacy and perhaps others who have left can talk about the
> organization-wide Miscavige-directed $cientology hatred of me. Tory,
> Jesse and Stacy also came to stop fearing, hating and attacking me and
> to accept me once they broke from the cult's domination of their
> thinking. I think that's a good thing to work toward with Claire as
> well.
Here's hoping dialogue will help.
> The organization black PRs me to Scientologists, and it is clear from
> Claire's statements of her "knowledge" of my time inside and outside
> of $cientology that she's been the recipient of that black PR. I think
> it's appropriate here on a.r.s. to try to get Claire to confront that
> black PR and confront her misjudgments of me and everyone else which
> are based on $cientology's black PR.
Fair enough.
> >She doesn't treat Raptavio, another
> >wog(R), nor anyone else she doesn't personally dislike.
>
> That's cool.
>
> >
> >What, you are saying she's not allowed to dislike any wog(R) ?
>
> Not at all. In fact she's allowed to hate us all, and hate me with all
> her heart and all her soul and all her might. And I'm allowed to try
> to dissuade her in what I see as a silly choice, that is, to dislike
> me based on false data. I'm allowed to pester her on a.r.s. about
> falsehoods she's been told or she's told here, or whatever. She and
> everyone else are allowed to pester me too.
I said "dislike", not "hate". Big difference, there. I don't think Claire
has many hatreds in her. She's a caring and good person, and tends more
toward love than hate, but she does have some strong dislikes and some mild
dislikes in both people and other things.
> > That
> >if she dislikes any wog (R) it is evidence that she's mouthing OSA
> >lines or something?
>
> Not at all. But remember, we are at war. Claire has been doing her
> part for $cientology's war machine by being a "reasonable"
> representative of the organization. She has practiced a sort of
> obfuscation, and sometimes my part is to shred her obfuscatory
> efforts.
I think she tries not to obfuscate, actually. That's the way I see her,
fwiw.
> It is true that she has, since her arrival on a.r.s., in my opinion,
> come to actually criticize "management," even after (I think I recall
> correctly) she undertook to not criticize them here. I really admire
> her for standing up as she has, and for the progress out of
> $cientology she's made; and I'm not belittling or mocking her in the
> least when I say this.
>
> I actually like Claire, which is why, I suppose, I spend time
> communicating to her here on a.r.s.. My heart goes out to her, because
> wising up to $cientology, when a person has spent a great part of her
> life making it "work," is not an easy task, and for me and others has
> been quite dangerous. My heart goes out to her too because $cientology
> doesn't deserve her.
Well, she may decide she still likes the philosophy, no matter what you or I
think of it and of its founder. I think she's entitled to keep those
beliefs, if they truly help her be a better person. And she is a pretty
terrific person, that's for sure.
> >Hell, Gerry, I don't like certain wogs(R). Does this mean I'm serving
> >OSA unless I stand in solidarity with all wogs(R) and hate all
> >Scn'ists (R) ??
>
> Of course not. Nothing in my thousands of posts over the years would
> logically lead to that conclusion, or even the conclusion that I hate
> Scientologists.
Was indulging in hyperbole. Thot you could see that.
> But again remember, we are at war. I want the war $cientology declared
> on me, and every other wog (R) ended. I think I've been pretty
> unshakeable in that pursuit, and pretty consistent in my
> communications and philosophy throughout this time.
>
Me2, but I've evolved from an Us v. Them philosophy. I no longer look at
posts through black and white glasses, depending on who says what. I use my
critical facilities wherever I can and try not to inject my own prejudices
into them.
> It is true that I almost never type smileys to indicate my postulated
> jokes, and I poke fun at $cientology, which is a terrible thing :-).
> I'm not educated and I'm unread, but I have my own voice and style,
> and I strive to be clear in my communications. I also strive to be
> accurate in my facts, and differentiate fact from my opinions. I think
> Claire is not being truthful when she states that I "write these
> strange not-too coherent posts." If wogs (R) can understand them,
> superliterate Scientologists should have no trouble :-).
I think Claire is being truthful as she sees the truth.
It's her opinion, after all.
> I also try to punctuate my communications to make them easily
> understandable, and to spell correctly. I did piss Claire off one time
> by mistyping her name, and for that, and all my typos, spelling
> errors, grammatical fuckups, and other overts, I apologize.
Well, I dunno if I can accept your apology. After all, grammar is Ghod.
Isn't it?? ;}
> My message is that Scientologists and wogs (R) are equal in every
> significant way, and that $cientology's teaching that Scientologists
> are superior to wogs (R) is false and the source of their dirty war on
> us.
Claire has never preached that Scn'ists are superior to wogs. She doesn't
even use the word "wog", as she thinks it's offensive. She has said over and
over that she uses Scn'y for *her benefit* and that she doesn't preach to or
reg people, or proselytise, or hard sell or any such thing and never did
feel comfortable with that.
> I have no organization. There is no organization of "critics" as there
> is an organization of Scientologists. I fight this war the best I can
> as one individual. Claire is not a neutral, she's a combatant. I wish
> she were on this side in the war, and I do what I can to woo her to
> the wogs (R). But until that happens, or until $cientology sues for
> peace, she and every Scientologist should expect unshakeable
> opposition.
You and I differ there, Gerry. I oppose the criminal organization of Scn'y,
and I oppose its crimes and abuses. I do not oppose Scn'y itself. I don't
believe in it any more than I believe in Xtianity. But I don't oppose the
religion, no matter what I think about it.
But you're right. I'm not in an organization of critics. I'm just a tilter
at windmills.
I haven't gone through what you have, to be sure. I can't, as I cannot
afford to put my wife at risk, as it isn't her hobby or choice. So I can
understand your opinion and your opposition of the whole shebang, though I
don't in fact agree wtih it.
But I will tell you when I think you are making a mistake, and lumping in
Claire with opposition isn't likely to get her to like you, IMO.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money, and
Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no OTs , and
Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points, right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
>
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
>"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
>news:344fqt8ce7upe5qpm...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>I suggest you figure out the difference between CofS member and Scn'ist.
This is the start of my study.
Do you receive mailings from any organizations?
If so, which ones?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Then go direct some of this sort of communication at Free Zone members and
>such.
Who in particular? And what exactly should I say?
Are you saying you're now a Free Zone member?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Claire Swazey
>Do-it-yourself Scientologist
>
Fluffygirl
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:32:04 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> >news:344fqt8ce7upe5qpm...@4ax.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I suggest you figure out the difference between CofS member and Scn'ist.
>
> This is the start of my study.
>
> Do you receive mailings from any organizations?
Nope. But then again that has nothing to do with anything.
Several years ago I forwarded all my mail to a po box, then, before closing
the PO box two years later, I manually changed my address with all
creditors, etc. Then I closed the box, leaving no forwarding address. I did
this deliberately so that I could stop getting junk mail from CofS.
The Org said they didn't understand why I'd do that.
My reply was too bad, it's my mailbox, not yours.
And that was as a dyed in the wool party line church member, as that is what
I was at that time.
I continue to not get any mailings, but then again there are bona fide
critics of CofS who have said they get some from time to time, church record
keeping being what it is.
So it may be an indication of sorts, you know, but it's imperfect.
>
> If so, which ones?
>
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
>
> >
> >Then go direct some of this sort of communication at Free Zone members
and
> >such.
>
> Who in particular? And what exactly should I say?
Any one you like. Whatever you always say to me about "your cult this" and
"your cult that".
>
> Are you saying you're now a Free Zone member?
No.
I'm a do it yourself'er.
C
http://free.freespeech.org/fluffygirl/
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Who snapped your straps? I never equated the IRA with the $cientology cult.
They're two entirely different kinds of dangerous organizations.
$cientology is a religion the way the IRA is a bridge club, but that's still
not an equation.
> > > Nice of you to feed the OSA trolls assertation that you aren't
> > > willing to dialogue, that you are interested in nothing less than
> > > destruction of what THEY think is a valid and real religion.
> >
> > OSA Trolls don't really participate in dialogue, they just say
> > enough to keep people taking up bandwidth.
>
> No, but real Scn'ists, like Claire are not OSA trolls. And more than
> just long time critics read their posts, "Rev.".
Interesting. Claire is presently taking the line that she's NOT a
$cientologist. Who's telling the truth?
> > I vivisect the lies put here by $cientology proponents in their
> > various forms, like a good number of critics here. This doesn't
> > make $cientology OR FZ valid, nor a religion, by any stretch of the
> > imagination. The OSA assertion that I'm not willing to "dialogue"
> > is, like everything else the OSA puts forth, a lie. How is this
> > not evident to you?
>
> You have said it yourself. You don't believe that Scn'y (official
> brand) nor FZ is a religion. Care to put forth your argument as to
> why your definition of religion should be the one all right thinking
> people should adhere to? Like for instance GIVING your definition of
> religion, and why you think Scn'y (official brand) or FZ brand isn't
> one?
Religions aren't founded by hack pulp science fiction writers who're into
Satanism. Think about it. Hubbard's habit of redefining words to confuse
the issue perhaps has you also confused. If it was enough to appeal to
people's sensibilities, suck money out of them for steps "over the Bridge",
and never deliver what they promise - sooper powerz and the like - I suppose
$cientology would be considered a religion. Since the only people who
insist that $cientology is a religion are $cientologists, but only mind you
after Hubbard moved the organizations towards the tax dodge of calling it a
religion, this does not in any way make itself one. How is this a source of
confusion for you?
> And you seem to think that Claire is OSA. This itself is erroneous,
> if you do in fact believe this.
I don't know that I believe $cientologists to be anything other than pawns
for an evil organization, acting at the behest of evil people, perhaps
believing that they're doing great things, while still doing the tasks evil
people put them to. That, no matter how many of the
extremely-far-less-than-8-million $cientologists try to insist, does NOT
make it all right. How is this a source of confusion for you?
> > > Some of us on the critic side like to distinguish ourselves from
> > > those who would condemn every Scn'ist wholesale. Some of us would
> > > like to see the abuses end but don't particularly care what
> > > people believe.
> >
> > I found a great deal of success in the past dealing in-person with
> > clams in this manner. How is it that just now you're having a
> > problem with the way I operate here? Collaboration with Evil isn't
> > a tea party. It's just collaboration with Evil, whether one is
> > apologizing for the cult, shilling for them, handing out leaflets,
> > or performing specious "touch assists" under the claim of "helping
> > people" in a disaster area. It disguises itself, but it's still
> > Evil. That's the way Hubbard designed it.
>
> I see. You think in Black and White. That explains a lot.
Hardly. $cientology has exploited the good intentions of both its members
and the general public in order to do some very, very bad things. In fact
many of the redefinitions of language utilized by the cult - and it IS a
cult - make it possible for the hypnotized to actually believe that they are
doing things for the good of the planet and its citizens. This, alas, also
does NOT make it "all right", no matter how hypnotized they are, or how many
times they repeat this to themselves and others. This also appears to be
confusing for you. How do you find this to be other than the case? Your
labelling of me as a black-and-white thinking is ignorant at best.
$cientology is an organization with enough mind-control elements to be
easily called by the informed a "mind-control cult". $cientology holds as
its scripture documents advocating the elimination - not merely conversion,
but ELIMINATION - of whosoever is designated an enemy of the cult, as
Hubbard said, "without sorrow." What religion can you think of that does
this, as well as hires PIs to pursue enemies, lawyers to persecute enemies
and warp the use of law to suit the persecution of those who may only carry
a sign picketing, and make an occasional bad joke? What religion can you
think of that believes that "the purpose of the lawsuit is to harass"?
I didn't paint $cientology the color of the blood of its victims.
$cientology does every day. Right now the blood of their victims is coated
with the dust of the World Trade Center, and $cientology jackal behavior is
being revealed to the public at large by the evermore aware media. Did I do
this? I did not. I have never told a lie about $cientology or its members.
Prove that I have.
> Tap the nerve center, watch the knee jerk. Sorry, dear, but I prefer
> thinking and rationality. That you don't is evident. But don't expect
> others to fall into your little white hat v.black hat trap. You'd
> make a great little soldier.
Bad mirroring of the knee-jerk bit, dear. This is beginning to taste like
the poor attempts to call me and others "Agent Provocateur" before the WTC
disaster hit. Any other accusations without a foundation, based upon your
negative reactions? Save 'em for yourself, you seem to be the only one who
believes them, and the clams who pick it up for ammunition in their favor.
> You cannot concieve that GOOD PEOPLE are Scn'ists, and that as usual
> there is a mixed bag out there of self serving and selfless in the
> religion itself. You are hell bent on being on the path of
> righteousness and that you know which camp you belong in. This puts
> you in a majority, but honey, it doesn't make you right.
I never said that. $cientology members are used by their organization to
serve the purposes of Evil, while being mesmerized into thinking that
they're helping to "clear the planet". Like other totalitarian processes,
however, once all their critics were silenced, $cientology would implode
upon itself, since it largely defines itself these days by its attacks on
enemies as it perceives.
> No matter what you believe fervently.
Whatever. Since I rely upon facts and verified data - in my universe this
constitutes the TRUTH, "dear" - it's not merely a matter of "belief" that
$cientology uses its members for Evil purposes, partially by convincing its
pawns and dupes that they are not doing so. It's not an insignificant
process of mind-control. How is it then that you defend it?
> > > And despicable as the CofS is I don't see public Scn'ists (or
> > > even the CofS, for that matter) setting off bombs.
> >
> > And you say I'm putting out Straw Men? This is an invalid
> > argument, which justifies NOTHING.
> >
>
> You are the one who brought up the IRA. I merely carried the argument
> to its logical conclusion.
Kindly provide the quote about the IRA. I'm intrigued. But what you say
hardly comes to a logical anything, much less a conclusion, unless one
considers it an attack. Which is it then?
Fluffygirl
Huh??
I never said I wasn't a Scientologist.
A non Scientologist would not be likely to describe herself as a
do-it-yourself Scientologist nor would she be likely to say that she is a
Scn'ist by creed, which I've said many times.
>
C
basicbasic
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:41:37 GMT, "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> >news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:40:57 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> >> wrote:
[snip]
> I have no organization. There is no organization of "critics" as there
> is an organization of Scientologists. I fight this war the best I can
> as one individual. Claire is not a neutral, she's a combatant. I wish
> she were on this side in the war, and I do what I can to woo her to
> the wogs (R). But until that happens, or until $cientology sues for
> peace, she and every Scientologist should expect unshakeable
> opposition.
Hi Gerry,
You've said some very nice things about Claire here. I would
say Claire is both a neutral and a combatant. Perhaps what one might in
the nicest way call a loose cannon. :-) There's not many here of
her religion who are willing to be critical. You should treasure that.
bb
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000940282.25755....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > > > > > .uk. ..
Oh, I see. I imagined that you said "That put her on the level of
people who support the IRA but
aren't really "part of the organization", huh?" Just kinda pulled it
out of my own delusions. Sorry.
If you can't see that this is hyperbole, no use talking to you. We
obviously aren't speaking the same language, despite its similarity
to English.
> > > > Nice of you to feed the OSA trolls assertation that you
> > > > aren't willing to dialogue, that you are interested in
> > > > nothing less than destruction of what THEY think is a valid
> > > > and real religion.
> > >
> > > OSA Trolls don't really participate in dialogue, they just say
> > > enough to keep people taking up bandwidth.
> >
> > No, but real Scn'ists, like Claire are not OSA trolls. And more
> > than just long time critics read their posts, "Rev.".
>
> Interesting. Claire is presently taking the line that she's NOT a
> $cientologist. Who's telling the truth?
Claire has never said this. She's said she is a Scn'ist many times.
Dunno what the language is on your planet, "Rev", but here the rest
of us are speaking and writing English, at least in this thread.
(snip for brevity)
> >
> > You have said it yourself. You don't believe that Scn'y (official
> > brand) nor FZ is a religion. Care to put forth your argument as
> > to why your definition of religion should be the one all right
> > thinking people should adhere to? Like for instance GIVING your
> > definition of religion, and why you think Scn'y (official brand)
> > or FZ brand isn't one?
>
> Religions aren't founded by hack pulp science fiction writers
> who're into Satanism. Think about it. Hubbard's habit of
> redefining words to confuse the issue perhaps has you also
> confused. If it was enough to appeal to people's sensibilities,
> suck money out of them for steps "over the Bridge", and never
> deliver what they promise - sooper powerz and the like - I suppose
> $cientology would be considered a religion. Since the only people
> who insist that $cientology is a religion are $cientologists, but
> only mind you after Hubbard moved the organizations towards the tax
> dodge of calling it a religion, this does not in any way make
> itself one. How is this a source of confusion for you?
Religions are founded by all kinds of people. All religions. Is there
some rule that only religions founded by non SF writers and non
Satanists can be religions? Whoops. Better tell the Satanic Church
there goes their right to practice their religion. Whoops, there goes
the LDS church. Whoops, there goes Xtianity. Whoops, there goes all
the rest, any one of which have been labeled as "satanist" by someone
else sure they have The Truth.
Boy, I'm glad I don't live on your planet.
> > And you seem to think that Claire is OSA. This itself is
> > erroneous, if you do in fact believe this.
>
> I don't know that I believe $cientologists to be anything other
> than pawns for an evil organization, acting at the behest of evil
> people, perhaps believing that they're doing great things, while
> still doing the tasks evil people put them to. That, no matter how
> many of the
> extremely-far-less-than-8-million $cientologists try to insist,
> does NOT make it all right. How is this a source of confusion for
> you?
Claire doesn't do "tasks evil people put her to" as she is not a
staff Scn'ist and is not Sea Borg. That you don't understand the
difference between public and staff Scn'ists is evident. How you can
insist that you have a complete knowlege base of all things Scn'y (or
for that matter good and evil) after spending this much time on the
ng is amazing to me. I can only conclude that on your planet words
mean something very different than what they mean on mine.
> > > > Some of us on the critic side like to distinguish ourselves
> > > > from those who would condemn every Scn'ist wholesale. Some of
> > > > us would like to see the abuses end but don't particularly
> > > > care what people believe.
> > >
> > > I found a great deal of success in the past dealing in-person
> > > with clams in this manner. How is it that just now you're
> > > having a problem with the way I operate here? Collaboration
> > > with Evil isn't a tea party. It's just collaboration with
> > > Evil, whether one is apologizing for the cult, shilling for
> > > them, handing out leaflets, or performing specious "touch
> > > assists" under the claim of "helping people" in a disaster
> > > area. It disguises itself, but it's still Evil. That's the
> > > way Hubbard designed it.
Okay, you've sure convinced me. Erroneous beliefs equal "evil". Yeah,
and "clam" is such a nice word for a person who's made it clear (you
should parm the word) that she doesn't use the pejorative "wog" and
would like not to be called a "clam". It sure makes you sound like
you are on the Right Side.
Hubbard said a lot of things. Some of them quite reasonable sounding.
So did the founders of Xtianity. Do I believe in either religion? No.
But I don't think they are pure evil, in spite of what evil people do
with the philosophies. Do I think good can come of them? Conceivably.
I do know that I'd rather spend MY time with a person like Claire,
who can actually reason and is a nice person, who doesn't label
people beforehand than with someone like, say, a person who is
Absolutely Certain He Knows Evil and By Whoever, Scientology and
Scientologists Are All Evil.
Do you even know what a touch assist is, btw? Do you have the
slightest idea what it is? If so please describe it. Enlighten me as
to how you know it's part of Pure Evil.
> > I see. You think in Black and White. That explains a lot.
>
> Hardly. $cientology has exploited the good intentions of both its
> members and the general public in order to do some very, very bad
> things. In fact many of the redefinitions of language utilized by
> the cult - and it IS a cult - make it possible for the hypnotized
> to actually believe that they are doing things for the good of the
> planet and its citizens. This, alas, also does NOT make it "all
> right", no matter how hypnotized they are, or how many times they
> repeat this to themselves and others. This also appears to be
> confusing for you.
I think you are making a huge mistake. First of all, you seem to
think I know nothing about Scn'y and how it works. Let me explain
something to you. I met Ron Hubbard. I heard from his own lips that
he started a religion to make money--this over twenty years ago,
before I knew much about Scn'y or Scn'ists. I only knew Ron as an sf
writer. I hung out with and was and am friends with many sf writers,
then and now. I have been on ars for nearly six years now. So don't
presume to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Don't mistake my defense of Claire and my disagreement with your
spurious and badly reasoned opinions with sympathy for the CofS. I
have been in on the fight against the abuses of the ORGANIZATION a
lot longer than you have.
Believe me when I tell you that your claims of hypnosis are
erroneous, especially when applied to public Scn'ists. You seem to
have a problem with understanding the difference between the two. I
do not.
> How do you find this to be other than the case? Your
> labelling of me as a black-and-white thinking is ignorant at best.
> $cientology is an organization with enough mind-control elements to
> be easily called by the informed a "mind-control cult".
> $cientology holds as its scripture documents advocating the
> elimination - not merely conversion, but ELIMINATION - of whosoever
> is designated an enemy of the cult, as Hubbard said, "without
> sorrow." What religion can you think of that does this, as well as
> hires PIs to pursue enemies, lawyers to persecute enemies and warp
> the use of law to suit the persecution of those who may only carry
> a sign picketing, and make an occasional bad joke? What religion
> can you think of that believes that "the purpose of the lawsuit is
> to harass"?
Again, child, do not presume to lecture your betters. Public Scn'ists
are not staff Scn'ists, and demonizing them is a huge mistake at
best. What other religions harass nonbelievers? Are you serious?
There are a number including many sects of the religions of the Book.
But public Scn'ists don't harass and in fact most don't know this
goes on. If you think they do you are sadly mistaken, and if you
think you can reason with them by calling them "clams" and telling
them that their beliefs are "evil" then thank the Gods your planet
isn't mine.
> I didn't paint $cientology the color of the blood of its victims.
> $cientology does every day. Right now the blood of their victims
> is coated with the dust of the World Trade Center, and $cientology
> jackal behavior is being revealed to the public at large by the
> evermore aware media. Did I do this? I did not. I have never
> told a lie about $cientology or its members. Prove that I have.
You've certainly said some things which are untrue, and when I've
pointed out that they are untrue, you have waxed eloquent and
presumed to lecture me as though I'm a child. If I turn that back to
you, consider how you shut off dialogue to actual believers of the
religion.
It doesn't make you a liar. It does make you mistaken and does show
your capacity for kneejerking instead of thinking.
> > Tap the nerve center, watch the knee jerk. Sorry, dear, but I
> > prefer thinking and rationality. That you don't is evident. But
> > don't expect others to fall into your little white hat v.black
> > hat trap. You'd make a great little soldier.
>
> Bad mirroring of the knee-jerk bit, dear. This is beginning to
> taste like the poor attempts to call me and others "Agent
> Provocateur" before the WTC disaster hit. Any other accusations
> without a foundation, based upon your negative reactions? Save 'em
> for yourself, you seem to be the only one who believes them, and
> the clams who pick it up for ammunition in their favor.
Oh, I see. On your planet, disagreement equals accusation.
Nice going. Kneejerk Boy.
> > You cannot concieve that GOOD PEOPLE are Scn'ists, and that as
> > usual there is a mixed bag out there of self serving and selfless
> > in the religion itself. You are hell bent on being on the path of
> > righteousness and that you know which camp you belong in. This
> > puts you in a majority, but honey, it doesn't make you right.
>
> I never said that. $cientology members are used by their
> organization to serve the purposes of Evil, while being mesmerized
> into thinking that they're helping to "clear the planet". Like
> other totalitarian processes, however, once all their critics were
> silenced, $cientology would implode upon itself, since it largely
> defines itself these days by its attacks on enemies as it
> perceives.
That must explain why the Free Zone is alive and thriving, then.
Don't bother replying. I can see you've got your mind already made
up, no need to confuse you further with any real facts.
Must be nice to know it all.
HAND.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
>
> > No matter what you believe fervently.
>
> Whatever. Since I rely upon facts and verified data - in my
> universe this constitutes the TRUTH, "dear" - it's not merely a
> matter of "belief" that $cientology uses its members for Evil
> purposes, partially by convincing its pawns and dupes that they are
> not doing so. It's not an insignificant process of mind-control.
> How is it then that you defend it?
>
> > > > And despicable as the CofS is I don't see public Scn'ists (or
> > > > even the CofS, for that matter) setting off bombs.
> > >
> > > And you say I'm putting out Straw Men? This is an invalid
> > > argument, which justifies NOTHING.
> > >
> >
> > You are the one who brought up the IRA. I merely carried the
> > argument to its logical conclusion.
>
> Kindly provide the quote about the IRA. I'm intrigued. But what
> you say hardly comes to a logical anything, much less a conclusion,
> unless one considers it an attack. Which is it then?
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6lAUUktf2e/DGsoEQKPCgCfXEKxDx2oAhUo16Qd9+J81FOKpG8AoJ4K
NZ4aGgg/9dJPrhh+IsgANduy
=FiPb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Richard Gozinya
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:44:04 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message
> >
> ><snip irrelevant text>
> >
> >What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
>
>
> You know very well that your cult is the $cientology cult.
>
> >
> >You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such thing.
>
> no church because he or she isn't the boss of the church.
>
> Your cult is the same $cientology cult run by David Miscavige which
> you have been a part of and defender of from the day or your arrival
> on a.r.s.
>
> The fact that you're not in your cult building taking courses or being
> audited right now doesn't change the fact that it's your cult. I don't
> have a cult, but you do.
It seems you do, Gerry. You seem to be suggesting that people should be
divided into pro and anti-scientology camps? Agree with all or agree with
nothing?
>
> If that isn't your cult then make it not your cult. Don't play these
> uncute word games.
>
> >
> >I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
>
> Are you a Scientologist in good standing? If so, it's your cult. If
> you don't want your cult to be your cult then publicly announce your
> desire to no longer be a Scientologist in good standing. Otherwise we
> wogs (R) will call your cult your cult.
>
> I really recommend that you do publicly announce your departure from
> $cientology and announce that you're now a wog (R). You could start a
> revolution, a reformation.
>
> If you stand with us wogs (R) in opposition to your cult there will be
> less chance that any of us will be by your cult disposed of quietly or
> noisily or sorrowlessly or any other way.
>
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
>
> >
> >C
> >
>
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
news:z%hq7.33066$aZ6.8...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>
> "Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> news:344fqt8ce7upe5qpm...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:44:04 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> > >news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > ><snip irrelevant text>
> > >
> > >What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
> >
> > Here's a small and pathetic defense of your cult.
> >
> > You know very well that your cult is the $cientology cult.
> >
> > >
> > >You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such
thing.
> >
> > A pathetic defense. It's like saying that a Christian church goer has
> > no church because he or she isn't the boss of the church.
> >
> > Your cult is the same $cientology cult run by David Miscavige which
> > you have been a part of and defender of from the day or your arrival
> > on a.r.s.
> >
> > The fact that you're not in your cult building taking courses or being
> > audited right now doesn't change the fact that it's your cult. I don't
> > have a cult, but you do.
>
> It seems you do, Gerry. You seem to be suggesting that people should be
> divided into pro and anti-scientology camps? Agree with all or agree with
> nothing?
How is this a vague issue for you, "Mr. Gozinya"? Either one is in a cult
or one is not. Which is it for you?
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
So how does this compare the nut-cult to the IRA?
> If you can't see that this is hyperbole, no use talking to you. We
> obviously aren't speaking the same language, despite its similarity
> to English.
>
> > > > > Nice of you to feed the OSA trolls assertation that you
> > > > > aren't willing to dialogue, that you are interested in
> > > > > nothing less than destruction of what THEY think is a valid
> > > > > and real religion.
> > > >
> > > > OSA Trolls don't really participate in dialogue, they just say
> > > > enough to keep people taking up bandwidth.
> > >
> > > No, but real Scn'ists, like Claire are not OSA trolls. And more
> > > than just long time critics read their posts, "Rev.".
> >
> > Interesting. Claire is presently taking the line that she's NOT a
> > $cientologist. Who's telling the truth?
>
> Claire has never said this. She's said she is a Scn'ist many times.
> Dunno what the language is on your planet, "Rev", but here the rest
> of us are speaking and writing English, at least in this thread.
It still doesn't explain your need to attack on her behalf.
It's evident that yours ain't Earth. Thanks for vaguely sort of clearing
this up. Maybe.
> > > And you seem to think that Claire is OSA. This itself is
> > > erroneous, if you do in fact believe this.
> >
> > I don't know that I believe $cientologists to be anything other
> > than pawns for an evil organization, acting at the behest of evil
> > people, perhaps believing that they're doing great things, while
> > still doing the tasks evil people put them to. That, no matter how
> > many of the
> > extremely-far-less-than-8-million $cientologists try to insist,
> > does NOT make it all right. How is this a source of confusion for
> > you?
>
> Claire doesn't do "tasks evil people put her to" as she is not a
> staff Scn'ist and is not Sea Borg. That you don't understand the
> difference between public and staff Scn'ists is evident. How you can
> insist that you have a complete knowlege base of all things Scn'y (or
> for that matter good and evil) after spending this much time on the
> ng is amazing to me. I can only conclude that on your planet words
> mean something very different than what they mean on mine.
Kindly supply any quotes from me that say I have a complete knowledge of
$cientology. I'm still intrigued as to why you feel the need to attack,
attack, attack.
> > > > > Some of us on the critic side like to distinguish ourselves
> > > > > from those who would condemn every Scn'ist wholesale. Some of
> > > > > us would like to see the abuses end but don't particularly
> > > > > care what people believe.
> > > >
> > > > I found a great deal of success in the past dealing in-person
> > > > with clams in this manner. How is it that just now you're
> > > > having a problem with the way I operate here? Collaboration
> > > > with Evil isn't a tea party. It's just collaboration with
> > > > Evil, whether one is apologizing for the cult, shilling for
> > > > them, handing out leaflets, or performing specious "touch
> > > > assists" under the claim of "helping people" in a disaster
> > > > area. It disguises itself, but it's still Evil. That's the
> > > > way Hubbard designed it.
>
> Okay, you've sure convinced me. Erroneous beliefs equal "evil". Yeah,
> and "clam" is such a nice word for a person who's made it clear (you
> should parm the word) that she doesn't use the pejorative "wog" and
> would like not to be called a "clam". It sure makes you sound like
> you are on the Right Side.
That's reassuring.
> Hubbard said a lot of things. Some of them quite reasonable sounding.
Out of context, perhaps. Beyond that, you need to be specific. What's your
agenda then? I'm pretty open about mine.
> So did the founders of Xtianity. Do I believe in either religion? No.
> But I don't think they are pure evil, in spite of what evil people do
> with the philosophies. Do I think good can come of them? Conceivably.
> I do know that I'd rather spend MY time with a person like Claire,
> who can actually reason and is a nice person, who doesn't label
> people beforehand than with someone like, say, a person who is
> Absolutely Certain He Knows Evil and By Whoever, Scientology and
> Scientologists Are All Evil.
So you've no side in this conflict then? And you equally have no objections
to attacks on non-$cientologists? Or what? You're becoming as vague as
your buddy Claire.
> Do you even know what a touch assist is, btw? Do you have the
> slightest idea what it is? If so please describe it. Enlighten me as
> to how you know it's part of Pure Evil.
If it's part of the practice of $cientology why do you need to know more?
You seem to defend the cult a lot here.
> > > I see. You think in Black and White. That explains a lot.
> >
> > Hardly. $cientology has exploited the good intentions of both its
> > members and the general public in order to do some very, very bad
> > things. In fact many of the redefinitions of language utilized by
> > the cult - and it IS a cult - make it possible for the hypnotized
> > to actually believe that they are doing things for the good of the
> > planet and its citizens. This, alas, also does NOT make it "all
> > right", no matter how hypnotized they are, or how many times they
> > repeat this to themselves and others. This also appears to be
> > confusing for you.
>
> I think you are making a huge mistake. First of all, you seem to
> think I know nothing about Scn'y and how it works. Let me explain
> something to you. I met Ron Hubbard. I heard from his own lips that
> he started a religion to make money--this over twenty years ago,
> before I knew much about Scn'y or Scn'ists. I only knew Ron as an sf
> writer. I hung out with and was and am friends with many sf writers,
> then and now. I have been on ars for nearly six years now. So don't
> presume to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
And this means...?
> Don't mistake my defense of Claire and my disagreement with your
> spurious and badly reasoned opinions with sympathy for the CofS. I
> have been in on the fight against the abuses of the ORGANIZATION a
> lot longer than you have.
I'm in such awe. How is it that you have a right to your opinion and I do
not? Have you ever been labelled an "enemy"?
> Believe me when I tell you that your claims of hypnosis are
> erroneous, especially when applied to public Scn'ists. You seem to
> have a problem with understanding the difference between the two. I
> do not.
Reverse processing. Next.
> > How do you find this to be other than the case? Your
> > labelling of me as a black-and-white thinking is ignorant at best.
> > $cientology is an organization with enough mind-control elements to
> > be easily called by the informed a "mind-control cult".
> > $cientology holds as its scripture documents advocating the
> > elimination - not merely conversion, but ELIMINATION - of whosoever
> > is designated an enemy of the cult, as Hubbard said, "without
> > sorrow." What religion can you think of that does this, as well as
> > hires PIs to pursue enemies, lawyers to persecute enemies and warp
> > the use of law to suit the persecution of those who may only carry
> > a sign picketing, and make an occasional bad joke? What religion
> > can you think of that believes that "the purpose of the lawsuit is
> > to harass"?
>
> Again, child, do not presume to lecture your betters. Public Scn'ists
> are not staff Scn'ists, and demonizing them is a huge mistake at
> best. What other religions harass nonbelievers? Are you serious?
> There are a number including many sects of the religions of the Book.
> But public Scn'ists don't harass and in fact most don't know this
> goes on. If you think they do you are sadly mistaken, and if you
> think you can reason with them by calling them "clams" and telling
> them that their beliefs are "evil" then thank the Gods your planet
> isn't mine.
Betters? Oh, that's rich. Thanks for revealing your sense of humanity and
its superstructure.
> > I didn't paint $cientology the color of the blood of its victims.
> > $cientology does every day. Right now the blood of their victims
> > is coated with the dust of the World Trade Center, and $cientology
> > jackal behavior is being revealed to the public at large by the
> > evermore aware media. Did I do this? I did not. I have never
> > told a lie about $cientology or its members. Prove that I have.
>
> You've certainly said some things which are untrue, and when I've
> pointed out that they are untrue, you have waxed eloquent and
> presumed to lecture me as though I'm a child. If I turn that back to
> you, consider how you shut off dialogue to actual believers of the
> religion.
I'm still waiting to hear examples.
> It doesn't make you a liar. It does make you mistaken and does show
> your capacity for kneejerking instead of thinking.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter what it is.
> > > Tap the nerve center, watch the knee jerk. Sorry, dear, but I
> > > prefer thinking and rationality. That you don't is evident. But
> > > don't expect others to fall into your little white hat v.black
> > > hat trap. You'd make a great little soldier.
> >
> > Bad mirroring of the knee-jerk bit, dear. This is beginning to
> > taste like the poor attempts to call me and others "Agent
> > Provocateur" before the WTC disaster hit. Any other accusations
> > without a foundation, based upon your negative reactions? Save 'em
> > for yourself, you seem to be the only one who believes them, and
> > the clams who pick it up for ammunition in their favor.
>
> Oh, I see. On your planet, disagreement equals accusation.
Absolutes now?
> Nice going. Kneejerk Boy.
And insults. Must be difficult navigating all this. Have a cookie.
> > > You cannot concieve that GOOD PEOPLE are Scn'ists, and that as
> > > usual there is a mixed bag out there of self serving and selfless
> > > in the religion itself. You are hell bent on being on the path of
> > > righteousness and that you know which camp you belong in. This
> > > puts you in a majority, but honey, it doesn't make you right.
> >
> > I never said that. $cientology members are used by their
> > organization to serve the purposes of Evil, while being mesmerized
> > into thinking that they're helping to "clear the planet". Like
> > other totalitarian processes, however, once all their critics were
> > silenced, $cientology would implode upon itself, since it largely
> > defines itself these days by its attacks on enemies as it
> > perceives.
>
> That must explain why the Free Zone is alive and thriving, then.
Thriving. M'kay. This tells us more. Go on.
> Don't bother replying. I can see you've got your mind already made
> up, no need to confuse you further with any real facts.
>
> Must be nice to know it all.
We've of course heard such "you cannot reply to me, I know the facts and you
can't change them, LALALALALA" bits before on a.r.s.
James Glidewell
<csw...@home.com> wrote:
> "Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
> > I don't know. You made these black PR attacks on me in February and
> > April this year:
> >
> > [Quote]
> >
> > And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
> > things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
> > was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
> > your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
> > of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
> > either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
> > well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
> >
> > But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
> > yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
> >
> > [End Quote]
>
> Anyone who is nasty to me does not fare well in return. Whether that person
> be a Scn'ist or a non Scn'ist or whatever.
How low are you willing to go in response to those who are "nasty" to you?
It seems to me that the above quote is pretty low. But I guess he
"pulled it in".
> I already explained that to you weeks ago.
>
> I am not nice to people who are nasty to me. Maybe I can be too bitchy, too
> aggressive, whatever. Fine with me if that's how it strikes people.
>
> But everything I wrote was in response to your having slammed me. I'm not
> nice when I'm being fucked with. Sorry, but that's how it is.
>
> You don't like it? Then don't fuck with me.
You are indeed a fine and ethical scientologist.
> Coming onto the forum with a rude rejoinder to a nasty post does not
> constitute a black PR campaign. It only constititutes a rude rejoinder to a
> nasty post. Period.
Most people apologize when they have been rude.
You don't. Because you're _never_ wrong, and people who thought you were
wrong have reading comprehension problems, and anyone who you did mistreat
deserved it anyway.
This is scientology ethics in action. LRH would be proud.
You owe Gerry an apology.
--
Jim Glidewell
My opinions only.
James Glidewell
<starsh...@home.com> wrote:
> "Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
> > [Quote]
Fine. She only acts like a creep to those who cross her. Those who
suck up to her and play by her rules are indeed treated quite
nicely. Not unusual, of course, but Claire plays this game
*very* well.
I tend to judge my own actions based on how I treat those who I
most dislike. I don't believe I have *ever* posted anything which
was as low as the ones Gerry cited.
> What, you are saying she's not allowed to dislike any wog(R) ? That
> if she dislikes any wog (R) it is evidence that she's mouthing OSA
> lines or something?
She can like and dislike whomever she wants to. Gerry is commenting
on her *actions* here in ARS. Which I have long found rather distasteful,
personally. Gerry's not the only one who's gotten this sort of treatment
in fairly recent history (2001).
Claire often talks about people "attacking" the CoS or scientologists
when they criticise them. Aren't Claire's words above also such an
"attack"? How can she criticise those who "attack" her "religion"
when she reserves the right to attack others herself?
I believe postings like the cited ones are uncalled for on *any* "side".
> Hell, Gerry, I don't like certain wogs(R). Does this mean I'm serving
> OSA unless I stand in solidarity with all wogs(R) and hate all
> Scn'ists (R) ??
Has Claire ever posted anything that you find objectionable? Folks tend
to criticise critics here when they get out of hand. Do you approve
of the "robotic" passages above?
(BTW, I find that the quoted passages apply more to Claire than they do
to Gerry - does this constitute an "attack" on Claire?)
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
news:jimglidewell-8B5D...@news.sttln1.wa.home.com...
And Claire isn't the only poster to a.r.s. who practices this kind of
tactic.
> Claire often talks about people "attacking" the CoS or scientologists
> when they criticise them. Aren't Claire's words above also such an
> "attack"? How can she criticise those who "attack" her "religion"
> when she reserves the right to attack others herself?
Perhaps it's a 1984esque kind of "Love = Hate", "War = Peace", "Freedom =
Slavery" bit. Hmm! Not a coincidence.
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"James Glidewell" <jimgli...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jimglidewell-8BF1...@news.sttln1.wa.home.com...
Excuse me? How is this different from any critic, including myself?
Probably including you, too.
This isn't Scn'y, this is human nature. People who are given
nastiness will respond in kind, or hadn't you noticed?
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6oQjEktf2e/DGsoEQJaXwCfYNwnsaZBkpF39lPsZ7SpD7GLOmcAoKvn
d75jjf6XTqDttP5YSE5HQHNm
=OiqF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"James Glidewell" <jimgli...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jimglidewell-8B5D...@news.sttln1.wa.home.com...
If you think I'm sucking up to her, that's your opinion, and you are
entitled to it. But I can tell you I don't suck up to anyone. I have
my opinions like anyone else. My opinion, for the record, is I find
you a much more distasteful person than Claire, based on what I see
as your knee jerk reaction, which is that anything written by a
Scientologist is automatically bad and evil, and anything written by
anyone who actually agrees with a Scientologist is automatically
"sucking up" and anything written that slams a Scientologist is
automatically right thinking.
> I tend to judge my own actions based on how I treat those who I
> most dislike. I don't believe I have *ever* posted anything which
> was as low as the ones Gerry cited.
I wouldn't know. I haven't paid attention, and quite frankly I have
you color coded as one of the people whose opinions are low priority
to read. (I color code people in ars to make it easier to judge
whether or not on a high traffic day I wish to spend much time
reading them. For whatever reason I judged a while back that yours
weren't high priority.)
> > What, you are saying she's not allowed to dislike any wog(R) ?
> > That if she dislikes any wog (R) it is evidence that she's
> > mouthing OSA lines or something?
>
> She can like and dislike whomever she wants to. Gerry is commenting
> on her *actions* here in ARS. Which I have long found rather
> distasteful, personally. Gerry's not the only one who's gotten this
> sort of treatment in fairly recent history (2001).
Her "actions" consist of writing her opinions, James. Or are you
saying she is Fair Gaming or committing Black PR by writing her
opinions? That's silly. Words are words. Claire hasn't sued, nor
followed anyone, nor murdered pets, nor posted scurrilous photos and
text in leaflets, nor picketed homes, nor hired PIs nor anything else
which constitutes real abuse.
She's just posted her opinions. And occasionally she's changed her
opinions, as any thinking person does generally from time to time,
and posted that as well.
> Claire often talks about people "attacking" the CoS or
> scientologists when they criticise them. Aren't Claire's words
> above also such an "attack"? How can she criticise those who
> "attack" her "religion"
> when she reserves the right to attack others herself?
Let's see how free speech works, Jim. You post an opinion, and she
posts an opinion of your opinion. Then you post another opinion of
her opinion, and in between others post their opinions of those
opinions. Hmm. Looks perfectly like Usenet to me. Does she in any way
try to censor your posts or opinions??
> I believe postings like the cited ones are uncalled for on *any*
> "side".
So? Millions once believed the earth was flat. Didn't make it so.
This is Usenet, Jim. Get used to it.
> > Hell, Gerry, I don't like certain wogs(R). Does this mean I'm
> > serving OSA unless I stand in solidarity with all wogs(R) and
> > hate all Scn'ists (R) ??
>
> Has Claire ever posted anything that you find objectionable? Folks
> tend to criticise critics here when they get out of hand. Do you
> approve of the "robotic" passages above?
I don't think they are robotic, and I deliberately said I couldn't
speak for her opinion of Gerry. What I was speaking of was the
assumption in the post that her OPINION of Gerry consituted an
attack. I prefer to focus on that point.
I've posted my disagreement with her on occasion. That you didn't
see it isn't my problem, but a personal one, evidently.
Which is also not my problem.
> (BTW, I find that the quoted passages apply more to Claire than
> they do to Gerry - does this constitute an "attack" on Claire?)
It constitutes your opinion, which I personally hold in little
regard. (For the record, I hold Gerry's in high regard even when I
disagree with them. Not so yours.) See how free speech and Usenet
works, Jim?
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA+AwUBO6oYIkktf2e/DGsoEQLqaQCdF3iNmfdg+81ckqB9qrR2ez9UXmUAmPii
AaO1x43lUnVWHSkAQPyFAnY=
=1lGz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000996310.6259.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
What, posted nasty things about someone they didn't like?
Hey, that's Usenet for ya.
> > Claire often talks about people "attacking" the CoS or
> > scientologists when they criticise them. Aren't Claire's words
> > above also such an "attack"? How can she criticise those who
> > "attack" her "religion" when she reserves the right to attack
> > others herself?
>
> Perhaps it's a 1984esque kind of "Love = Hate", "War = Peace",
> "Freedom = Slavery" bit. Hmm! Not a coincidence.
Or maybe it's just more hyperbole to match yours.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6oY4Uktf2e/DGsoEQLz/gCfRAjsytBZ1B7X0m76BImkphXtlkcAoJ6d
/4T8D4Q1ofuFzPFRyWj3gXnZ
=wqJw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000983557.1103.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Free clue. On our planet, there is a medium between black and white.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6oay0ktf2e/DGsoEQIzMgCgsSzJ/tVCgJx1+pnz5lGH1WeSWA4AniUE
od8O21qOwDECKBpz/KPTSo8K
=+Kni
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LaserClam
>> Claire often talks about people "attacking" the CoS or scientologists
>> when they criticise them. Aren't Claire's words above also such an
>> "attack"? How can she criticise those who "attack" her "religion"
>> when she reserves the right to attack others herself?
>
>
>Perhaps it's a 1984esque kind of "Love = Hate", "War = Peace", "Freedom =
>Slavery" bit. Hmm! Not a coincidence.
>
Have you noticed any one else who was confused?
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Even freer clue: $cientology has exploited the grey area for over 50 years.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
This is beginning to sound like a Diane Richardson troll path, frankly. Why
the attack, attack, attack?
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1000985043.1730.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Yfbq7.5299$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
(snip for brevity)
>
> I'm in such awe. How is it that you have a right to your opinion
> and I do not? Have you ever been labelled an "enemy"?
Look, child, let me explain something to you. Telling you my opinion
of your opinion does not equal telling you that you have no right to
your opinion in any way.
(more snips)
> > Don't bother replying. I can see you've got your mind already
> > made up, no need to confuse you further with any real facts.
> >
> > Must be nice to know it all.
>
> We've of course heard such "you cannot reply to me, I know the
> facts and you can't change them, LALALALALA" bits before on a.r.s.
That is not what I said. But here's what I do say. I'm bored with
what I see as your circular reasoning, and I see no reason to
continue to repeat myself when you didn't get it the first OR the
second time. We are obviously not speaking the same language. And I'm
beginning to think that attempting to reason with you is as useless
as trying to teach a pig to sing.
Gottit yet?
(If so, don't worry. I'll let you have the last word next time you
wave your dick back at me.)
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6opdkktf2e/DGsoEQI0sgCfRy1EjIj6G0bTcTKymGy0VsPqH4sAnAgC
cnNQ9QDyvm43qF3sIepgDMng
=OElB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fluffygirl
> In article <3ba8f1ed$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl"
> <csw...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> > news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
>
> > > I don't know. You made these black PR attacks on me in February and
> > > April this year:
> > >
> > > [Quote]
> > >
> > > And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
> > > things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
> > > was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
> > > your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
> > > of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
> > > either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
> > > well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
> > >
> > > But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
> > > yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
> > >
> > > [End Quote]
>
> >
> > Anyone who is nasty to me does not fare well in return. Whether that
person
> > be a Scn'ist or a non Scn'ist or whatever.
>
> How low are you willing to go in response to those who are "nasty" to you?
Potentially, in some cases as low as THEY went.
Perhaps you are saying that what's sauce for the goose is NOT sauce for the
gander?
>
> It seems to me that the above quote is pretty low. But I guess he
> "pulled it in".
<snort>
What an inane thing to say. You did not see what he wrote to me.
"pulled it in"- -my ass!
I answered a post , a very rude, stupid and nasty one.
And I was none too patient in response.
Deal with it or piss off, mate.
>
> > I already explained that to you weeks ago.
> >
> > I am not nice to people who are nasty to me. Maybe I can be too bitchy,
too
> > aggressive, whatever. Fine with me if that's how it strikes people.
> >
> > But everything I wrote was in response to your having slammed me. I'm
not
> > nice when I'm being fucked with. Sorry, but that's how it is.
> >
> > You don't like it? Then don't fuck with me.
>
> You are indeed a fine and ethical scientologist.
Screw you.
Apply the same standards to Scn'ists as you apply to critics.
There are all sorts of flaps and arguments here with non Scn'ists saying
things to other non Scn'ists that are far stronger than anything I've said
here.
But you appear to have no problem with those.
I don't, either, as it happens.
It's the same thing.
>
> > Coming onto the forum with a rude rejoinder to a nasty post does not
> > constitute a black PR campaign. It only constititutes a rude rejoinder
to a
> > nasty post. Period.
>
> Most people apologize when they have been rude.
Yet Gerry has not done so.
But that is ok, I don't need him to, and I don't ask him to, and I have no
hard feelings about it.
And I have, to other people apologized for times I was sarcastic. Most
recently to Rawley. Yet you do not mention it.
>
> You don't.
That is not true.
I just gave you an example, well, here's another.
I also apologized to Magoo this week.
Perhaps you should make sure you know what you're talking about before you
slam people whom you do not know.
Perhaps you should apply the same standards to me or anyone else posting
here that you apply to others whom you find acceptable.
Or not.
Whatever.
>Because you're _never_ wrong, and people who thought you were
> wrong have reading comprehension problems, and anyone who you did mistreat
> deserved it anyway.
<snort>
You sure miss a lot.
<snip>
C
Fluffygirl
Oh, screw that.
Do YOU respond to people who give you a bad time, whether that's IRL or here
or on any other forum? Or do you just say "Oh, that's ok , you must be
right, here, let me roll over and offer you my belly."
Chances are, you respond as you see fit.
If someone's nasty to me I reserve the right to respond in kind. I can name
dozens of others who do the same thing. Both on this forum and IRL. So what.
The fact that you have a problem with it (and the posts where I said those
things to Gerry are VERY old, as are the nasty posts from him which preceded
them) indicates very strongly to me that you are being quite inconsistent.
You make statements that are utter falsehoods because you'd like to believe
that they are true.
Seems to me, your behavior here on this thread is nothing to write home
about.
>
> I tend to judge my own actions based on how I treat those who I
> most dislike. I don't believe I have *ever* posted anything which
> was as low as the ones Gerry cited.
Sure you have. You just did.
You made false statements about me. Some people would call those ~lies~.
I won't, because apparently you did not know the specifics. But they weren't
true statements and you were all too happy to make them.
And you've demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to apply the same
standards to me or perhaps even to other Scn'ists that you apply to non
Scn'ists who often here write very strongly worded things to other non
Scn'ists.
When someone attacks me, I fight back. Every single post to which I
responded in any sort of aggressive manner was some out of the blue attack.
If you think I'm interested in rolling over for this crap, you have another
think coming.
So deal with it.
Or not.
>
> > What, you are saying she's not allowed to dislike any wog(R) ? That
> > if she dislikes any wog (R) it is evidence that she's mouthing OSA
> > lines or something?
>
> She can like and dislike whomever she wants to. Gerry is commenting
> on her *actions* here in ARS. Which I have long found rather distasteful,
> personally.
Distasteful?
Interesting statement.
I came on here as a party line Scn'ist and sincerely posted what I thought
at the time. Nothing distasteful in that, except to the intolerant.
I then changed my thoughts on a number of things. Decrying PC folder
culling, what happened to the Woodcraft children, the treatment of "Stress
Centre" by the church, the prices, the treatment of SO staff, of church
public in certain instances. And I prominently posted accordingly.
I have taken Scn contributors to this forum to task, at times. Did you find
that distasteful? Oh, wait, my guess is you didn't see those and since you
didn't, you don't really think they are there. Sorta like those apologies I
never utter.
Maybe it was distasteful when I decried the outing of a critic posting
here. Of course, I also decried the outing of a Scn'ist here and many
disagreed with me, but I'm sincere and I have extreme philosophical
disagreement with outing in general, and I've had a few different thoughts
on it since then, anyway.
Another thing I've done here is explain Scn beliefs and ideas and tenets
when I've seen them summarized or evaluated incorrectly or when people had
questions.
Perhaps you find THAT distasteful.
Heaven only knows.
I'll tell you what IS distasteful- it's when you, take whatever it is that I
say that you don't like (with no recognition of the circumstances and with
some false allegations which I've disproven now) and then say it's LRH
ethics or it's Scn'gy or whatever.
I do whatever I do 'cuz I'm *me*. I'm not a church, or a cult, or a system
of beliefs, I'm just me.
When critics write things you don't like (I'm hazarding a guess that this
may have happened some time or another) you don't accuse them of doing it
'cuz they stand for or are a product of all critic'dom. No, you prolly just
say "Oh, that's Jane Doe. she can be a real so and so at times on the
subject of xyz."
Would that you could apply this standard to other sorts of people.
Would that you were willing to. 'Cuz I found your statement to be shabby and
untrue as well.
> Gerry's not the only one who's gotten this sort of treatment
> in fairly recent history (2001).
Yes, and if you look at what was posted *to* *me* just before that, you can
see why. I have had situations where both parties (myself and another)
agreed to drop it, only to have the person come in on two other threads
where I was speaking with others, and say some rude things.
If you think I'm interested in rolling over for that crap, you've another
think coming.
But I think I see where you are coming from. It is ok for others to slam me
as long as I meekly say "Oh, I'm just a Scn'ist, YOU must be right, I'm not
worthy to shine your shoes. Please feed me some more of this. You can say
whatever you like to me, and I'll just say that's ok"
I am not going to do that and it's not a reasonable scenario.
>
> Claire often talks about people "attacking" the CoS or scientologists
> when they criticise them.
Actually I do not use the word "attack" so often and I often, myself,
"attack" CofS on this forum.
I tend to say things like "your generalizations about Scn'ists aren't true
because..."
It really seems like you, Jim, are skimming a few posts and filling in the
gaps with your own imaginings.
>Aren't Claire's words above also such an
> "attack"? How can she criticise those who "attack" her "religion"
> when she reserves the right to attack others herself?
I defended myself. If you have a problem with that and not with the posts by
others which prompted that, then that is truly a sad state of affairs.
> I believe postings like the cited ones are uncalled for on *any* "side".
You've said NOTHING about what came before those- that's 'cuz you DON'T KNOW
what came before those. And it very much looks like you don't WANT to know.
So would you have a problem with those posts but not with the rude crap that
came before that?
Why is that?
Because you are not fair and you have a personal bias, and you don't pay
attention to what I actually have written.
You misquote me and present it as fact.
How ridiculous.
C
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1001005268.19529....@news.demon.co.uk...
You compare me to Diane R and then have the gall to say *I'm*
attacking?
Why am I not surprised?
(rhetorical question. Don't need to bother.)
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6o7kkktf2e/DGsoEQI2ewCffDPxEyxUK8aXCGU2JZ/ZGZcPX8EAoNy8
rFqH9qQzK0z23O+NTdD2X+At
=c+27
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fluffygirl
"James Glidewell" <jimgli...@home.com> wrote in message
news:jimglidewell-8B5D...@news.sttln1.wa.home.com...
It wasn't recent history.
It's old posts being raked up. And you're cooperating with it.
C
Fluffygirl
"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
<Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:tdfkqtompdr89kq8e...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:02:48 -0700.
> In Message-ID: <3baa...@news2.lightlink.com>
> From: "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>.
> Organization: Lightlink Internet.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: Claire's time track (was Another foot bullet
> comming):
> recognize that now.
Thanks, dollink.
I still suspect that I'm kind of a bitch, tho'.
>
> I can change too, but I'm changing for the worse, I recognize that too
> :-)
>
I like ya jest fine.
C
ladayla
>>Claire doesn't do "tasks evil people put her to" as she is not a
>staff Scn'ist and is not Sea Borg. That you don't understand the
>difference between public and staff Scn'ists is evident. How you can
>insist that you have a complete knowlege base of all things Scn'y (or
>for that matter good and evil) after spending this much time on the
>ng is amazing to me. I can only conclude that on your planet words
>mean something very different than what they mean on mine.
The infiltration of the CADA was done by *mostly* "public" scientologists. The
babywatch over David Voorhies was done by "public".
The isolation watch over Roxy Richards was handled *in large part* by public
scientologists.
The organization called Alliance for the Preservation of Religious Liberty,
which was a GO operation gathered mainly to persecute Ted Patrick was all public
scientologists.
I could go on and on and on about acts that public scientologists participate
in. Public is what keeps the damned thing running.
>Believe me when I tell you that your claims of hypnosis are
>erroneous, especially when applied to public Scn'ists. You seem to
>have a problem with understanding the difference between the two. I
>do not.
Public Scientologists do the same training drills (TRs) as Staff or Sea Org
members do. To say that these drills are hypnotic for one group but not another
is simply not true. The TRs are hypnotic. Period. The biggest difference between
public scn's and staff scn's is that public pays the bills and gets to live
outside the orgs.
>>
>But public Scn'ists don't harass and in fact most don't know this
>goes on.
Geez! Someone has fed you some very false data.
This could only be the case in an remote org, say one in Siberia,or in someone's
ideal scene, but it's not what's happenin' baby.
la
>
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
<Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
news:l4ikqtc3q31v606ma...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveilla
nce...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:36:42 -0700.
> In Message-ID: <3baa44fd$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
> From: "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>.
> Organization: Lightlink Internet.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: Claire's time track (was Another foot
> bullet comming):
>
> >
> Well, a woman that can't talk back (some call that bitchy) isn't
> someone I would like anyhow.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I can change too, but I'm changing for the worse, I recognize
> >> that too :-)
> >>
> >
> >I like ya jest fine.
>
> Hehe, even though I at times scream and shout at the U.S, as is I
> were one of the worst Mujahedin Jihad warriors? :-)
That's just your impetuous Viking blood. Underneath it all you're
just a Swedish Teddy Bear.
Love ya, Sten!
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6pQ/kktf2e/DGsoEQKA7QCglXFD6cOZMWI0plVoCiZ8xMbGd08Ani9I
XYRnJ+1EE72jqr5r/BfwJHJP
=f8hV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
cerr...@freedom.net
"ladayla" <ladayla...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9odec...@drn.newsguy.com...
It is true that some Public Scientologists participate in GO/OSA
activities.
>
< snip>
> >But public Scn'ists don't harass and in fact most don't know this
> >goes on.
>
> Geez! Someone has fed you some very false data.
> This could only be the case in an remote org, say one in Siberia,or
in someone's
> ideal scene, but it's not what's happenin' baby.
I disagree, it is my experience that *Most* public Scner's have no
idea what goes on behind the scenes, especially with the GO/OSA
activities.
There are *some* public Scientologists that do know what is going on.
These are mostly the OT's who are fully 100% indoctrinated.
My experience is that public Scner's are briefed by OSA on what's
going on. These briefings are filled with lies and half truths. The
Public Scner's buy into it because they trust OSA and the C of S
officials to tell them the truth. It would never occur to them that
they are being lied to.
Public Scner's do NOT visit critical web sites, read anti Scn
books/articles or even watch anti Scn shows.
Public Scner's are generally fucking clueless. The C of S wants it
this way for obvious reasons.
Based on my experience, which is considerable, neither Claire nor
Starshadow are operating on false data.
Cerridwen
>
> la
> >
>
Phil Chitester
> <snip>
>
> You are being revealed for what $cientology is, worldwide.
I personally would have no problem with that, if it weren't that that isn't true
data that is being spread, but a pack of lies.
> <snip>
>
>
> It still doesn't excuse the criminal intent of your ufo nut-cult. Get outside
> the cult and get your life back, then come back to us and let us know how
> you're doing.
That would be good, if it were true, but what you don't realize is that there is
no liability whatsoever in being in the Church of Scientology. There is no
insanity, no mind-control, no evil intentions whatsoever.
Perhaps that is because you have cornered the market on those yourself and are
too stingy to give them out, but only hint at the magnitude of them on a.r.s.
> <snip>
>
> "I was just following orders", huh? We've heard that before, at the Nuremburg
> trials. It wasn't a valid excuse then, either.
It also isn't an excuse on your part that you are sadly misinformed, or just
want to 'get' something which has your number. There is no excuse for your
lamer postings and virulent attacks on the image of the Church of Scientology,
the Founder or Scientologists.
False data, pukewad. That is all you seem to spew.
> <snip>
>
> You don't understand any of it. You're under mind-control by a cult that
> recommends against and persecutes independent thought.
Independent thought such as yours, is simply rabid delusion and false data
generated by the reactive mind and should be frowned upon, as it helps no one,
only adds to the confusion in the world.
> <snip>
>
> I'm sure your cult will print up a lot of stuff commending the criminal
> behavior of its members, and will also attempt to get good PR out of this.
> They're already attempting, and have been revealed for what they are: GHOULS.
You are the only ghoul on here, dickwad. You're in front of the mirror a lot,
huh? It's your criminal mind makes you think that.
> <snip>
>
> That's because you're misled by your criminal nut-cult. It's a given.
Only you are misled. By yourself. Why not concentrate on rectifying that,
instead of jousting with windmills, i.e., evil that doesn't really exist, but
would if you had your way. Unelect yourself out of judgeship of your fellow
men, women and children. It's just a case dramatization you appear to have,
anyway.
You weren't elected judge of anything anyway. Go jump in your coffin. Leave
the rest of us alone.
Phil
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
<cerr...@freedom.net> wrote in message
news:tqkn0bh...@corp.supernews.com...
This is my conclusion also.
> Based on my experience, which is considerable, neither Claire nor
> Starshadow are operating on false data.
'Zackly.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA+AwUBO6puOUktf2e/DGsoEQIh2gCgi0zj+0IrIKvr/3pII3Bj3Ge/lrcAl3CX
tv3k8LNjxcMvnEvlK1zERbE=
=ECBF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
news:3BAA6355...@yahoo.com...
> "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" wrote in parts:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > You are being revealed for what $cientology is, worldwide.
>
> I personally would have no problem with that, if it weren't that that
isn't true
> data that is being spread, but a pack of lies.
It seems you DO personally have a problem with it, but somehow have no proof
that it's not true. How is this the case, Philsie?
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > It still doesn't excuse the criminal intent of your ufo nut-cult. Get
outside
> > the cult and get your life back, then come back to us and let us know
how
> > you're doing.
>
> That would be good, if it were true, but what you don't realize is that
there is
> no liability whatsoever in being in the Church of Scientology. There is
no
> insanity, no mind-control, no evil intentions whatsoever.
More hands-over-the-ears and LALALALALA stuff from a real master at
cooperative self-desception. Wake up, Philsie.
> Perhaps that is because you have cornered the market on those yourself and
are
> too stingy to give them out, but only hint at the magnitude of them on
a.r.s.
Yes, I'm one of the Twelve Bankers. What a hoot, huh? I also shot Abe
Lincoln and John Kennedy, and reserved the Vistaril for ElRum. That's all
as true as what you've just said. And I've as much proof as you of both.
Get it? Nah, probably not.
> > <snip>
> >
> > "I was just following orders", huh? We've heard that before, at the
Nuremburg
> > trials. It wasn't a valid excuse then, either.
>
> It also isn't an excuse on your part that you are sadly misinformed, or
just
> want to 'get' something which has your number. There is no excuse for
your
> lamer postings and virulent attacks on the image of the Church of
Scientology,
> the Founder or Scientologists.
What do you think I want to "get", Philsie? Perhaps it has more to do with
jolting you awake from your waking nightmare, and getting you to a point of
tension where you realize that, if all the crap the cult feeds you was true,
you wouldn't be this upset about the things I say. "The Founder", that's as
amusingly pathetic as "The Commodore". Hubbard was only self-appointed on
that level, Philsie.
> False data, pukewad. That is all you seem to spew.
Prove it, clamboy. One shred of proof, please? Otherwise what is any
critical thinker to believe? That because you insist something over and
over again, it's true? What's that a definition of?
> > <snip>
> >
> > You don't understand any of it. You're under mind-control by a cult
that
> > recommends against and persecutes independent thought.
>
> Independent thought such as yours, is simply rabid delusion and false data
> generated by the reactive mind and should be frowned upon, as it helps no
one,
> only adds to the confusion in the world.
Mine is indeed independent thought, Philsie, as opposed to that of your
nut-cult idiot box madness. There is no "reactive mind", Philsie. Hubbard
was a piker at psychoanalysis, much less brain function (or any other part
of the body for that matter). Most of all Hubbard lied through his teeth,
and his butcher block paper-filled tripewriter. And you keep eating his
shit. Why is that, Philsie? Could a mind-control element be involved in
all this on you? Mmmm, could be!
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm sure your cult will print up a lot of stuff commending the criminal
> > behavior of its members, and will also attempt to get good PR out of
this.
> > They're already attempting, and have been revealed for what they are:
GHOULS.
>
> You are the only ghoul on here, dickwad. You're in front of the mirror a
lot,
> huh? It's your criminal mind makes you think that.
I'm not sneaking by checkpoints in a disaster area, and pretending to be a
therapist at the behest of $cientology, just to sell your criminal
cult-think. The arrests for what is I assure you a Federal offense are soon
to begin. How am I a ghoul, cultboy? I don't have a need to look into the
deep, true intentions of the things I do. I act independently, and require
no commands from an org or an auditor to operate in the real world. Why do
you think that is? Could it be Xenu?
> > <snip>
> >
> > That's because you're misled by your criminal nut-cult. It's a given.
>
> Only you are misled. By yourself. Why not concentrate on rectifying
that,
> instead of jousting with windmills, i.e., evil that doesn't really exist,
but
> would if you had your way. Unelect yourself out of judgeship of your
fellow
> men, women and children. It's just a case dramatization you appear to
have,
> anyway.
More LALALALALA stuff, huh? Thanks for all the fish.
> You weren't elected judge of anything anyway. Go jump in your coffin.
Leave
> the rest of us alone.
Who is "us"? Your various personalities? Be specific.
Fluffygirl
"Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3baa3ad1$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
I'd also like to add that on this forum I've been, out of the blue, called
cocksucking whore, stupid clam, been told I shouldn't have the job I have,
called a tramp- yet I did not see you whining about any of those posts.
I've seen both Phil Chitester and Mike McLean insulted in technicolor sexual
terminology on this forum.
You did not say anything about those posts,either.
Hmmm.
What a nice double standard you employ.
C
ladayla
ok.
That is your viewpoint. I think it is a cop out.
There were more than 99 public scn's in that CADA affair.
There were at least that many in the CAN operation.
Every single meeting held by Independent Scn's were visited by hoardes of Public
Scn's. ( This was before this NG was born).
Those lawyers are not Staff.
I think that Publics would have to have their heads buried in the sand not to
have heard the never-ending "entheta" about Scn. I mean...I have to buy a gas
furnace for a rental house that we own. I searched the WWW for info on gas
furnaces. For suppliers of gas furnaces. I went to the Library and looked at the
consumer reports. I'm only talking about maybe $ 3000.00 here. It's not like I
was gonna buy an intensive. I just can't believe that someone who is gonna spend
Scn kind of bucks, doesn't do any research.
But you are probably right. They are just clueless.>
>
>
>
>>
>> la
>> >
>>
>
>
Starshadow
Hash: SHA1
"ladayla" <ladayla...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9oedd...@drn.newsguy.com...
I do in fact understand what you are saying but then,as well
as researching anything I spend money on as a general rule I myself
wouldn't spend the kind of money people routinely spend on Scn'y
services. My mind boggles at what to me is a total waste. But to
those who feel they are getting something out of it, it does have
value and those people would probably feel that anything negative
told them is just "propaganda" and not to be listened to.
On the other hand I've spent a good deal of money on some
hobbies and interests many others would feel is a total waste, as
well, such as sf and costuming.
- --
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4 with clam cluster, Official Wiccan Chaplain
ARSCC(wdne)
"Hubbard is a dead fat fraud who started a "religion" to make money,
and Miscavige is a wheezing dwarf who
makes insane outbursts about public buggery in court. There are no
OTs , and Xenu rules." That should be good for -25 stats points,
right OSA?
(find out what this means at www.clambake.org )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6rKF0ktf2e/DGsoEQJ6vQCg0pOESt4wEplLUd2pjmYP8maB+9oAoJJ0
ykuE/x9tGbrqaz2IYCAwiH4R
=xqHs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam Rouse
In article <3baa...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
wrote:
> I've seen both Phil Chitester and Mike McLean insulted in technicolor sexual
> terminology on this forum.
Don't you think Phil C. is getting not only what he deserves, but what he
_wants_?
John
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
<snip>
> On the other hand I've spent a good deal of money on some
> hobbies and interests many others would feel is a total waste, as
> well, such as sf and costuming.
Obviously two eminently combinable hobbies :)
cerr...@freedom.net
> In article <tqkn0bh...@corp.supernews.com>,
cerr...@freedom.net says...
> >
> >
> >"ladayla" <ladayla...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:9odec...@drn.newsguy.com...
<snip>
I have no doubt that Public Scner's were involved in infiltrating
these groups. But what you are referring to in the above happened not
only before this NG was born but before a vast majority of Scner's and
non Scner's were even on the internet.
Additionally, the number of available Public Scner's to do these jobs
was much higher then it is now. The C of S has contracted. Many OT's
and non OT's have left. The recruitment pool is much smaller and
consists of our children, or clueless people who do not access the
internet.
> Those lawyers are not Staff.
> I think that Publics would have to have their heads buried in the
sand not to
> have heard the never-ending "entheta" about Scn. I mean...I have to
buy a gas
> furnace for a rental house that we own. I searched the WWW for info
on gas
> furnaces. For suppliers of gas furnaces. I went to the Library and
looked at the
> consumer reports. I'm only talking about maybe $ 3000.00 here. It's
not like I
> was gonna buy an intensive. I just can't believe that someone who is
gonna spend
> Scn kind of bucks, doesn't do any research.
> But you are probably right. They are just clueless.>
I would hazard a guess that many of the people still in Scn got
started prior to internet access and prior to many of the critical web
sites being posted. Once in Scn, the truly indoctrinated do not go to
critical sites.
I have many Scn friends with internet access. They do not visit
critical sites. They would consider this gross out ethics on their
part and would KR me if they even thought that I visited any of these
sites.
It's all part of the indoctrination. The C of S tells them not to
read "entheta" as it will mess up their case, contains lies, is
written by SP's out to destroy Scn and mankind, AND they know that
their next sec check is just around the corner so they don't read
anything that will get them in trouble with the MAA.
I believe that part of Scn's decline is the fact that anyone who has
been interested in finding out more about Scn in the past 5 or 6
years has been able to access the net and find out what the C of S has
been up to.
Flag stats started crashing in 1996. Some think that this has to do
with GAT being released. I think GAT played a part in the crash, but
I also think it's date coincident with the critical web sites going up
on the net.
The result has been that less people are joining the C of S and more
people are leaving. The ones that stay do not read critical sites and
are clueless as to the real scene in Scn.
The real evil is perpetuated by the Scner's who are not clueless. DM,
Rinder, Heber and that crowd do know what is going on as they are ones
planning and implementing the insane policies of LRH.
Part of the plan is to ensure that the parishioner's remain clueless
as to what they are doing. This is done by lying to Scn public about
what is really going on and threatening them with heavy ethics for
questioning "command intention".
If a parishioner so much as questions or queries "command intention"
then it could mean a trip to the MAA or sec checks. Most Scner's
don't question "command intention". They are either afraid to or they
are so blind that it wouldn't ever occur to them to do such a thing.
Cerridwen
Kaeli
necessarily Scientologist. One normally would return the favour if someone is
being rude and derogatory.
Yes, I've posted rude comments back to people who were rude to me. That's just
the way I'm wired. :)
Thanks.
Kaeli.
James Glidewell wrote:
> In article <3ba8f1ed$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl"
> <csw...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
> > news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
>
>
(snipped)
> .
> >
> > I am not nice to people who are nasty to me. Maybe I can be too bitchy, too
> > aggressive, whatever. Fine with me if that's how it strikes people.
> >
> > But everything I wrote was in response to your having slammed me. I'm not
> > nice when I'm being fucked with. Sorry, but that's how it is.
> >
> > You don't like it? Then don't fuck with me.
>
> You are indeed a fine and ethical scientologist.
>
>
(snipped)
> --
> Jim Glidewell
> My opinions only.
Fluffygirl
"Sam Rouse" <sama...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:samandor-55612D...@enews.newsguy.com...
I don't know. Depends on if he's really trollin' or not.
But my point to what's his face is that it won't do to have one standard for
Scn'ists and another for critics.
This guy's so up in arms about what I said to Gerry Armstrong (and these
posts are older than Gerry's said, at least one is, prolly both) and I guess
to Finn McMillan (to which he alluded without naming names).
He is not looking at the fact that what was written to me was A) Quite nasty
and B) was initiated out of the blue by those particular contributors when I
wasn't even talking to them.
This is apparently ok in his book since I'm a Scn'ist and those other people
aren't.
Since this guy's sensibilities are so offended by strongly worded posts
(well, they are if the person's not a Scn'ist, I guess), I thought I'd try
to clue this clueless individual in about other posts which he might find
abhorrent.
Either he thinks everybody should take the high road or he doesn't.
Of course, I already KNOW whether he thinks this applies to everybody.
It's writ large in his hypocritical posts on the subject.
But I will just go on bringing up examples of far more strongly worded
things than I've ever written.
Nelson's another person who's received such.
And if Glidewell is really sincere and really consistent, then it will
bother him just as much that Scn'ists receive this sort of communication as
it does the far more polite ~replies~ I made to some nasty and unsolicited
posts.
Frankly I'm not holding my breath.
C
ptsc
>"Sam Rouse" <sama...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:samandor-55612D...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> <much snippage>
>> In article <3baa...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I've seen both Phil Chitester and Mike McLean insulted in technicolor
>sexual
>> > terminology on this forum.
>> Don't you think Phil C. is getting not only what he deserves, but what he
>> _wants_?
>I don't know. Depends on if he's really trollin' or not.
>But my point to what's his face is that it won't do to have one standard for
>Scn'ists and another for critics.
The guy claims to be a child molestor who molested a 7 year old boy. If that's
true, he's a despicable piece of shit who deserves far worse than some harsh
language.
If he's a troll, fuck him anyway.
ptsc
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
>message news:1000983557.1103.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> "Richard Gozinya" <assmo...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:z%hq7.33066$aZ6.8...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>> >
>> > "Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
>> > news:344fqt8ce7upe5qpm...@4ax.com...
>> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:44:04 -0700, "Fluffygirl"
>> > > <csw...@home.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com>
>> > > >wrote in
>> > message
>> > > >news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
>> > > >
>> > > ><snip irrelevant text>
>> > > >
>> > > >What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
>> > >
>> > > Here's a small and pathetic defense of your cult.
>> > >
>> > > You know very well that your cult is the $cientology cult.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no
>> > > >such
>> thing.
>> > >
>> > > A pathetic defense. It's like saying that a Christian church
>> > > goer has no church because he or she isn't the boss of the
>> > > church.
>> > >
>> > > Your cult is the same $cientology cult run by David Miscavige
>> > > which you have been a part of and defender of from the day or
>> > > your arrival on a.r.s.
>> > >
>> > > The fact that you're not in your cult building taking courses
>> > > or being audited right now doesn't change the fact that it's
>> > > your cult. I don't have a cult, but you do.
>> >
>> > It seems you do, Gerry. You seem to be suggesting that people
>> > should be divided into pro and anti-scientology camps? Agree
>> > with all or agree with nothing?
>>
>> How is this a vague issue for you, "Mr. Gozinya"? Either one is in
>> a cult or one is not. Which is it for you?
>>
>
>Free clue. On our planet, there is a medium between black and white.
Well yes, but not in everything.
There is not a grey pregnancy.
You're either in America or you're not. That's pretty black and white.
And the application of a grey scale to that is an exercise in
silliness.
You're either alive or not. And you're alive, even if barely, until
you're not. Black and white, on and off, in or out, are very useful
concepts. There are times when gradient scales of grey are also useful
concepts.
Absolutes most certainly do exist. Everything is an absolute, and it's
all that *does* exist.
In any case, people were divided by $cientology into pro-$cientology
and anti-$cientology camps. People were divided by $cientology into
clams and wogs (R). I say these are false divisions. But from
$cientology's false divisions for human beings arises the
organization's insane War on Wogs (WoW!)(R).
$cientology wars on good wogs (R). Wogs (R) have not yet organized to
fight this menace, but a few wogs (R) have waked up to the war
$cientology wages on them. An organized wog (R) opposition to
$cientology and Scientologists in their dirty war is still in their
future.
You can be in the war or outside the war. If you're a Scientologist
you're in it. Lots of Germans in WW II were reluctantly in the war,
and even thought their nazi management was nuts for making war, but
they were in the war.
To get out of the war, as long as $cientology continues it and refuses
to sue for peace, Scientologists would pretty well have to become wogs
(R). Scientologists cannot take the War on Wogs (WoW!)(R) out of
$cientology. They must take themselves out of $cientology to escape
the war.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Fluffygirl
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message
news:ht0nqt8pg1peb15mq...@4ax.com...
I didn't see the child molester post, but I agree- that's a HORRIBLE thing.
But what I was doing in this particular instance is digging up times when
people are slammed, yet Mr. Glidewell is nowhere to be seen with his little
self righteous act.
Such as when I was called a "scared 'ho running for the cult" or some of the
other things I've already named. Or things Nelson's been called.
Glidewell's stance seems to be that it doesn't matter WHAT the person did or
said previous to that, that nobody should use any harsh words unless they
get them approved by Glidewell, first.
Or as long as it's not a Scn'ist being aggressive. Then, apparently,
anything goes.
I was not in any way meaning to imply that you guys shouldn't say whatever
the hell you like to Phil C, to me, to Nelson, to anyone else, whatever,
whomever.
That just wasn't my point.
My point is that Glidewell, in addition to making false statements and
incorrect assumptions, has one yardstick for Scn'ists and another for
critics.
So, really, anyone here wishing to say whatever, to whomever, go right
ahead. This is usenet and I have no problem with it. I may state some areas
of disagreement but I won't tell people not to say that stuff. And if I have
ever done so in the past, then I was wrong to do so.
C