Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Scientology, Tom Cruise & Medication and My Life while on Medication As a Scientologist

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Magoo

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 3:06:53 AM7/2/05
to
Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication

Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
Scientology

And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly medications

People are taking.


This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent

30 Y E A R S

Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
getting to hear it

In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!

While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
Scientology",

I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
control Epilepsy.

Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.

Yes, I was put on intense programs of vitamins. I was told these vitamins
were all I needed to 'Handle" Epilepsy, that really it was just a lack of
magnesium. Adel Davis was the source both Hubbard used, and numerous
Scientologists trying to tell me what I needed, and didn't need. Please let
me make this perfectly Clear: NONE of these people, just as Tom Cruise is
not trained medically, none of the people telling me I must get off the
medications my Doctor prescribed were medically trained.

Sadly, their programs didn't work AT ALL. I began having seizure after Grand
Mal Seizure within the "Churches" of Scientology. What happened then? Well,
first they'd take care of me briefly, but then, always, it came back to me.
Who was I connected to that I was having seizures? Scientology believes one
must be connected to someone evil, if they're sick in any way. Also, it was
implied there was something VERY wrong with me, and very bad. I must handle
it with their counseling, which I struggled with for really 30 years.

Granted, one might read it and ask, "What is wrong with you, that you would
follow such a program?" That's an excellent question, and all I can say is
Scientology is like an extremely slow train of mind control. Once on, and
believing Hubbard actually had THE answers, one tends to turn off things
that are not right. A perfect example is Tom Cruise.
Tom is now at almost the top level of Scientology. He's supposed to have
near supernatural powers. However, in the basic Creed of a Scientologist it
says, "Man has the inalienable right to free speech, free thought". However,
Tom Cruise is not allowed to speak with me. Ok, he *could* .however, on the
mind control train, one is trained not to ever speak with "Suppressives", as
they are truly so evil, they could harm you.

ME???? Little old me??? Well, in truth, once I left Scientology and began
speaking out, they declared me, one of their top producing members, a
suppressive person, and I promise you, Tom Cruise wouldn't meet with me if
you paid him! That's a violation of the very Creed he says he follows, but
he'll have 'tech' (Hubbard's writings) to explain why it's Ok. I understand
that, however, I will never, ever understand ALL of my 30 year friends
'Disconnecting" from me, just because I changed my mind. Not one of them
called me, or even asked, "What happened?" Neither would Tom Cruise...even
if we were in the same room. He knows, just as he told Matt.

Oh I know, he could explain why not with tons of adjectives about
"religious bigots", 'destructive people" etc. I know, as I used to believe
the same junk. The sad truth is this: I realized, and hopefully Tom will
too, that ALL the people that were declared Suppressives couldn't possibly
ALL be as bad as Scientology said. Many were on their Top 10 list of great
Scientologists, to be junked over night.

Anyways, I spent years trying to get off of the medications I needed,
unsuccessfully.
I went back on the medications I needed, as my Mother had pointed out, "No,
Dianetics won't fix it! Tory, they're going to KILL you!" I had fallen in
the shower and broke my front teeth, and was losing my memory daily. Finally
I agreed to return to taking my medications. I spent years and years and
years being looked down on, Just as Tom did the other day, by Scientologists
who thought they knew better.

I cannot say it enough: Scientology IS dangerous to your health. Granted,
there are many nice Scientologists, and most have no idea what I'm speaking
about. There ~is~ a very dark side to Scientology, and all I can say is
study BOTH sides, and make up your own mind.

If you'd like to find out more about it, please stop by www.xenu.net and
read up on the many stories from X-Members who spent years within
Scientology.

It's terrific to be finally free. Thank you Tom Cruise for showing the world
one of the key reasons I left.


Tory Christman

Aka: Magoo!

Burbank, CA

(818) 841- 3632

In Scientology for 30 years

Out for 5 years!

Free at last J


--

For more information about this, please see:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
http://www.altreligionscientology.org

mag...@charter.net
"Those that give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Burbank, CA
(818) 841-3632


--
Tory/Magoo~Dancing in the moonlight~
In Scientology for 30 years, out for 4 years and 11 months
For thinking and speaking my mind, I am:
Declared SP and Expelled from C of S (Woo hoo!)
(SP 6 ^ with Cumulative Cluster)
Free at LAST!
For more information about this, please see:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.torymagoo.org
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm
http://www.altreligionscientology.org

mag...@charter.net
"Those that give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Burbank, CA
(818) 841-3632


Magoo

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 3:37:51 AM7/2/05
to
PS: One last thing:
I'm s u r e Tommy Boy has No Clue that Hubbard himself was on many
medications for years while TC was "in".
Finally, he died with the very psych drugs in him that TC rants about. What
would he say to that? He'll never hear it.

If he did, he'll lie and say, "I don't care", or 'That's not true". Either
way, the Plexiglas is DOWN, and he can't/he won't hear it.

How can you tell if a Scientologist is lying?

If their lips are moving.

Tory/Magoo~
X-Scientologist after 30 years "in"
Free at last :)
"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...

Jens Tingleff

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 4:13:12 AM7/2/05
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Magoo wrote:

Thanks for posting this - hopefully people on the inside can read it,
recognise the truth of it and say "that can't be right - really."

The belief that problems like epilepsy are spiritual (and not physical) is
one thing.

Another thing is that the runaway solipsism at the heart of the belief
system of the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of
$cientology teaches that physical illness is caused by spiritual problems
(bad case of space alien ghost infestation) and the victims get
encouragement to falsely practice medicine in something like "NED for OTs
Series 34" titled "THE SEQUENCE FOR HANDLING A PHYSICAL CONDITION" which
encourages the victims to use an e-meter to solve problems with examples
given such as "poison."

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/nots34-criminals.htm

So, never mind psychosomatic illnesses or faith healing, what the criminal
organisation describes as "physical conditions" are given solutions which
involve the e-meter (and Body Thetans and everything). This is not only
stupid, it is also illegal according to the FDA.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/commentary/nots34-oconnor.txt

- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"Pourqoi ?" "On m'a payait pour ca" 'Le Samourai'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxkyeimJs3AlyPBIRAr+zAJ9Opz6PKoti8F/5olmTK5KI7Naq1gCg1Yon
L6taRVL4BQjUfuFv6Po1HeI=
=pCyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 7:08:47 AM7/2/05
to

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication
>
> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
> Scientology
>
> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
medications
>
> People are taking.
>
> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>
> 30 Y E A R S
>
> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
> getting to hear it
>
> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>
> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
> Scientology",
>
> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
> control Epilepsy.

You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter.


> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.

Meaning you just 'believe' what some persons tell you without being critical
about and verify it.

I feel sad about how you have been treated, I am very wel aware of the
stupidy of many staff in the organziation. I could have taken it as a full
time job to only report all the idiocy I have seen day after day.
Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It requires a dose
of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured. Paying money and
sitting in a chair will not do it.

Spacetraveler


Ramona

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 9:43:43 AM7/2/05
to
That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example. Another example of your
blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
garbage out.

Ramona

xenu.net

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 11:24:50 AM7/2/05
to

"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.

Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on 'secret'
research. Interesting. You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.

In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to her.
And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show her
things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have checked
out herself by consulting an OEC volume.

> Another example of your
> blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> garbage out.

Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?

By the way you really do talk nonsense.

Spacetraveler


Skipper

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 11:57:56 AM7/2/05
to
You're not the only one. There's an OT8 in Glendale with grand mal
epilepsy. Apparently doing that level didn't make him "a god" like he
wanted to achieve in $cientology (I couldn't believe it when he told me
that was his aim).

In article <42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, Magoo

Magoo

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 11:58:10 AM7/2/05
to

"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6lyxe.28432$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...

>
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
>> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
>> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
>
> Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on 'secret'
> research. Interesting. You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
>
> In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
> her.

Who told me what? This is, once again, your falsehoods added into a very
real, live story of one person who lived with the insanities Tom Cruise is
speaking of.

I'm telling you what I *LIVED*.

Quit changing what actually happened.
Scientology~is~ (and was) quite dangereous to your health:
both physical, and mental.


> And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show her
> things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have
> checked
> out herself by consulting an OEC volume.

They showed me the "OEC Volume" (**Hubbard's tech, Tom Cruise has been
taught in, also). You are an idiot, I'm sorry to say.


>
>> Another example of your
>> blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
>> be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.

One more example of your own insanities. I'm sorry for you.

>> You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
>> garbage out.

Yeah..........that's must be it~ So anyone listening to Tom Cruise..this is
the OTHER side of it, when getting someone off of medications they're
supposed to take, and quit..and it doesn't work...here's one example of what
I'm talking about.
See how *I'm* suddenly wrong?

Thanks ST....you guys do it every time!

>
> Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?

ROTFLOL!


>
> By the way you really do talk nonsense.

Are you saying that to me?

Great. Thanks, ST...really terrific. I appreciate your perfect examples!

Tory/Magoo~~
>
> Spacetraveler
>
>


Magoo

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:08:30 PM7/2/05
to

"Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:020720050857560658%skipsp...@charter.net...

> You're not the only one. There's an OT8 in Glendale with grand mal
> epilepsy. Apparently doing that level didn't make him "a god" like he
> wanted to achieve in $cientology (I couldn't believe it when he told me
> that was his aim).

No kidding!

Hey...I'm one of TONS of people with medical conditions of all kinds who
were told this, by Scientology. How about the people who died from being
told not to take their medications, or at the hands of Scientologists trying
to sit in for Doctors when people needed medical help?

This was just posted on Operation Clambake, and I think he wrote some
excellent things:


Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 3:49 pm:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tory, your story speaks to the dangerous and sweeping ignorance of CoS. When
Scientology begins with ignorance -- such as the belief that epilepsy
medicine should not be taken -- all it can attain is a deeper ignorance that
becomes life threatening or even fatal.

When it is an article of religious faith that going to "Wog" doctors or
taking "Wog" medicine is a sign of weakness and a lack of faith in LRH, then
a situation obtains where the untrained religious extremists of CoS
basically say, "We know more than medical and scientific experts. Our
spiritual knowledge and homeopathy trumps even the best doctors at Harvard
and UCLA."

(Note: "Wog" is a CoS epithet which refers to we non-Scientologists who are
deemed barbaric and unenlightened filth because we have not embraced LRH and
his glorious teachings. We are also called "raw meat" by Scientology's
Registrars as we, once registered for CoS services, possess the money that
is needed to feed the Beast of Scientology. Charming isn't it? We are raw
meat. That is what Scientologists think of us as being. We are not even
human to them, we are Wog's and raw meat.")

It is fashionable amongst the ignorant religious extremists of Scientology
to think that L.Ron Hubbard's pronouncements on medicine are superior to a
doctor's twelve years of medical training plus years of medical practice in
treating human diseases. Indeed, Scientologists consider LRH superior to all
of medicine, science, and Harvard, Cambridge, Cal Tech, MIT, and every other
university. This happens because Scientologists believe that Hubbard is God
and that God is infallable.

Medically ignorant Scientologists can be very sincere and yet a person can
become sincerely dead if they listen to these Scientology non-experts and
don't take the medicines a doctor prescribes.

Scientologists love to wallow in medical horror stories, and they are out
there, but the exceptions do not disprove medicine or psychiatry. One cannot
argue from exceptions for it is a logical fallacy.

Scientologists, really the OSA PR hacks, do intellectually dishonest things
such as citing the butchery of Nazi doctors and then saying that all
psychiatrists are exactly like Nazi doctors. Tom Cruise did this. He said
that Adolphine is a psychiatric drug named after Adolph Hitler.

Let us examine Tom Cruise's claims about Adolphine to see if Tom knows what
he is talking about.

What is Adolphine?

It is methadone, or synthetic heroin. It is not a psychiatric drug as Tom
Cruise claimed; it is rather a synthetic opiate, an addicting pain killer
that can be abused by drug addicts.

From a website about the history of methadone, which I will link, we read:

"it is dishonest to state that "methadone" had widely been used during the
war as a painkiller and a substitute for morphine under the trade name
Dolophin (Dolophine), allegedly derived from Hitler's first name Adolf.
Also, stating that Amidon had been called Adolfin (Adolphine) among soldiers
and civilian people is entirely unfounded. In fact, the name Adolphine was
created in the US in the early 1970s: "The invention of the term 'Adolphine'
by New York City street linguists in the 1970s was an apparent attempt to
discredit methadone treatment by those unsympathetic to it, using the Hitler
association" (BYRNE 1995, 20; see also KLEBER 2002)."

ref: http://www.indro-online.de/historymethadone.htm

So we see that Tom Cruise was uninformed on both counts. First, he got the
name wrong. The pre-WWII German scientists who were working on synthetic
analgesics, this to have a source of pain medicine for wounded German
soldiers should Germany's supply of opium be cut off in wartime, first
called Dolphine "Compound Va 10820 (BOCKMÜHL/EHRHART 1949; SCHAUMANN 1952).
Va 10820 was to become known as methadone no sooner than 1947." op. cit.

And folks, I got this off of Google. It was the first hit when I queried
"Adolphine drug history" it was not hard to find. Tom Cruise, if he is
allowed internet access, should have checked his "facts" before acting like
an expert on The Today Show.

Second, Tom Cruise is ignorant about classes of medicines. Dolphine, or what
we now call Methadone, is not a psychiatric drug. We read, again from a
Google search:

"Methadone, as an opiate, is an addictive central nervous system depressant.
It product analgesia or insensitivity to pain, sedation, slowing of
respiration, lowering of blood pressure, constipation, slowing of pulse and,
in some patients, nausea. The subjective effects following single doses in
non-addicted individuals are similar to those noted after morphine or heroin
use: feelings of well-being, drowsiness and euphoria."
ref: http://www.discoveryhouse.com/methadone/
minformation.aspx

So Methadone, or what is called Dolphine, is an opiate used to treat heroin
addiction and chronic pain. It is not what is called a psychopharmaceutical
because of its depressive effect on the central nervous system.

Tom Cruise was resorting to sensationalism and even then he had his facts
incorrect. There is simply no solid evidence to support TC's contention that
the drug was named after Adolph Hitler, and second, Dolphine is not a
psychiatric medicine.

For Tom Cruise to dismiss all of psychiatry based upon a glib, and wholly
incorrect, association of Dolphine with Nazism and, by extension psychiatry
with Nazism is so immensely intellectually dishonest as to cause thinking
people to dismiss Tom Cruise as an ignorant fool, a tool of Scientology's
hate campaign against psychiatry.

Tom Cruise may be smart about acting and his finances, but he is a dangerous
religious extremist when it comes to psychiatry and medicine. Strip Tom
Cruise of his sleek Hollywood image and we see an ignorant and angry
religious fundamentalist, a rude and uneducated hillbilly whose acting
talent saved him from a career as a greeter at Wal Mart. His smile would
have at least got him that far.

Tory is correct when she says, "Anyways, I spent years trying to get off of

the medications I needed, unsuccessfully. I went back on the medications I
needed, as my Mother had pointed out, 'No, Dianetics won't fix it! Tory,
they're going to KILL you!' I had fallen in the shower and broke my front
teeth, and was losing my memory daily. Finally I agreed to return to taking
my medications. I spent years and years and years being looked down on, Just
as Tom did the other day, by Scientologists who thought they knew better."

Religious fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous. Carl Sagan warned
against the type of pseudoscience we see in Scientology. Don_Carlo quoted
one of my favorite Sagan quote in another xenu.net thread that concerned
Tory's epilepsy:

Begin Quote: "Psuedoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives
on errors, cutting them away, one by one. False conclusions are drawn all
the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are
capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is
confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward
improved understanding. Proprietary feeling are of course offended when a
scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as
central to the scientific enterprise.

"Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely
so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of
disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are
defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific
hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it
are deduced." End Quote ref: pages 20-21, "Demon Haunted World."

ref: http://discus.xenu.net/discus/messages/730/
1823.html?1009633941

LRH's work can be disproved and has been widely discredited by both
scientists and by former Scientologists, some of whom tried his "applied
religious philosophy" for decades and found that it failed to deliver on its
main promises.

In order to defend his ignorant and incorrect religious views, however, Tom
Cruise linked Nazism and psychiatry. The Nazis murdered twelve million Jews
and Tom Cruise wants to associate the Holocaust with psychiatry. Tom Cruise
cheapened the deaths of twelve million Jews in Hitler's death camps in order
to promote his own religious extremism. If this does not show just how
craven Tom Cruise is in his dangerous religious fantacism, then I don't know
what will. For Tom Cruise to so casually walk on the backs of the Holocaust
dead in order to take a cheap shot at psychiatry defies human decency and
betrays his utter spiritual poverty and isolation from human suffering. All
Tom Cruise apparently feels are the stirrings that are brought about by his
romantic life. He is still an adolescent, still a naif.

Tom Cruise is an ignorant person and a religious extremist. The vicious CoS
lies he parrots apparently never bother Tom because he doesn't know they are
lies and doesn't check his facts. All he does is to recite his lines just
like in a movie.

As an aside, in his last movie "Collateral" Tom Cruise played a hitman and
murdered people in cold blood. We all know that Tom is not a hitman, but as
the religious person he claims to be, how can he play a murderer? LRH wanted
a world without violence and yet Tom is perpetuating violence in his movies.
I'm sorry, but it just seems amoral for Tom Cruise to take money to portray
a murderer when CoS wants to end violence in the world. I guess Tom was just
following the orders of the director? I guess Tom's art is not real life and
allows an otherwise ethical Tom Cruise to be excused from his vaunted CoS
ethics for 120 minutes on the big screen for $20 million?

Tom Cruise is just the propaganda puppet of a sinister cult bent on world
domination, and if world domination means taking away the medicines that
people need, then that is exactly what Scientology will do if it ever had
the power.

*****


I conclude by reminding Tom of some particularly powerful dialogue written
by Aaron Sorkin. Tom will be familiar with these lines:

JESSEP
You want answers?

KAFFEE
I think I'm entitled to them.

JESSEP
You want answers?!

KAFFEE
I want the truth.

JESSEP
You can't handle the truth!

*****

How about it, Mr. Cruise? Can you handle the truth?

'.)

_____________

Thanks.....

Tory/Magoo~~>

tree_s.gif
delmsg.gif
checkip.gif
printer.gif
movemsg.gif
banip.gif

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:28:18 PM7/2/05
to

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication
>
> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
> Scientology
>
> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
medications
>
> People are taking.
>
> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>
> 30 Y E A R S
>
> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
> getting to hear it
>
> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>
> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
> Scientology",
>
> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
> control Epilepsy.

You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter because his
Scientology had indoctrinated you to do what you were told.


> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.

Meaning you did what all we indoctrinated Scientologists do. Good, you were
keeping Scientology wonking.

I feel sad about how indoctrinated Scientologists are and how it affects
the way they are treated, I am very wel aware of the degrees of stupidy of
staff in the organziation due to indoctrination. Some very stupid, some not
so very, but all stupid. I could have taken it as a full time job to only
report all the idiocy I have seen day after day but I was too busy with my
own idiocty. Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It


requires a dose of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured.

Paying money and sitting in a chair will not do it. Believing conspiracy
theories that excuse Hubbard's totalitarian policies and practising helps
and I strongly recommend it.

Spacetraveler

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:34:43 PM7/2/05
to
On 2 Jul 2005, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
>everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
>The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example. Another example of your
>blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
>be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
>You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
>garbage out.

I was one of those 'evaluated' by David Miscavige for the Golden Age of
Tech when he found 'the blind leading the blind'. I don't always know where
I'm going but I lead to there very well. You have seen I am a scientist and
great thinker and how courage I have... a true renaissance man of the 21
century. I could not be all this without my great leadership qualities.
Flush for now but I will lead you to enlightenment after I have gotten
Gerry Armstrong through Steps A to E.

Spacetraveler

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 12:37:52 PM7/2/05
to

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c6...@news2.lightlink.com...

>
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6lyxe.28432$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> >> everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> >> The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> >
> > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
'secret'
> > research. Interesting. You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg
has
> > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> >
> > In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
> > her.
>
> Who told me what? This is, once again, your falsehoods added into a very
> real, live story of one person who lived with the insanities Tom Cruise is
> speaking of.

Little girl, stand for what you have said. I have a whole bunch of links of
posts with applicable sayings from you.

>
> I'm telling you what I *LIVED*.

No, you tell what some have done to you, when you just sat there, paying
your money, sitting in a chair, and begging "free me". There is a song from
"The Who" that goes like that...

>
> Quit changing what actually happened.
> Scientology~is~ (and was) quite dangereous to your health:
> both physical, and mental.

If you follow blindly advices taht are not even found in Scientology, of
course you are at risk, but that would be YOUR doing.

Sorry girl, you are not very sane... start looking at what is right in
front of you.

Spacetraveler

Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 1:07:55 PM7/2/05
to
* * * Spacetraveler impersonator = Gerry Armstrong * * *

Please notice that repeatedly my impersonator is defending the case of our
friend Gerry Armstrong.

<snip Gerry Armstrong "Spacetraveler impersonator">
posted as: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Spacetraveler)
through: mail...@dizum.com

What is it called? How is it spelled? Give me an F, give me an A, give me an
I, give me an R, give me an G, give me an A, give me an M, give me an E...
What's that spelled...?

This is how the critics cover up they have no argument that hold to start
with, they simply 'confidently' claim something (no explanation given), they
run (weaseling) or some may even impersonate...

Now how do they do that.... they simply Fair Game... the very tactic they
accuse Scientology of using... and what do we find... they USE it
THEMSELVES...

One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
them...

Spacetraveler


Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 1:08:13 PM7/2/05
to

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 3:18:25 PM7/2/05
to
On 2 Jul 2005, "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
>everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
>The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example. Another example of your
>blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
>be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
>You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
>garbage out.

I was one of those 'evaluated' by David Miscavige for the Golden Age of


Tech when he found 'the blind leading the blind'. I don't always know where
I'm going but I lead to there very well. You have seen I am a scientist and
great thinker and how courage I have... a true renaissance man of the 21
century. I could not be all this without my great leadership qualities.
Flush for now but I will lead you to enlightenment after I have gotten
Gerry Armstrong through Steps A to E.

Spacetraveler

>Ramona

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 3:18:24 PM7/2/05
to

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:42c63d10$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Scientology, Medication and My Life While "In", On Medication
>
> Much has been written and spoken about recently having to do with
> Scientology
>
> And what it's all about, thanks to Tom Cruise attacking publicly
medications
>
> People are taking.
>
> This didn't go over too well, and for someone like me, who spent
>
> 30 Y E A R S
>
> Fighting this exact insanity he rants about, it's delightful to see people
> getting to hear it
>
> In public, and comment on it. Thank you Tom Cruise!
>
> While I was a member of the organization known as "The Church of
> Scientology",
>
> I was told I had to get off the much needed medications I was to take to
> control Epilepsy.

You were told and did not find out what LRH said on the matter because his


Scientology had indoctrinated you to do what you were told.

> Being a true believer, I dove right in, following just as Tom says.

Meaning you did what all we indoctrinated Scientologists do. Good, you were
keeping Scientology wonking.

I feel sad about how indoctrinated Scientologists are and how it affects
the way they are treated, I am very wel aware of the degrees of stupidy of
staff in the organziation due to indoctrination. Some very stupid, some not
so very, but all stupid. I could have taken it as a full time job to only
report all the idiocy I have seen day after day but I was too busy with my

own idiocty. Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It


requires a dose of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured.

Ramona

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 4:01:18 PM7/2/05
to

Spacetraveler wrote:
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
>
> Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on 'secret'
> research. Interesting.

Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
are attempting to say.

I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with such
titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.

You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
>

Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients. This in not
permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.

Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
your source as either credible or reliable.

> In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to her.
> And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show her
> things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have checked
> out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
>
> > Another example of your
> > blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> > be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> > You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> > garbage out.
>
> Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?

I am indeed a newbie to alt.religion.scientology. Thank you for the
compliment regarding my quick adjustment. I don't consider my language
"attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
favorite hobby remains reading.


>
> By the way you really do talk nonsense.

Again that is opinion. A huge question would then be: if I talk
nonsense, why do you respond? I believe that would make you a fool.

Ramona
xenu.net
>
> Spacetraveler

realpch

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 4:39:56 PM7/2/05
to

Ha ha ha! He's not going to have a lot of fun with you Ramona.

Peach

Ramona

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 5:16:51 PM7/2/05
to

He's not going to have fun with me?! *gasp* Aww why not Peach? I'm
just a playful kitten.

Ramona

xenu.net

Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 5:37:59 PM7/2/05
to

Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 5:37:47 PM7/2/05
to

Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 5:45:46 PM7/2/05
to
In article <LODxe.28446$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
"Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!"
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
> them...
>
> Spacetraveler

They do a good job of that themselves

Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 5:46:19 PM7/2/05
to
In article <LODxe.28446$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
"Notice! Fake 'Spacetraveler posting prior to this!"
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One way of using it is impersonating pro Scientology posters and ridicule
> them...
>
> Spacetraveler

They do a good job of that themselves

realpch

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 5:58:38 PM7/2/05
to
Ramona wrote:
>
> realpch wrote:
> > Ramona wrote:
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler wrote:
<snip>

> > > > Spacetraveler
> >
> > Ha ha ha! He's not going to have a lot of fun with you Ramona.
> >
> > Peach
>
> He's not going to have fun with me?! *gasp* Aww why not Peach? I'm
> just a playful kitten.
>
> Ramona
>
> xenu.net

I know Mrs. Spacetraveler, who occasionally makes an appearance here,
would like you.
; )
Peach

Povmec

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:01:29 PM7/2/05
to

Just trying to follow your logic (don't know why I keep trying though).

You believe there is no such thing as victim of abuse or fraud. Is it
what you are saying?

And as far as I understand, she didn't sit on a chair to beg. She ended
up taking her medication while still being member of the church. It
worked fine for her when she came back to her medication. She ended up
leaving scientology and their weird beliefs. And now she is sharing her
experience with scientology.

The abuse is having scientology followers claim that they can cure
epilepsy (among other things). The ones making these false claims are
the one being fraudulous and abusive. Not the persons that are
open-minded enough to believe it could be true and try it.

Whether you like it or not, the fact in her story is pretty simple:
scientology didn't cure her epilepsy, the medications are working very
well. As simple as that.

Clearly, you are in perfectly good health ST. You happened to be lucky,
not every one has this fortune.

Ray.
www.xenu-directory.net

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:18:24 PM7/2/05
to

"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120332598....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> > > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> >
> > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
'secret'
> > research. Interesting.
>
> Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
> are attempting to say.

It is not interesting to you because you blindly believe those who in your
personal opinion (or other of whom you approve) match your prejudiced
worldview.

>
> I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
> research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with such
> titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.

You are not very smart. IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY RESEARCH IT IS KEPT SECRET.

>
> You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> >
> Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients.

And they were going to publish those in the newspapers were they not? By the
way you are not responding to my claim.

> This in not
> permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
> sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
>
> Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
> your source as either credible or reliable.

You have no argument in fact. Why? Because it's purely unscientific.

>
> > In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
her.
> > And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show
her
> > things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have
checked
> > out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
> >
> > > Another example of your
> > > blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> > > be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> > > You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> > > garbage out.
> >
> > Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> > amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> > commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
>
> I am indeed a newbie to alt.religion.scientology. Thank you for the
> compliment regarding my quick adjustment.

It is not a compliment... it means you adapt other people's realites so
quick without even having been able to evaluate them.

> I don't consider my language
> "attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
> allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
> well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
> conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
> as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
> favorite hobby remains reading.

Strange, how come you knew so little about Einstein? Also strange is that
you accept Dr. Gilbert's destroying his research just like that, and in fact
defending him for it. Some serious doubt was casted on those studies. And he
destroys the research preventing a possible fraud to be exposed. And you
people talk about confidentiality? But of course all the names of the
persons were going to be published in the newspapers were they not. You know
little about science and verification. No wonder so many adopted the
evolution doctrine.

Spacetraveler


Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:19:36 PM7/2/05
to

"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120339011.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, that's right, just playing around. Thank you...

Spacetraveler


Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:21:25 PM7/2/05
to
In article <YpExe.28462$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Yeah, that's right, just playing around. Thank you...
>
> Spacetraveler

Looks like she was making fun of you.

*points and laughs*

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:31:50 PM7/2/05
to

"Kevin" <e...@joes.net> wrote in message
news:eat-C8AA9E.1...@news.charter.net...

Of course, you have to resort that approach if you can't win by argument....
.-)

She in fact has no case in regards to defending Dr. Gilbert. People sound of
mind see and understand my reasoning. And the critics? Who cares about what
they say...

Spacetraveler


Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:33:06 PM7/2/05
to
In article <qBExe.28467$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>,
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Of course, you have to resort that approach if you can't win by argument....
> .-)

Is that what Scientology has taught you?

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:37:39 PM7/2/05
to

Spacetraveler is persistant, convincing and does not commit crimes
against others as the ARS anti-religious exrtemists do.

You can't claim that for yourself, "Kevin".

Barbara Schwarz

Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:41:47 PM7/2/05
to
In article <1120343859....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Barbara Schwarz" <Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote:


> Spacetraveler is persistant,
Yes, most scientologists are. Persistant as spreading lies.

I too am persistent Barbara.

>convincing

Only to those that are weak minded like you Barbara.

> against others as the ARS anti-religious exrtemists do.

I am not an anti-religious extremist. Stop being dishonest Barbara
Schwarz. You are lying.

> You can't claim that for yourself, "Kevin".
>
> Barbara Schwarz

Sure i can.

I just did,

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 7:01:18 PM7/2/05
to

"Barbara Schwarz" <Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1120343859....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I've quite him now, see how this little conspirator defames Tom Cruise in
the titles of his postings... childish and baseless... People have a
problem with spontanity. Cruise was spontanious, and people attack him for
it.

Spacetraveler


Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 7:03:39 PM7/2/05
to

> I've quite him now, see how this little conspirator defames Tom Cruise in
> the titles of his postings... childish and baseless... People have a
> problem with spontanity. Cruise was spontanious, and people attack him for
> it.
>
> Spacetraveler

No, people have a problem with nutjobs.

People didn't have a problem with Tom's spontaniety before he started
making an ass out of himself with this Scientology bullshit.

John Vreeland

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 7:43:58 PM7/2/05
to

I can't say I am upset with T.C.'s embracement of Scientology. He
attracts a great deal of attention to it, which in my eyes is a good
thing.

All this rubbish about his height, sexual preference, and ability to
act is irrelevant.


__
To be inerrant is to never know the truth.
John Vreeland - replace "eye-tripoli" with the appropriate tetragrammaton

Kevin

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 7:49:25 PM7/2/05
to
In article <ve9ec11ti966ldj4c...@4ax.com>,
John Vreeland <vree...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> I can't say I am upset with T.C.'s embracement of Scientology. He
> attracts a great deal of attention to it, which in my eyes is a good
> thing.

All of the attention is bad however.

More people are finding out what a crock Scientology actually is.

Jommy Cross

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 9:29:42 PM7/2/05
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:08:47 GMT, "Spacetraveler"
<spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in msg
<3Buxe.28419$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>:
<snip>

>Scientology never was and never will be a miracle cure. It requires a dose
>of doingness and willingness of those who want to be cured. Paying money and
>sitting in a chair will not do it.

Although you also have to pay money and sit in a chair.

Incident zero: Ron trolled you

Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross

---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------

Ramona

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 11:22:47 AM7/3/05
to

I have to ask, what are the views of Mrs. S.T.? Does this person also
believe as scripture the tabloids as S.T.? I sure hope not.

Ramona

Ramona

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 12:02:22 PM7/3/05
to

Spacetraveler wrote:
> "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120332598....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > That sounds just like you S.T. You "believe" and follow blindly
> > > > everything they produce even if clearly tainted. You are no better.
> > > > The thread on Dr. Gilberg is one such example.
> > >
> > > Meaning that you APPROVE of introducing an action solely based on
> 'secret'
> > > research. Interesting.
> >
> > Huh?? Not interesting to me. In all honesty I have no idea what you
> > are attempting to say.
>
> It is not interesting to you because you blindly believe those who in your
> personal opinion (or other of whom you approve) match your prejudiced
> worldview.

I hate to be the one to break this you you S.T., but we are ALL blinded
by prejudices based on our unique life experiences. In case that was
too difficult for you to understand, I am saying, you too are blinded
by your own "prejudiced worldview."


>
> >
> > I'm not quite sure why you quoted secret. You do realize that most
> > research projects are not put on the front page of newspapers with such
> > titles as: Hey we are testing X mascara for allergic response.
>
> You are not very smart. IF YOU CAN'T VERIFY RESEARCH IT IS KEPT SECRET.

Ad hominem on your part. Tsk, tsk. My complaint was in your sentence.
It's structure caused me to not understand the point you were
attempting to make.

What was kept secret? Oh right, it almost escaped me, the ethical
researcher did not want to disclose the names of the subjects. The
names are what was wanted, not the information derived from the
experiment.


>
> >
> > You know, you simply don't know if Dr. Gilberg has
> > > committed fraud, because no one can verify his supposed research as he
> > > destroyed it. Who is believing blindly here.
> > >
> > Again, what was wanted was the names of the patients.
>
> And they were going to publish those in the newspapers were they not? By the
> way you are not responding to my claim.
>
> > This in not
> > permissable due to patient doctor confidentiality rules even if a
> > sociologist wants that information. This does not constitue fraud.
> >
> > Also consider your source of information. You cannot honestly believe
> > your source as either credible or reliable.
>
> You have no argument in fact. Why? Because it's purely unscientific.

It is against the rules to divuldge information regarding patients.

What?! It is not a part of science to disclose the names of test
subjects. Again, patient/doctor confidentiality is necessary. You
understand why, Oh I do hope?!


>
> >
> > > In addition friend Tory stories tell much about what some has 'told' to
> her.
> > > And to quote her she said that after she left she had some people show
> her
> > > things she has not been aware of. Things she very simply could have
> checked
> > > out herself by consulting an OEC volume.
> > >
> > > > Another example of your
> > > > blind following is the thread on Einstein in which you blieved him to
> > > > be a bad student because you didn't bother researching for yourself.
> > > > You picked up crappy information and bought into it. Garbage in,
> > > > garbage out.
> > >
> > > Something tells me that you are not exactly a newbee. You have adjusted
> > > amazingly quick to the irrational reasoning and attacking language as is
> > > commonly used by various of the critics. Who are you really?
> >
> > I am indeed a newbie to alt.religion.scientology. Thank you for the
> > compliment regarding my quick adjustment.
>
> It is not a compliment... it means you adapt other people's realites so
> quick without even having been able to evaluate them.

Oh, it is indeed a compliment taken by me. As for realities, I accept
my own. I don't read "The NationalScientologyBrainFeeder" as fact,
"evaluating" the garbage written as truth. But you do and garbage in =
garbage out.


>
> > I don't consider my language
> > "attacking" as for "irrational" that is your opinion and you are
> > allowed that. How's this adage? The Proof is in the Pudding. I am
> > well-educated, though that makes me feel like a braggard, and was
> > conferred a Master's degree (I chose chemistry and biology coursework
> > as electives, yeah I'm a geek) many, many, many, moons ago. My
> > favorite hobby remains reading.
>
> Strange, how come you knew so little about Einstein?

That would be you S.T. for writing (libel) as truth, untruths regarding
Einstein. For shame, for shame.

Also strange is that you accept Dr. Gilbert's destroying his research
just like that, and in fact
> defending him for it.

Hurray for Dr. Gilberg for protecting his patients to the point in
which he willingly destroyed his own research for their defense. I
think that makes me respect him the more so.

Some serious doubt was casted on those studies.

By whom? Oh that's right, that "Trashyly Journal" questioned his
non-production of Names, names names.

And he
> destroys the research preventing a possible fraud to be exposed.

He destroyed the research to protect his patients' names from being
exposed to a sociologist. Did you consider that you are possibly
committing libel against Dr. Gilberg?

And you
> people talk about confidentiality? But of course all the names of the
> persons were going to be published in the newspapers were they not. You know
> little about science and verification. No wonder so many adopted the
> evolution doctrine.


haha, lolroflmao. That last sentence is beautiful. Evolution
sweetie-pie is not a doctrine, but a theory....scientific theory. I'd
tell you to look up the definition, but I have little faith in your
willingness to look up that which is not in your paradigm.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof This
site will explain to you what theory means. Remember, we are not
talking about every day usage, but scientific theory. There is a
difference.

http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm I'm guessing you would
add gym time to the classroom. hehe

You suggest I have little understanding of science or of verification.
What university level hard science coursework have you taken? I would
love to compare your hard science background with mine. What studies,
by that I mean experiments-you seem to not "get" the lingo, have you
participated? By participated, I don't mean you were one of the
studied, but where one of the researchers.

Ramona
lisamcpherson.org


>
> Spacetraveler

Spacetraveler

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 1:24:45 PM7/3/05
to

"Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120406542....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Spacetraveler wrote:
> > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1120332598....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Spacetraveler wrote:
> > > > "Ramona" <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1120311823.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > &