The Real Story of L. Ron Hubbard.
Farewell to Sicily
Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
Roadrunner
> http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
In fact, he does not do any such thing...
Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
RR
Don Freeman
Russell Miller
Awards:
* Four Press Awards, Sunday Times Magazine
* Writer of the Year, Society of British Magazine Editors
Books Authored:
* The Resistance, 1979
* The East Indiamen, 1980
* The Commandos by Russell Miller & The Editors of Time-Life Books
* Continents in Collision, 1983
* The Soviet Airforce, 1983
* Bunny, a biography of Hugh Hefner,1984
* The House of Getty, 1985
* Bare-faced Messiah, a biography of L. Ron Hubbard, 1987
* Body and Soul, 1991
* Nothing less than Victory, 1993
* 10 Days in May, 1995
* Magnum: Fifty Years at the Front Line of History: The Story of
the Legendary Photo Agency, 1999
* Behind the Lines, 2002
* Codename Tricicle: The Playboy Double-agent, 2004
* Arthur Conan Doyle, 2008
TV Apperances:
* Facing South: The Cult Business broadcast on TVS (southern
England regional TV), November 1987
* The Big Story: Inside the Cult made by Carlton TV and broadcast
on ITV, July 13, 1995
* Secret Lives: L. Ron Hubbard made by 3BM and broadcast on
Channel 4, November 19, 1997
Yep, must not be reputable at all.
--
__
(oO) www.cosmoslair.com
/||\ Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)
Peter Schilte
Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
you, not for the rest of the world.
You claim a lot about the book, but you fail to offer ANY support for
your accusations. As usual.
Your response is more a robotic reaction: You MIST oppose, because the
book tells things about Hubbard, your precious guru, you don't like.
Did you check the references? Whhich of them were wrong? Which were
misinterpreted? And why?
You however choose to only dismiss the book, without offering any
support.
The only effect you gain isto make other people curious and make them
read it: The exact opposite of what you want.
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
Roadrunner
> On 22 dec, 18:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Dec, 03:05, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> > > Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
>
> > In fact, he does not do any such thing...
>
> > Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
> > evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
> > properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
>
> > Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
>
> > RR
>
> Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
> you, not for the rest of the world.
>
> You claim a lot about the book, but you fail to offer ANY support for
> your accusations. As usual.
> Your response is more a robotic reaction: You MIST oppose, because the
> book tells things about Hubbard, your precious guru, you don't like.
> Did you check the references? Whhich of them were wrong? Which were
> misinterpreted? And why?
> You however choose to only dismiss the book, without offering any
> support.
I said it does not properly support the conclusions and associations
made. And it is missing hard data for the most. Miller is a
storyteller...
The bulk of the book is claimed to have been put together through
interviews. But you don't get the point here anyhow...
> The only effect you gain isto make other people curious and make them
> read it: The exact opposite of what you want.
Still don't get it, please read it, and verify if it adds up. The book
will only survive because of faith and some portion wishful
thinking...
RR
Roadrunner
Do you know what 'ethics presence' consist of? Make a mistake and
you've lost it... Miller makes up things even when there is no support
for it. Diggers will find this in his past track... and in this book.
It is called here bad and inexact referencing.
RR
Don Freeman
Do you know what "backing up your accusations" means? Cite please.
Peter Schilte
> On 22 Dec, 20:00, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 dec, 18:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Dec, 03:05, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> > > > Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
>
> > > In fact, he does not do any such thing...
>
> > > Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
> > > evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
> > > properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
>
> > > Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
>
> > > RR
>
> > Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
> > you, not for the rest of the world.
>
> > You claim a lot about the book, but you fail to offer ANY support for
> > your accusations. As usual.
> > Your response is more a robotic reaction: You MIST oppose, because the
> > book tells things about Hubbard, your precious guru, you don't like.
> > Did you check the references? Whhich of them were wrong? Which were
> > misinterpreted? And why?
> > You however choose to only dismiss the book, without offering any
> > support.
>
> I said it does not properly support the conclusions and associations
> made.
I know. I know. That's why I asked you to support your claims and
accusations. You apparently are unable to, the way you skipped over
it....
> And it is missing hard data for the most.
Another unsupported claim.
> Miller is a
> storyteller...
>
A better one than Hubbard ever was.
> The bulk of the book is claimed to have been put together through
> interviews. But you don't get the point here anyhow...
>
Just look at the list of references.
> > The only effect you gain isto make other people curious and make them
> > read it: The exact opposite of what you want.
>
> Still don't get it, please read it, and verify if it adds up.
It added up, as it was coroborated by others.
> The book
> will only survive because of faith and some portion wishful
> thinking...
>
Faith and wishful thinking? Sounds like you and scientology.......
Roadrunner
>
> > On 22 Dec, 03:05, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> > > Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
>
> > In fact, he does not do any such thing...
>
> > Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
> > evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
> > properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
>
> > Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
>
> > RR
>
> Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
> you, not for the rest of the world.
It is entheta for any decent person. I read the first 1/3rd of the
book, and then I was fed up with the incoherency and rumour approach.
The book survives only because of opinionated people...
RR
Roadrunner
Indeed LOOK at them... you.. illiterate...
RR
Roadrunner
Miller wrote the book, that is up to him, thus far he does not deliver
the goods. I've read 1/3rd of the book, and this was enough for me. He
doesn't support his stories and associations with hard data. The only
reason why you like the book is because of its ultimate message. The
book survives because of people like you.
RR
Peter Schilte
That is of course the only reason you do not like it: That Hubbard was
a fraud. And you know it.
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> The
Peter Schilte
> On 22 Dec, 20:00, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 dec, 18:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Dec, 03:05, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> > > > Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
>
> > > In fact, he does not do any such thing...
>
> > > Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
> > > evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
> > > properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
>
> > > Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
>
> > > RR
>
> > Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
> > you, not for the rest of the world.
>
> It is entheta for any decent person. I read the first 1/3rd of the
> book, and then I was fed up with the incoherency and rumour approach.
>
> The book survives only because of opinionated people...
>
You mean like your opinion. Because for all your claims and
accusations you offered no support at all. Just the usual "I say so,
so it must be true".
Peter Schilte
Looking!
And I see a lot of references, indeed many more than the support for
your claims and accusations.
Not bad for a supposedly illiterate, don't you think?
> you.. illiterate...
And a Merry Christmas to you too!
Skipper
<f9f9e7ff-b70b-4917...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Roadrunner <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The bulk of the book is claimed to have been put together through
> interviews. But you don't get the point here anyhow...
How would you know about a point, any point? You're as irrelevant as a
turd in a hurricane.
Kat
> In article
> <f9f9e7ff-b70b-4917-af5f-9efe76099...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The bulk of the book is claimed to have been put together through
> > interviews. But you don't get the point here anyhow...
>
> How would you know about a point, any point? You're as irrelevant as a
> turd in a hurricane.
That.. conjured some really gross mental images. ~_~
Roadrunner
Your beliefsystem is of no interest what so ever... You are unable to
communicate. I wrote: "He (Miller) doesn't support his stories and
associations with hard data." You lack an investigative mind, you are
just a FOLLOWER...
RR
Roadrunner
Pretty bad in fact, as you are unable to evaluate or determine
anything. I repeat: "He doesn't support his stories and associations
with hard data."
But the reader may determine/establish this for him/herself. The book
is crap and a disgrace regarding how it is put together.
RR
Roadrunner
> On 24 dec, 19:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Dec, 20:00, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 dec, 18:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 22 Dec, 03:05, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> > > > > Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
>
> > > > In fact, he does not do any such thing...
>
> > > > Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
> > > > evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
> > > > properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
>
> > > > Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
> > > you, not for the rest of the world.
>
> > It is entheta for any decent person. I read the first 1/3rd of the
> > book, and then I was fed up with the incoherency and rumour approach.
>
> > The book survives only because of opinionated people...
>
> You mean like your opinion. Because for all your claims and
> accusations you offered no support at all. Just the usual "I say so,
> so it must be true".
Peter the Bot in action... Miller doesn't deliver the goods, he
presents stories. You truly are an illiterate freak unable to
evaluate. And why? You exgirlfriend kicked her drughabit because of
Scientology principles, and YOU COULD NOT STAND THAT... what a grand
guy you are, jeez... get a life...
RR
Peter Schilte
No, it isn't of any interest to you.
> You are unable tocommunicate.
Really? So far I have the impression that most of time you understand
me very well. Except for the willful misrepresentations,
misinterpretations and manipulations.
> I wrote: "He (Miller) doesn't support his stories and
>
> associations with hard data."
I know. I know. And I also know that you did not even try to support
your claims.
> You lack an investigative mind, you are
> just a FOLLOWER...
>
You mean follower, as in "You are a follower of con artist Hubbard? A
follower of creationist Hovind?"
Sorry, but there you are wrong. Not every person disagreeing with your
limited and prejudiced views on matters, facts and persons is by
definition a follower. That is JUST your one sided opinion.
Peter Schilte
Plenty of hard data. But how would you know: you only read a third of
the book.....
You, on the other hand, so far lack to support any of your claims and
accusations.
> But the reader may determine/establish this for him/herself. The book
> is crap and a disgrace regarding how it is put together.
>
A rather preconceived opinion. You don't like to read another view on
Hubbard. It shatters your image of your precious guru. So the book
MUST be crap.
Peter Schilte
> On 24 Dec, 19:51, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 24 dec, 19:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Dec, 20:00, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 22 dec, 18:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 22 Dec, 03:05, Farewell to Sicily <nopleffor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm
>
> > > > > > Respected British journalist Russell Miller tells it like it is.
>
> > > > > In fact, he does not do any such thing...
>
> > > > > Insufficient and inexact referencing (mostly interviews), i.e. no hard
> > > > > evidence. Then most importantly he fails to justify his associations
> > > > > properly. The book is basically a piece of crap.
>
> > > > > Respected? I wouldn't think so, only by you people here.
>
> > > > > RR
>
> > > > Don't tell you read it. Nobody would believe you. As it is entheta for
> > > > you, not for the rest of the world.
>
> > > It is entheta for any decent person. I read the first 1/3rd of the
> > > book, and then I was fed up with the incoherency and rumour approach.
>
> > > The book survives only because of opinionated people...
>
> > You mean like your opinion. Because for all your claims and
> > accusations you offered no support at all. Just the usual "I say so,
> > so it must be true".
>
> Peter the Bot in action... Miller doesn't deliver the goods, he
> presents stories.
Supported by facts. Facts you do not offer to support your claims.
> You truly are an illiterate freak unable to
> evaluate.
You are entitled to have even the most insane and idiotic delusions.
> And why? You exgirlfriend kicked her drughabit because of
> Scientology principles,
She kicked drug abuse at Narconon. Others did not at Narconon. That is
the truth.
> and YOU COULD NOT STAND THAT...
You made that up. Completely.
> what a grand
> guy you are, jeez...
Your opinion is based on, well, only on what you made up.
> get a life...
So you are of the idiotic opinion I don't have!?
Now THAT is insane.
Roadrunner
Jeez, are you stupid, it's YOU that refuse to duplicate what I say.
This is you: "Except for the willful misrepresentations,
misinterpretations and manipulations." People only have to visit your
site.
RR
Roadrunner
But his tales and presentations are not supported by the hard data, of
which there is not so very much either.
>But how would you know: you only read a third of
> the book.....
...which is more than enough to determine
> You, on the other hand, so far lack to support any of your claims and
> accusations.
>
> > But the reader may determine/establish this for him/herself. The book
> > is crap and a disgrace regarding how it is put together.
>
> A rather preconceived opinion. You don't like to read another view on
> Hubbard. It shatters your image of your precious guru. So the book
> MUST be crap.
That's you, that's how you look at matters. You little creep twister
and liar...
Roadrunner
That's easily done, just go to the back of the book. See how many
interviews he lists. Data gotten from interviews equals coloured
information. But you don't understand that. It is also good to make a
list of those that he lists as being interviewed, and compare that
with a list of people he could have interviewed but chose NOT to
include. These were the mid-80's.
>
> > You truly are an illiterate freak unable to
> > evaluate.
>
> You are entitled to have even the most insane and idiotic delusions.
>
> > And why? You exgirlfriend kicked her drughabit because of
> > Scientology principles,
>
> She kicked drug abuse at Narconon. Others did not at Narconon. That is
> the truth.
>
> > and YOU COULD NOT STAND THAT...
>
> You made that up. Completely.
Justified by your sheer denials. You couldn't stand it, you
invalidated here by throwing your crap at her. Grand guy you are,
jeez...
RR
Peter Schilte
You apparently are of the opinion that communication is a one way
road. Refusing to "duplicate":
Duplicate:
(dū'plĭ-kĭt, dyū'-) pronunciation
adj.
1. Identically copied from an original.
2. Existing or growing in two corresponding parts; double.
3. Denoting a manner of play in cards in which partnerships or
teams play the same deals and compare scores at the end: duplicate
bridge.
n.
1. An identical copy; a facsimile.
2. One that corresponds exactly to another, especially an original.
3. Games. A card game in which partnerships or teams play the same
deals and compare scores at the end.
v., -cat·ed, -cat·ing, -cates. (-kāt')
v.tr.
1. To make an exact copy of.
2. To make twofold; double.
3. To make or perform again; repeat: a hard feat to duplicate.
v.intr.
To become duplicate.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/duplicate#ixzz198WJBnv0
Yes, I do not duplicate you. For obvious reasons.
> This is you: "Except for the willful misrepresentations,
> misinterpretations and manipulations." People only have to visit your
> site.
>
And they do.
Again, you so far have only "found"2 items to attack: One of Hubbard's
quotes and Hubbard's pictures of which you insist they are forgeries
without anything supportive of that claim.
Peter Schilte
Only in your unsupported opinion.
> >But how would you know: you only read a third of
> > the book.....
>
> ...which is more than enough to determine
>
Wrong. It isn't with dianetics, it isn't with Barefaced Messiah.
> > You, on the other hand, so far lack to support any of your claims and
> > accusations.
>
> > > But the reader may determine/establish this for him/herself. The book
> > > is crap and a disgrace regarding how it is put together.
>
> > A rather preconceived opinion. You don't like to read another view on
> > Hubbard. It shatters your image of your precious guru. So the book
> > MUST be crap.
>
> That's you, that's how you look at matters.
Nope. That is what you showed here.
> You little creep twister
> and liar...
>
Nope. That is your department completely, documented and all.
Peter Schilte
Only in your opinion. You don't like how Hubbard has been pictured, so
it must be the "colored information".
> It is also good to make a
> list of those that he lists as being interviewed, and compare that
> with a list of people he could have interviewed but chose NOT to
> include. These were the mid-80's.
>
The organization of scientology was after him the moment it got
information of the oncoming book. Do you really think a scientologist
would see Miller to be interviewed for the book?
>
>
> > > You truly are an illiterate freak unable to
> > > evaluate.
>
> > You are entitled to have even the most insane and idiotic delusions.
>
> > > And why? You exgirlfriend kicked her drughabit because of
> > > Scientology principles,
>
> > She kicked drug abuse at Narconon. Others did not at Narconon. That is
> > the truth.
>
> > > and YOU COULD NOT STAND THAT...
>
> > You made that up. Completely.
>
> Justified by your sheer denials.
No, justified by YOU, as it fits your prejudiced view on matters.
It is complete bullshit, imagination, fantasy. A bold lie. But that
isn't a surprise any longer.
> You couldn't stand it, you
> invalidated here by throwing your crap at her. Grand guy you are,
> jeez...
>
Same old bullshit, twisted beyond reality, repeated ad nausium.
You may have your delusions, however insane they may be......
Until now you failed to offer ANY support for your claims and
accusations.
Instead you offer invalidations and false accusations and
interpretations.
Pathetic.
Roadrunner
> On 25 dec, 12:57, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Dec, 12:35, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
> > > > Peter the Bot in action... Miller doesn't deliver the goods, he
> > > > presents stories.
>
> > > Supported by facts. Facts you do not offer to support your claims.
>
> > That's easily done, just go to the back of the book. See how many
> > interviews he lists. Data gotten from interviews equals coloured
> > information. But you don't understand that.
>
> Only in your opinion. You don't like how Hubbard has been pictured, so
> it must be the "colored information".
Quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass how he is pictured. But one can
not reason with a nutcase like you...
Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
understand that.
RR
Peter Schilte
> On 25 Dec, 16:29, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 25 dec, 12:57, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Dec, 12:35, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > > > Peter the Bot in action... Miller doesn't deliver the goods, he
> > > > > presents stories.
>
> > > > Supported by facts. Facts you do not offer to support your claims.
>
> > > That's easily done, just go to the back of the book. See how many
> > > interviews he lists. Data gotten from interviews equals coloured
> > > information. But you don't understand that.
>
> > Only in your opinion. You don't like how Hubbard has been pictured, so
> > it must be the "colored information".
>
> Quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass how he is pictured. But one can
> not reason with a nutcase like you...
This so called "nutcase" has observed you going almost ballistic every
time Hubbard is pictured in a way you don't like. You robotically
attack everything that isn't in agreement with your view on Hubbard.
And now you want me to believe you don't care?
>
> Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
> understand that.
>
Obviously you are of the opinion interviews can only offer colored
information.
I hope you realize the same then goes for the information you provide.
Just have a look at your interpretation of my ex-girlfriend's story:
Extremely colored "information".
In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
facts.
You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
You still didn't offer anything else but your opinion to support your
claims and accusations.
Sir Peter
Skipper
<296267bc-c61e-4e85...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Peter Schilte <peters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 dec, 19:48, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 25 Dec, 16:29, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 25 dec, 12:57, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 25 Dec, 12:35, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > > > > Peter the Bot in action... Miller doesn't deliver the goods, he
> > > > > > presents stories.
> >
> > > > > Supported by facts. Facts you do not offer to support your claims.
> >
> > > > That's easily done, just go to the back of the book. See how many
> > > > interviews he lists. Data gotten from interviews equals coloured
> > > > information. But you don't understand that.
> >
> > > Only in your opinion. You don't like how Hubbard has been pictured, so
> > > it must be the "colored information".
> >
> > Quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass how he is pictured. But one can
> > not reason with a nutcase like you...
>
> This so called "nutcase" has observed you going almost ballistic every
> time Hubbard is pictured in a way you don't like. You robotically
> attack everything that isn't in agreement with your view on Hubbard.
> And now you want me to believe you don't care?
He calls himself Roadrunner. You know what that is, don't you? It's a
flightless cuckoo bird.
That's why he keeps flapping, thinking Elwrong makes him fly. Psycho.
Roadrunner
> On 25 dec, 19:48, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Dec, 16:29, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 dec, 12:57, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 Dec, 12:35, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > > > Peter the Bot in action... Miller doesn't deliver the goods, he
> > > > > > presents stories.
>
> > > > > Supported by facts. Facts you do not offer to support your claims.
>
> > > > That's easily done, just go to the back of the book. See how many
> > > > interviews he lists. Data gotten from interviews equals coloured
> > > > information. But you don't understand that.
>
> > > Only in your opinion. You don't like how Hubbard has been pictured, so
> > > it must be the "colored information".
>
> > Quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass how he is pictured. But one can
> > not reason with a nutcase like you...
>
> This so called "nutcase" has observed you going almost ballistic every
> time Hubbard is pictured in a way you don't like. You robotically
> attack everything that isn't in agreement with your view on Hubbard.
> And now you want me to believe you don't care?
You are utterly delusional, or rather you have no rebuttal and so you
need to make up your above claim... I care about deliberate
mispresentations, and I don't care who is being targeted or what it is
about.
>
>
>
> > Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
> > understand that.
>
> Obviously you are of the opinion interviews can only offer colored
> information.
Another delusion, you just make up these things as you go along. I
never said, claimed nor implied that.
> I hope you realize the same then goes for the information you provide.
> Just have a look at your interpretation of my ex-girlfriend's story:
> Extremely colored "information".
Delusional, this was your OWN tale, all I did was adding an evaluation
onto it.
> In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
> interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
> facts.
Delusional, you adopt to your beliefsystem that what you like. When
the book was published in 1987 the Internet was not that common yet,
and hardly available widely. If one checks out his referencing (that
does not go to some Interview) we will find that he writes about
inside knowledge that is not accounted for nor found in his reference
source. Today therefore Miller gets easily exposed. How does he know
such details? Where does it come from? It may point in the direction
that he simply was supplied with information and was hired to write
such a book, the time-span is also rather coincidental.
See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
"Forbes, 27 October 1986".
I have come to realize the book itself is of more importance than I
previously thought. Because it folds out that it was issued as part of
someone's agenda. It will not be in favour though of the anti-
Scientology movement and its followers. As said, check up on this
paragraph 2. Where does Miller gets this from, then actually 'think'
with this data, where does it point to!
>
> You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
> standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
Delusional, that is your standard operating procedure, it never was
and never will be mine.
>
> You still didn't offer anything else but your opinion to support your
> claims and accusations.
This can be compared with that if I would claim that today the sun is
shining at noon (it is noon just now), then you still would ask me to
support my claim. 1.1 on the tonescale, this is where we can place
you. An utter fruitcake.
Peter Schilte
Fool yourself, not me.
>
>
> > > Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
> > > understand that.
>
> > Obviously you are of the opinion interviews can only offer colored
> > information.
>
> Another delusion, you just make up these things as you go along. I
> never said, claimed nor implied that.
>
You said: "Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information."
In case you meant something different, why didn't you say so?
> > I hope you realize the same then goes for the information you provide.
> > Just have a look at your interpretation of my ex-girlfriend's story:
> > Extremely colored "information".
>
> Delusional, this was your OWN tale, all I did was adding an evaluation
> onto it.
>
And what colorful evaluation you made of it! You colored it to a
degree it doesn't even come close to the truth anymore.
It's pure manipulation, not evaluation.
> > In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
> > interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
> > facts.
>
> Delusional, you adopt to your beliefsystem that what you like.
Prove it.
> When
> the book was published in 1987 the Internet was not that common yet,
> and hardly available widely. If one checks out his referencing (that
> does not go to some Interview) we will find that he writes about
> inside knowledge that is not accounted for nor found in his reference
> source. Today therefore Miller gets easily exposed. How does he know
> such details? Where does it come from? It may point in the direction
> that he simply was supplied with information and was hired to write
> such a book, the time-span is also rather coincidental.
>
Conspiracy theories again?
> See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
> "Forbes, 27 October 1986".
>
> I have come to realize the book itself is of more importance than I
> previously thought. Because it folds out that it was issued as part of
> someone's agenda. It will not be in favour though of the anti-
> Scientology movement and its followers. As said, check up on this
> paragraph 2. Where does Miller gets this from, then actually 'think'
> with this data, where does it point to!
>
More conspiracy theories.
>
>
> > You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
> > standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
>
> Delusional, that is your standard operating procedure, it never was
> and never will be mine.
>
So reading only one third of dianetics is sufficient to have a
balanced opinion on it?
Until now you never made that condition. Only just now, with Barefaced
Messiah, the book based on your conspiracy theory.
>
>
> > You still didn't offer anything else but your opinion to support your
> > claims and accusations.
>
> This can be compared with that if I would claim that today the sun is
> shining at noon (it is noon just now), then you still would ask me to
> support my claim. 1.1 on the tonescale, this is where we can place
> you. An utter fruitcake.
>
Lame argument. I asked you to support your claims and accusations
regarding Barefaced Messiah, not about the sun at noon.
The Tone Scale only exists for Hubbard's disciples and has no value in
the real world outside the mindset of scientology.
Conspiracy theorists are nut cases, people using made up facts as
arguments are nut cases. Both apply to you.
Roadrunner
You have already been fooled, and quite some time ago... .-)
>
>
>
> > > > Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
> > > > understand that.
>
> > > Obviously you are of the opinion interviews can only offer colored
> > > information.
>
> > Another delusion, you just make up these things as you go along. I
> > never said, claimed nor implied that.
>
> You said: "Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information."
> In case you meant something different, why didn't you say so?
It's only your lack of subtleness regarding understanding. It is the
level you are on.
>
> > > I hope you realize the same then goes for the information you provide.
> > > Just have a look at your interpretation of my ex-girlfriend's story:
> > > Extremely colored "information".
>
> > Delusional, this was your OWN tale, all I did was adding an evaluation
> > onto it.
>
> And what colorful evaluation you made of it! You colored it to a
> degree it doesn't even come close to the truth anymore.
> It's pure manipulation, not evaluation.
I changed NOTHING in your tale...
>
> > > In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
> > > interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
> > > facts.
>
> > Delusional, you adopt to your beliefsystem that what you like.
>
> Prove it.
Your site hosts some marvelous examples of your adoptions... .-)
>
> > When
> > the book was published in 1987 the Internet was not that common yet,
> > and hardly available widely. If one checks out his referencing (that
> > does not go to some Interview) we will find that he writes about
> > inside knowledge that is not accounted for nor found in his reference
> > source. Today therefore Miller gets easily exposed. How does he know
> > such details? Where does it come from? It may point in the direction
> > that he simply was supplied with information and was hired to write
> > such a book, the time-span is also rather coincidental.
>
> Conspiracy theories again?
Yeah, and JFK was hit by a lonesome killer, we know you only buy
officially approved versions for ANYTHING...
>
> > See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
> > "Forbes, 27 October 1986".
You ignore this... of course you ignore that, you have to...
Where did Miller got it from? His book is filled with such examples,
although this example in particular is interesting.
>
> > I have come to realize the book itself is of more importance than I
> > previously thought. Because it folds out that it was issued as part of
> > someone's agenda. It will not be in favour though of the anti-
> > Scientology movement and its followers. As said, check up on this
> > paragraph 2. Where does Miller gets this from, then actually 'think'
> > with this data, where does it point to!
>
> More conspiracy theories.
Explain where Miller got it from....
>
>
>
> > > You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
> > > standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
>
> > Delusional, that is your standard operating procedure, it never was
> > and never will be mine.
>
> So reading only one third of dianetics is sufficient to have a
> balanced opinion on it?
Yes,...
> Until now you never made that condition. Only just now, with Barefaced
> Messiah, the book based on your conspiracy theory.
You are lying and manipulating...
>
>
>
> > > You still didn't offer anything else but your opinion to support your
> > > claims and accusations.
>
> > This can be compared with that if I would claim that today the sun is
> > shining at noon (it is noon just now), then you still would ask me to
> > support my claim. 1.1 on the tonescale, this is where we can place
> > you. An utter fruitcake.
>
> Lame argument. I asked you to support your claims and accusations
> regarding Barefaced Messiah, not about the sun at noon.
> The Tone Scale only exists for Hubbard's disciples and has no value in
> the real world outside the mindset of scientology.
> Conspiracy theorists are nut cases, people using made up facts as
> arguments are nut cases. Both apply to you.
I only laid out on what level you are on. But, here, Sir Peter does
'approve' (adopt) fairytales like some 'Affirmations' without any
questions asked. L. Ron Hubbard wrote them he says, but he forwards
NOTHING that authenticates anything regarding them. You are a a
dishonest brainwashed freak, all the way through...
Peter Schilte
You may have your delusions.....
At least I never fell for the Hubbard con.
>
>
> > > > > Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
> > > > > understand that.
>
> > > > Obviously you are of the opinion interviews can only offer colored
> > > > information.
>
> > > Another delusion, you just make up these things as you go along. I
> > > never said, claimed nor implied that.
>
> > You said: "Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information."
> > In case you meant something different, why didn't you say so?
>
> It's only your lack of subtleness regarding understanding. It is the
> level you are on.
>
It's more your lack of communication skills. "Equals", how subtle
should that be understood?
>
>
> > > > I hope you realize the same then goes for the information you provide.
> > > > Just have a look at your interpretation of my ex-girlfriend's story:
> > > > Extremely colored "information".
>
> > > Delusional, this was your OWN tale, all I did was adding an evaluation
> > > onto it.
>
> > And what colorful evaluation you made of it! You colored it to a
> > degree it doesn't even come close to the truth anymore.
> > It's pure manipulation, not evaluation.
>
> I changed NOTHING in your tale...
>
Yes, you did. You added your prejudiced conclusions, based on your
preoccupied views. That indeed changed the story into something that
never happened.
>
>
> > > > In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
> > > > interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
> > > > facts.
>
> > > Delusional, you adopt to your beliefsystem that what you like.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Your site hosts some marvelous examples of your adoptions... .-)
>
Really? How come you never were able to point at inconsistencies?
And I am not referring to your unsupported claim the Hubbard pictures
are forgeries.
>
>
> > > When
> > > the book was published in 1987 the Internet was not that common yet,
> > > and hardly available widely. If one checks out his referencing (that
> > > does not go to some Interview) we will find that he writes about
> > > inside knowledge that is not accounted for nor found in his reference
> > > source. Today therefore Miller gets easily exposed. How does he know
> > > such details? Where does it come from? It may point in the direction
> > > that he simply was supplied with information and was hired to write
> > > such a book, the time-span is also rather coincidental.
>
> > Conspiracy theories again?
>
> Yeah, and JFK was hit by a lonesome killer, we know you only buy
> officially approved versions for ANYTHING...
>
>
>
> > > See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
> > > "Forbes, 27 October 1986".
>
> You ignore this... of course you ignore that, you have to...
>
So he referred to Richard Behar. Meaning?
O, I forgot: Someone criticizing Hubbard MUST be a liar.
> Where did Miller got it from? His book is filled with such examples,
> although this example in particular is interesting.
>
>
>
> > > I have come to realize the book itself is of more importance than I
> > > previously thought. Because it folds out that it was issued as part of
> > > someone's agenda. It will not be in favour though of the anti-
> > > Scientology movement and its followers. As said, check up on this
> > > paragraph 2. Where does Miller gets this from, then actually 'think'
> > > with this data, where does it point to!
>
> > More conspiracy theories.
>
> Explain where Miller got it from....
>
A supposed conspiracy, in your perception.
>
>
> > > > You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
> > > > standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
>
> > > Delusional, that is your standard operating procedure, it never was
> > > and never will be mine.
>
> > So reading only one third of dianetics is sufficient to have a
> > balanced opinion on it?
>
> Yes,...
>
> > Until now you never made that condition. Only just now, with Barefaced
> > Messiah, the book based on your conspiracy theory.
>
> You are lying and manipulating...
>
Nope. This is the first time you stated that reading dianetics for
only one third is sufficient to have an opinion about it.
>
>
>
>
> > > > You still didn't offer anything else but your opinion to support your
> > > > claims and accusations.
>
> > > This can be compared with that if I would claim that today the sun is
> > > shining at noon (it is noon just now), then you still would ask me to
> > > support my claim. 1.1 on the tonescale, this is where we can place
> > > you. An utter fruitcake.
>
> > Lame argument. I asked you to support your claims and accusations
> > regarding Barefaced Messiah, not about the sun at noon.
> > The Tone Scale only exists for Hubbard's disciples and has no value in
> > the real world outside the mindset of scientology.
> > Conspiracy theorists are nut cases, people using made up facts as
> > arguments are nut cases. Both apply to you.
>
> I only laid out on what level you are on.
No. You were inflating your ego again. And the only way you know to,
is to invalidate and degrade.
Pathetic.
> But, here, Sir Peter does
> 'approve' (adopt) fairytales like some 'Affirmations' without any
> questions asked.
You really assume a lot, you know? You don't know whether or not I
asked questions.
> L. Ron Hubbard wrote them he says, but he forwards
> NOTHING that authenticates anything regarding them. You are a a
> dishonest brainwashed freak, all the way through...
>
Again: Conclusions based on assumptions.
Sir Peter
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> ...
>
> meer lezen »
Roadrunner
> On 26 dec, 17:32, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Dec, 15:10, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
> > > Fool yourself, not me.
>
> > You have already been fooled, and quite some time ago... .-)
>
> You may have your delusions.....
> At least I never fell for the Hubbard con.
Yeah, that got your exgirlfriend to quit her drughabit...
>
> > > > > > Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information. But you don't
> > > > > > understand that.
>
> > > > > Obviously you are of the opinion interviews can only offer colored
> > > > > information.
>
> > > > Another delusion, you just make up these things as you go along. I
> > > > never said, claimed nor implied that.
>
> > > You said: "Data gotten from interviews equals coloured information."
> > > In case you meant something different, why didn't you say so?
>
> > It's only your lack of subtleness regarding understanding. It is the
> > level you are on.
>
> It's more your lack of communication skills. "Equals", how subtle
> should that be understood?
>
>
>
> > > > > I hope you realize the same then goes for the information you provide.
> > > > > Just have a look at your interpretation of my ex-girlfriend's story:
> > > > > Extremely colored "information".
>
> > > > Delusional, this was your OWN tale, all I did was adding an evaluation
> > > > onto it.
>
> > > And what colorful evaluation you made of it! You colored it to a
> > > degree it doesn't even come close to the truth anymore.
> > > It's pure manipulation, not evaluation.
>
> > I changed NOTHING in your tale...
>
> Yes, you did. You added your prejudiced conclusions, based on your
> preoccupied views. That indeed changed the story into something that
> never happened.
You say first that I did change your tale, then you say I did not,
after which you change it back to that I did. Nutty, nutty...
>
>
>
> > > > > In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
> > > > > interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
> > > > > facts.
>
> > > > Delusional, you adopt to your beliefsystem that what you like.
>
> > > Prove it.
>
> > Your site hosts some marvelous examples of your adoptions... .-)
>
> Really? How come you never were able to point at inconsistencies?
> And I am not referring to your unsupported claim the Hubbard pictures
> are forgeries.
I did, but you just ignore and/or deny...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > When
> > > > the book was published in 1987 the Internet was not that common yet,
> > > > and hardly available widely. If one checks out his referencing (that
> > > > does not go to some Interview) we will find that he writes about
> > > > inside knowledge that is not accounted for nor found in his reference
> > > > source. Today therefore Miller gets easily exposed. How does he know
> > > > such details? Where does it come from? It may point in the direction
> > > > that he simply was supplied with information and was hired to write
> > > > such a book, the time-span is also rather coincidental.
>
> > > Conspiracy theories again?
>
> > Yeah, and JFK was hit by a lonesome killer, we know you only buy
> > officially approved versions for ANYTHING...
>
> > > > See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
> > > > "Forbes, 27 October 1986".
>
> > You ignore this... of course you ignore that, you have to...
>
> So he referred to Richard Behar. Meaning?
> O, I forgot: Someone criticizing Hubbard MUST be a liar.
You continue ignoring... all expected...
>
>
>
> > Where did Miller got it from? His book is filled with such examples,
> > although this example in particular is interesting.
Here we have it, you don't explain... and as
EXPECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > I have come to realize the book itself is of more importance than I
> > > > previously thought. Because it folds out that it was issued as part of
> > > > someone's agenda. It will not be in favour though of the anti-
> > > > Scientology movement and its followers. As said, check up on this
> > > > paragraph 2. Where does Miller gets this from, then actually 'think'
> > > > with this data, where does it point to!
>
> > > More conspiracy theories.
>
> > Explain where Miller got it from....
>
> A supposed conspiracy, in your perception.
... and here once again you refuse to explain... indeed AS
EXPECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
> > > > > standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
>
> > > > Delusional, that is your standard operating procedure, it never was
> > > > and never will be mine.
>
> > > So reading only one third of dianetics is sufficient to have a
> > > balanced opinion on it?
>
> > Yes,...
>
> > > Until now you never made that condition. Only just now, with Barefaced
> > > Messiah, the book based on your conspiracy theory.
>
> > You are lying and manipulating...
>
> Nope. This is the first time you stated that reading dianetics for
> only one third is sufficient to have an opinion about it.
I never said anything to its contrary...
... and this too is AS EXPECTED....
You truly are an extremely false dishonest brainwashed freak...
You are predictable because you are and function as a robot, you have
nothing of your own.
So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
RR
> ...
>
> läs mer »
Transremaxculver
Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986, the error is in the referencing not the source
of the information. And could just as easily be a publisher, of
typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
referencing error can be forgiven.
> > läs mer »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Schilte
> On 26 Dec, 18:25, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 dec, 17:32, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Dec, 15:10, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > > > Fool yourself, not me.
>
> > > You have already been fooled, and quite some time ago... .-)
>
> > You may have your delusions.....
> > At least I never fell for the Hubbard con.
>
> Yeah, that got your exgirlfriend to quit her drughabit...
>
Yeah, and not surprisingly, it failed to get many others, a majority,
to kick the habit...
You really have comprehension difficulties aside from your
communication difficulties.
A human would understand, a robot wouldn't.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > In the case of Barefaced Messiah the information gathered in the
> > > > > > interviews has been corroborated by facts, has been confirmed by
> > > > > > facts.
>
> > > > > Delusional, you adopt to your beliefsystem that what you like.
>
> > > > Prove it.
>
> > > Your site hosts some marvelous examples of your adoptions... .-)
>
> > Really? How come you never were able to point at inconsistencies?
> > And I am not referring to your unsupported claim the Hubbard pictures
> > are forgeries.
>
> I did, but you just ignore and/or deny...
>
No, you only claimed they were forgeries. You had nothing to support
your claim. If so, show it.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > When
> > > > > the book was published in 1987 the Internet was not that common yet,
> > > > > and hardly available widely. If one checks out his referencing (that
> > > > > does not go to some Interview) we will find that he writes about
> > > > > inside knowledge that is not accounted for nor found in his reference
> > > > > source. Today therefore Miller gets easily exposed. How does he know
> > > > > such details? Where does it come from? It may point in the direction
> > > > > that he simply was supplied with information and was hired to write
> > > > > such a book, the time-span is also rather coincidental.
>
> > > > Conspiracy theories again?
>
> > > Yeah, and JFK was hit by a lonesome killer, we know you only buy
> > > officially approved versions for ANYTHING...
>
> > > > > See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
> > > > > "Forbes, 27 October 1986".
>
> > > You ignore this... of course you ignore that, you have to...
>
> > So he referred to Richard Behar. Meaning?
> > O, I forgot: Someone criticizing Hubbard MUST be a liar.
>
> You continue ignoring... all expected...
>
No, I disagree with you.
>
>
> > > Where did Miller got it from? His book is filled with such examples,
> > > although this example in particular is interesting.
>
> Here we have it, you don't explain... and as
> EXPECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
So far you haven't SHOWN anything supporting your claims and
accusations. Why?
And uppercase with almost two dozens of >!> will not do the trick.
>
>
> > > > > I have come to realize the book itself is of more importance than I
> > > > > previously thought. Because it folds out that it was issued as part of
> > > > > someone's agenda. It will not be in favour though of the anti-
> > > > > Scientology movement and its followers. As said, check up on this
> > > > > paragraph 2. Where does Miller gets this from, then actually 'think'
> > > > > with this data, where does it point to!
>
> > > > More conspiracy theories.
>
> > > Explain where Miller got it from....
>
> > A supposed conspiracy, in your perception.
>
> ... and here once again you refuse to explain... indeed AS
> EXPECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
You have reading disabilities too. If you had read above, you would
have read that it was an article by Richard Behar.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > You snipped my observation that you apparently again apply double
> > > > > > standards to Barefaced Messiah and dianetics.
>
> > > > > Delusional, that is your standard operating procedure, it never was
> > > > > and never will be mine.
>
> > > > So reading only one third of dianetics is sufficient to have a
> > > > balanced opinion on it?
>
> > > Yes,...
>
> > > > Until now you never made that condition. Only just now, with Barefaced
> > > > Messiah, the book based on your conspiracy theory.
>
> > > You are lying and manipulating...
>
> > Nope. This is the first time you stated that reading dianetics for
> > only one third is sufficient to have an opinion about it.
>
> I never said anything to its contrary...
>
You repeatedly insisted that people had to read it, because otherwise,
as you claimed, they wouldn't understand. You never made the condition
that reading only one third of with would suffice. When I told you I
had read parts of it, you attacked me for not reading it completely.
A non-answer.
> You truly are an extremely false dishonest brainwashed freak...
>
Thank you!
> You are predictable because you are and function as a robot, you have
> nothing of your own.
>
And of course you know this. How?
> So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
You could have explained in detail. You choose not to. You limited
yourself to some hints, limited yourself to silently pointing a
finger. You expect from others what you don't do yourself.
Which was to be expected.
Peter Schilte
wrote:
>
> meer lezen »
I get the suspicion that Snoeck knew this all the time, but kept it
for himself, to manipulate.
Transremaxculver
Oh I should think so, and no doubt he will find a way to reinterpret
the source as invalid in some way, but then if it isn't official CO$
dogma he seems to think it's invalid, yet he claims to have left the
church, I can't help thinking this is a bit odd myself.
Transremaxculver
Oh and Happy Christmas by the way.
Roadrunner
> On 26 dec, 23:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I shipped all the above, because... it really shows how extremely
infantile this dude is. He, in a childish arguing manner, explains
away EVERYTHING, but accunt for nothing, read for yourself... more
interestingly is the here below:
>
> > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> You could have explained in detail. You choose not to. You limited
> yourself to some hints, limited yourself to silently pointing a
> finger.
Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 is pretty precise. Here we have it folks,
this dishonest dude just explains NOTHING... he refuses to explain
where Miller got this astounding bit of information from. For sure he
didn't gave a source for it. One could spend some time to establish
how much else he did not account for.
And Sir Peter just continues to ignore and just turn it into another
personal attack as he does here further below. In where this robot is
again copying my expressions. Sir Peter the Bot, yeaheahehah... .-)
RR
Peter Schilte
> On 27 Dec, 05:26, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 dec, 23:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> I shipped all the above, because... it really shows how extremely
> infantile this dude is. He, in a childish arguing manner, explains
> away EVERYTHING, but accunt for nothing, read for yourself... more
> interestingly is the here below:
>
Talking to a wall of silence again, or attempting to gain support
again?
>
>
> > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > You could have explained in detail. You choose not to. You limited
> > yourself to some hints, limited yourself to silently pointing a
> > finger.
>
> Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 is pretty precise. Here we have it folks,
> this dishonest dude just explains NOTHING...
Projecting again.
> he refuses to explain
> where Miller got this astounding bit of information from.
Told you twice.
> For sure he
> didn't gave a source for it.
Twice.
> One could spend some time to establish
> how much else he did not account for.
>
Assuming.
> And Sir Peter just continues to ignore and just turn it into another
> personal attack as he does here further below.
"Nutty, nutty" is not a personal attack?
> In where this robot is
> again copying my expressions.
They are not yours. They belong in the English language. Only an idiot
would claim them as being his property.
> Sir Peter the Bot, yeaheahehah... .-)
>
Projecting again.
Roadrunner
wrote:
snip
>
> > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986
We did know that already... silly girl...
>, the error is in the referencing not the source
> of the information.
Ah, and WHERE exactly does it say what Millers claims (§2, Chapter 22)
in that article????
You are not going to explain, now are ya??????!!!!!!!
>And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> referencing error can be forgiven.
A referencing error? You haven't looked into it, did ya! You mean a
total lack of source for that extraordinarily claim. Most
interestingly because HOW could he know about that if he had not been
surfaced with data from an inside source.
And it's not the only one, I was able to pick out 3 claims that he did
not properly account for, just within a few minutes. In fact the book
is literally filled with these. One could spend some time collecting
these not accounted for/non-sourced claims.
It is rather that he had a deadline because some wanted the book out
there. If you look at the reference source dates in the back of the
book, very many date from late 1986. Book was issued somewhere mid-87
I believe. As I said he had a deadline.
Please explain how people (CoS) would have known what Miller was up to
with his 'biography'..., and when you are at it provide for some hard
data that he indeed was attacked prior to actually publishing his
'book'. What we appear to find are claims and stories about that,
AFTER it was published. The claim is he worked 2 years on it, so...
RR
Roadrunner
> On 27 dec, 10:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Dec, 05:26, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 26 dec, 23:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > I shipped all the above, because... it really shows how extremely
> > infantile this dude is. He, in a childish arguing manner, explains
> > away EVERYTHING, but accunt for nothing, read for yourself... more
> > interestingly is the here below:
>
> Talking to a wall of silence again, or attempting to gain support
> again?
>
>
>
> > > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > > You could have explained in detail. You choose not to. You limited
> > > yourself to some hints, limited yourself to silently pointing a
> > > finger.
>
> > Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 is pretty precise. Here we have it folks,
> > this dishonest dude just explains NOTHING...
>
> Projecting again.
Nutty, nutty, how amazingly CHILDISH are you, jeez...
>
> > he refuses to explain
> > where Miller got this astounding bit of information from.
>
> Told you twice.
>
> > For sure he
> > didn't gave a source for it.
>
> Twice.
It is NOT found in the Forbes article... are you going to explain why
not, of course you are not... You didn't even check the article for
it, the Transxxxgirl didn't do that either.
>
> > One could spend some time to establish
> > how much else he did not account for.
>
> Assuming.
Took me a few minutes to find 3. Today with the Internet this can be
easily done, but not back in 1987... Time catches up with
Miller... .-)
But explain where Miller got his extra-ordinarily claim found at
Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 in his precious 'biography'... you are not
going to explain are ya? Nonononono, because he either made it up or
more likely he was surfaced with information that had to be
implemented in the book somehow. Some people wanted this published.
Explain Sir Peter, or admit he did not account for his claim! Or do
you want to be effectively branded as a manipulative liar and
avoider... .-)
RR
Roadrunner
> On 27 dec, 04:43, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
snip
>
> > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> > Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986, the error is in the referencing not the source
> > of the information. And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> > typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> > Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> > referencing error can be forgiven.
>
> I get the suspicion that Snoeck knew this all the time, but kept it
> for himself, to manipulate.
It was no small referencing error, you manipulative liar...
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:27 am, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 dec, 04:43, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
snip
>
> > > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > > Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> > > Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986, the error is in the referencing not the source
> > > of the information. And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> > > typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> > > Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> > > referencing error can be forgiven.
>
> > I get the suspicion that Snoeck knew this all the time, but kept it
> > for himself, to manipulate.
>
> Oh I should think so, and no doubt he will find a way to reinterpret
> the source as invalid in some way, but then if it isn't official CO$
> dogma he seems to think it's invalid
Now isn't this interesting folks? This girl did not even check in the
Forbes article, instead she made up a tale about a 'small referencing
error'. Miller referenced: 'Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986' instead of 'THE
PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY - Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986'.
The both of these freaks are amazingly UNSERIOUS. They are fighting
with childish arguments to uphold their beliefsystem and find wrong
with me. Well, Miller DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR HIS EXTRAORDINARILY CLAIM
and it is NOT in the Forbes article that he uses as a source, or so it
seems. Where did he get it from? See paragraph 2 Chapter 22, Miller's
book.
RR
Peter Schilte
No, it appears to be a printing error. The article talked about 400
million, Miller's book misses one 0, and shows 40 in stead of 400.
You won, by one 0.
Satisfied?
Still you based all this on a misprint. No real support for your
claims and accusations so far.....
Roger Larsson
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the zeros hadn't existed the number ones had been unaware of their
own existence and vice-versa. Two zeros connected together forms the
infinity symbol, the horizontal 8 and a number one tilting to the left
and a number one tilting to the right connected together forms an X.
It's something basic in the automatic control engineering and the
computerworld consisting of ONs and OFFs.
Peter Schilte
I should rephrase that.
Not you won. Hubbard won, 360 million dollars more, that is.
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
Roadrunner
I don't talk about 0's. I talk about paragraph 2 Chapter 22 which says
nothing about some 0's, Miller does not account for it. Nor do you.
Where did he get it from?
RR
Peter Schilte
I don't see paragraphs at all, just a chapter 22. What exactly do you
mean by paragraph 2 Chapter 22?
There is one reference pointing at Forbes 27 October 1986, it says:
"Hubbard raked in at least $40 million from various Scientology
corporations.[8]"
[8] Forbes, 27 October 1986
Reading the Forbes article it mentions 400 million, not 40 million.
(O these communication skills of scientologists: non-excisting.....)
Roadrunner
Define what paragraph means... I am not to blame for your illiteracy.
You don't even understand paragraph 2 in chapter 22. Miller doesn't
account for what he claims in this paragraph anywhere.
This is total kindergarten, jeez...
Transremaxculver
> On 27 Dec, 04:43, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> > Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986
>
> We did know that already... silly girl...
>
> >, the error is in the referencing not the source
> > of the information.
>
> Ah, and WHERE exactly does it say what Millers claims (§2, Chapter 22)
> in that article????
Miller para 2 chap 22
"Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be traced.
[1]"
Every item presented by Miller here is present in the referenced
article. You need to be clearer about which claim is unsupported
> You are not going to explain, now are ya??????!!!!!!!
>
> >And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> > typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> > Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> > referencing error can be forgiven.
>
> A referencing error? You haven't looked into it, did ya! You mean a
> total lack of source for that extraordinarily claim. Most
> interestingly because HOW could he know about that if he had not been
> surfaced with data from an inside source.
>
> And it's not the only one, I was able to pick out 3 claims that he did
> not properly account for, just within a few minutes. In fact the book
> is literally filled with these. One could spend some time collecting
> these not accounted for/non-sourced claims.
You have still not demonstrated your first example, try sorting that
one out, before moving on to other supposed flaws.
> It is rather that he had a deadline because some wanted the book out
> there. If you look at the reference source dates in the back of the
> book, very many date from late 1986. Book was issued somewhere mid-87
> I believe. As I said he had a deadline.
Not helped by having Scientologists accuse him of murder whilst he was
researching and writing to this deadline.
> Please explain how people (CoS) would have known what Miller was up to
> with his 'biography'..., and when you are at it provide for some hard
> data that he indeed was attacked prior to actually publishing his
> 'book'. What we appear to find are claims and stories about that,
> AFTER it was published. The claim is he worked 2 years on it, so...
The accusation of murder of a london PI was made prior to the
publication of the book. There is a police record of an interview many
months before publication.
Transremaxculver
> On 27 Dec, 10:59, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 dec, 10:46, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Dec, 05:26, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 26 dec, 23:29, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > I shipped all the above, because... it really shows how extremely
> > > infantile this dude is. He, in a childish arguing manner, explains
> > > away EVERYTHING, but accunt for nothing, read for yourself... more
> > > interestingly is the here below:
>
> > Talking to a wall of silence again, or attempting to gain support
> > again?
>
> > > > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > > > You could have explained in detail. You choose not to. You limited
> > > > yourself to some hints, limited yourself to silently pointing a
> > > > finger.
>
> > > Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 is pretty precise. Here we have it folks,
> > > this dishonest dude just explains NOTHING...
>
> > Projecting again.
>
> Nutty, nutty, how amazingly CHILDISH are you, jeez...
>
article, what is your point.
>
> > > he refuses to explain
> > > where Miller got this astounding bit of information from.
>
> > Told you twice.
>
> > > For sure he
> > > didn't gave a source for it.
>
> > Twice.
>
> It is NOT found in the Forbes article... are you going to explain why
> not, of course you are not... You didn't even check the article for
> it, the Transxxxgirl didn't do that either.
>
article.
>
> > > One could spend some time to establish
> > > how much else he did not account for.
>
> > Assuming.
>
> Took me a few minutes to find 3. Today with the Internet this can be
> easily done, but not back in 1987... Time catches up with
> Miller... .-)
Still not demonstrated the first, don't get ahead of yourself.
> But explain where Miller got his extra-ordinarily claim found at
> Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 in his precious 'biography'... you are not
> going to explain are ya? Nonononono, because he either made it up or
> more likely he was surfaced with information that had to be
> implemented in the book somehow. Some people wanted this published.
Everything Miller claims forbes reported is demonstrably present in
the Forbes Article.
> Explain Sir Peter, or admit he did not account for his claim! Or do
> you want to be effectively branded as a manipulative liar and
> avoider... .-)
>
Everything Miller claims is in Forbes is in Forbes.
> > > > > > läs mer »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Transremaxculver
No I checked it, all the information Miller claims to draw from that
article is in that article, read it yourself.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/forbes-behar.html
> The both of these freaks are amazingly UNSERIOUS. They are fighting
> with childish arguments to uphold their beliefsystem and find wrong
> with me. Well, Miller DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR HIS EXTRAORDINARILY CLAIM
> and it is NOT in the Forbes article that he uses as a source, or so it
> seems. Where did he get it from? See paragraph 2 Chapter 22, Miller's
> book.
>
Read the link above, all Miller claims to draw from the article is in
the article. Or the link below prehaps.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/behar/behar-forbes-1986.pdf
Either way everything Miller refers to as from that article is in that
article. What astounding claim is it that roadrunner sees being made
here that is not present in the Forbes article?
Because it seems sound to me.
>
> >, yet he claims to have left the
> > church, I can't help thinking this is a bit odd myself.
> > "...in a sane society you would have
> > > been stripped from your rights."
> > > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl- Hide quoted text -
Transremaxculver
Simply pretending that he didn't, and relying on the idea that most
people won't go and check out your assertion falls down drastically
when they do. Everything Miller sources from Forbes, is in the Forbes
article.
>
> > Sir Peter
>
> > "...in a sane society you would have
> > been stripped from your rights."
> > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> >http://www.scamofscientology.nl- Hide quoted text -
Transremaxculver
paragraph 3 from one point of view, or could be chap 22, Section 2
Paragraph 2, but couldn't be chap 22 S1 P2, ecause that section only
has one paragraph. but who's quibbling.
>
> > Sir Peter
>
> > "...in a sane society you would have
> > been stripped from your rights."
> > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> > > RR
>
> > > > Sir Peter
>
> > > > "...in a sane society you would have
> > > > been stripped from your rights."
> > > > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
Peter Schilte
wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:18 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 04:43, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > > Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> > > Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986
>
> > We did know that already... silly girl...
>
> > >, the error is in the referencing not the source
> > > of the information.
>
> > Ah, and WHERE exactly does it say what Millers claims (§2, Chapter 22)
> > in that article????
>
> Miller para 2 chap 22
>
> "Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
> Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
> Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
> liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
> church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be traced.
> [1]"
>
> Every item presented by Miller here is present in the referenced
> article. You need to be clearer about which claim is unsupported
>
Snoeck mentioned as reference NOT 26 October 1986, but mentioned 27
October 1986:
"See as an example paragraph 2 Chapter 22, and his reference source
"Forbes, 27 October 1986"."(26 dec, 11:47), which apparently is the
wrong reference.
That is what confused me. That is why I misunderstood his "paragraph 2
Chapter 22".
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
>
Peter Schilte
You, self proclaimed researcher, should have checked your claim. You
mentioned 27 October, not 26 October. As 27 October didn't add up, I
didn't understand what you meant with "paragraph 2 Chapter 22".
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> RR
>
>
>
> > Sir Peter
>
> > "...in a sane society you would have
> > been stripped from your rights."
> > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
Transremaxculver
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well he isn't often very clear, so it always has the potential to be
confusing.
Links to videos that don't play.
References to his own web site.
Arguing about claims never made,
Now identifying mysterious outlandish claims by Miller not present in
the article referenced when they demonstrably are.
Clarity are not some of the moments roadrunner has.
Peter Schilte
Com courses only teach how to communicate withing the bounderies of a
scientology mindset. If the other person don't understand it is
DEFINITELY that persons fault, NEVER the scientologist's: Ecce Homo
Novis (sic, Hubbard was mistaken as it should be NovUs).
I only wish Snoeck would apply the same strict rules to Hubbard's
books.
Yet I think it will be what it is: Wishful thinking.
Roadrunner
wrote:
You are a crude liar and/or denier... you have no integrity, moral, or
any of those... may God have pity on your poor, poor soul... you lie,
assume and cheat...
You can't deal with paragraph 2 Chapter 22 of Miller's crap book.
RR
>
>
>
> > > Sir Peter
>
> > > "...in a sane society you would have
> > > been stripped from your rights."
> > > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl-Hide quoted text -
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:18 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 04:43, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > > Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> > > Forbes, Oct. 27, 1986
>
> > We did know that already... silly girl...
>
> > >, the error is in the referencing not the source
> > > of the information.
>
> > Ah, and WHERE exactly does it say what Millers claims (§2, Chapter 22)
> > in that article????
>
> Miller para 2 chap 22
>
> "Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
> Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
> Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
> liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
> church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be traced.
> [1]"
>
> Every item presented by Miller here is present in the referenced
> article. You need to be clearer about which claim is unsupported
You are a CHEAT!!!!! That's not paragraph 2, that's paragraph 3. Jeez,
you can't even establish a paragraph and what that is.
>
>
>
> > You are not going to explain, now are ya??????!!!!!!!
>
> > >And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> > > typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> > > Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> > > referencing error can be forgiven.
>
> > A referencing error? You haven't looked into it, did ya! You mean a
> > total lack of source for that extraordinarily claim. Most
> > interestingly because HOW could he know about that if he had not been
> > surfaced with data from an inside source.
>
> > And it's not the only one, I was able to pick out 3 claims that he did
> > not properly account for, just within a few minutes. In fact the book
> > is literally filled with these. One could spend some time collecting
> > these not accounted for/non-sourced claims.
>
> You have still not demonstrated your first example, try sorting that
> one out, before moving on to other supposed flaws.
You refuse to deal with it, you are a cheat...
>
> > It is rather that he had a deadline because some wanted the book out
> > there. If you look at the reference source dates in the back of the
> > book, very many date from late 1986. Book was issued somewhere mid-87
> > I believe. As I said he had a deadline.
>
> Not helped by having Scientologists accuse him of murder whilst he was
> researching and writing to this deadline.
Evidence for that claim please...
>
> > Please explain how people (CoS) would have known what Miller was up to
> > with his 'biography'..., and when you are at it provide for some hard
> > data that he indeed was attacked prior to actually publishing his
> > 'book'. What we appear to find are claims and stories about that,
> > AFTER it was published. The claim is he worked 2 years on it, so...
>
> The accusation of murder of a london PI was made prior to the
> publication of the book. There is a police record of an interview many
> months before publication.
A London PI èh, and that will do the trick you think. Haven't found
any record of that though. Your sources please and your evidence...
RR
Roadrunner
I have right in front of me a first print, and signed copy of his
book, which mentions '27 October', on-line versions mention '26
October'. This is still NO reason to misunderstood paragraph 2 chapter
22. This is unrelated. You excuse is SILLY...
You won't get anywhere with '26 October', whereas '27 October'
accounts for paragraph 3. It seems though that the on-line version has
an error in transcript.
Both you and Transxxx are refusing to deal with the issue here.
RR
Roadrunner
You are a liar!
>
> References to his own web site.
You think...
>
> Arguing about claims never made,
A lie.
>
> Now identifying mysterious outlandish claims by Miller not present in
> the article referenced when they demonstrably are.
A lie.
>
> Clarity are not some of the moments roadrunner has.
Indeed, and so you continue to refuse to address Miller's claims as he
made in paragraph 2 in chapter 22 of his book. I have thrown this at
you people in this very thread how many times now? And you and Sir
Peter the Bot still refuse to address it, and instead attack me.
Utterly amazing, you people are very deluded and false indeed... you
are cowards... .-)
RR
Roadrunner
> On 28 dec, 05:19, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
snip
>
> > Well he isn't often very clear, so it always has the potential to be
> > confusing.
>
> > Links to videos that don't play.
>
> > References to his own web site.
>
> > Arguing about claims never made,
>
> > Now identifying mysterious outlandish claims by Miller not present in
> > the article referenced when they demonstrably are.
>
> > Clarity are not some of the moments roadrunner has.
>
> Com courses only teach how to communicate withing the bounderies of a
> scientology mindset. If the other person don't understand it is
> DEFINITELY that persons fault, NEVER the scientologist's: Ecce Homo
> Novis (sic, Hubbard was mistaken as it should be NovUs).
>
> I only wish Snoeck would apply the same strict rules to Hubbard's
> books.
> Yet I think it will be what it is: Wishful thinking.
Whahahahahahaha... You people can't even deal or explain paragraph 2
in Chapter 22 of Miller's book. You, somehow changed it into paragraph
3, and so on... whahahahahaha... illiterate fool... sad this... .-)
RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
It does not account for what he says in paragraph 2 in chapter 22. You
are either an illiterate, a fool, deluded or PDHed. You are a LIAR,
deliberately or out of total ignorance.
>
> > > > he refuses to explain
> > > > where Miller got this astounding bit of information from.
>
> > > Told you twice.
>
> > > > For sure he
> > > > didn't gave a source for it.
>
> > > Twice.
>
> > It is NOT found in the Forbes article... are you going to explain why
> > not, of course you are not... You didn't even check the article for
> > it, the Transxxxgirl didn't do that either.
>
> Oh yes I did everything Miller reports from that article is in the
> article.
You are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > > > One could spend some time to establish
> > > > how much else he did not account for.
>
> > > Assuming.
>
> > Took me a few minutes to find 3. Today with the Internet this can be
> > easily done, but not back in 1987... Time catches up with
> > Miller... .-)
>
> Still not demonstrated the first, don't get ahead of yourself.
You continue lying....
>
> > But explain where Miller got his extra-ordinarily claim found at
> > Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 in his precious 'biography'... you are not
> > going to explain are ya? Nonononono, because he either made it up or
> > more likely he was surfaced with information that had to be
> > implemented in the book somehow. Some people wanted this published.
>
> Everything Miller claims forbes reported is demonstrably present in
> the Forbes Article.
Fourth time you are repeating your LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Explain Sir Peter, or admit he did not account for his claim! Or do
> > you want to be effectively branded as a manipulative liar and
> > avoider... .-)
>
> Everything Miller claims is in Forbes is in Forbes.
Fifth time you repeat your LIE!!!!!!!
Here we have it folks, Sir Peter does not even have the courage to
respond to this message of mine. And Transxxx is repeating a lie as
many as 5 times.
Check up in Miller's book, paragraph 2 in chapter 22. This is easily
checked. Both the printed book, and the on-line version of the book
denote this as the same paragraph. These 2 dishonest jerks (Sir Peter
the Bot, and Transxxx) simply can't deal with it. I would say they are
at least somewhat seriously deluded, sad this...
Mind that Miller's book is filled with such 'referencing' (i.e. no
referencing)... don't believe me, check it for yourself. The No. 1
book of the anti-Scientology movement this is... do your calculation.
It will only live because of ignorance, if not it will end up in the
trashbin very rapidly indeed.
RR
Transremaxculver
For nearly six years, no one knew where L. Ron Hubbard was hiding or
whether he was dead or
alive. He was hunted high and low by television and newspaper
reporters, federal investigators and
law officers: none of them unearthed a single clue to his whereabouts.
Mary Sue, his loyal and
loving wife for more than twenty-five years, did not know where her
husband was, neither did their
children. The Commodore had effectively vanished.
>
Not sourced to the article you claim, and essentially common knowledge
since it is commented on by numerous sources during that period.
>
> > > You are not going to explain, now are ya??????!!!!!!!
>
> > > >And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> > > > typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> > > > Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> > > > referencing error can be forgiven.
>
> > > A referencing error? You haven't looked into it, did ya! You mean a
> > > total lack of source for that extraordinarily claim. Most
> > > interestingly because HOW could he know about that if he had not been
> > > surfaced with data from an inside source.
>
> > > And it's not the only one, I was able to pick out 3 claims that he did
> > > not properly account for, just within a few minutes. In fact the book
> > > is literally filled with these. One could spend some time collecting
> > > these not accounted for/non-sourced claims.
>
> > You have still not demonstrated your first example, try sorting that
> > one out, before moving on to other supposed flaws.
>
> You refuse to deal with it, you are a cheat...
>
How am I cheating, I am citing the paragraphs you identify, (without
clearly citing the specific claim, you believe is outrageous in any
way, despite the numerous points in each paragraph.) and the article
which you claim does not have the evidence Miller implies, showing
that Miller cites nothing as from that article which is in that
article. It might help if you were specific in whch point you believe
is outrageous and unsupported.
>
> > > It is rather that he had a deadline because some wanted the book out
> > > there. If you look at the reference source dates in the back of the
> > > book, very many date from late 1986. Book was issued somewhere mid-87
> > > I believe. As I said he had a deadline.
>
> > Not helped by having Scientologists accuse him of murder whilst he was
> > researching and writing to this deadline.
>
> Evidence for that claim please...
>
See below.
>
> > > Please explain how people (CoS) would have known what Miller was up to
> > > with his 'biography'..., and when you are at it provide for some hard
> > > data that he indeed was attacked prior to actually publishing his
> > > 'book'. What we appear to find are claims and stories about that,
> > > AFTER it was published. The claim is he worked 2 years on it, so...
>
> > The accusation of murder of a london PI was made prior to the
> > publication of the book. There is a police record of an interview many
> > months before publication.
>
> A London PI èh, and that will do the trick you think. Haven't found
> any record of that though. Your sources please and your evidence...
Police interview. Possible to obtain through the right legal
processes. Personaly I haven't the time, but if you feel inclined go
right ahead, theres no reason to believe the report of the interview
doesn't exist, the Met has always been a bit retentive about such
things.
The first reporting of this predates publication by a few days, it
would have been earlier, but reporting of this would possibly have
been seen by the judge to have prejudiced judgement in the case the Co
$ had brought against Miller, regarding publication and which was
settled on the 9th oct 1987 with a pretty damning judgement by Mr
Justice Vinelott, and as such reporting was more advantageous for
publicity puposes imediately prior to the date of publication 26th oct
1987.
> RR- Hide quoted text -
Transremaxculver
> On 28 Dec, 15:37, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 dec, 05:19, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Well he isn't often very clear, so it always has the potential to be
> > > confusing.
>
> > > Links to videos that don't play.
>
> > > References to his own web site.
>
> > > Arguing about claims never made,
>
> > > Now identifying mysterious outlandish claims by Miller not present in
> > > the article referenced when they demonstrably are.
>
> > > Clarity are not some of the moments roadrunner has.
>
> > Com courses only teach how to communicate withing the bounderies of a
> > scientology mindset. If the other person don't understand it is
> > DEFINITELY that persons fault, NEVER the scientologist's: Ecce Homo
> > Novis (sic, Hubbard was mistaken as it should be NovUs).
>
> > I only wish Snoeck would apply the same strict rules to Hubbard's
> > books.
> > Yet I think it will be what it is: Wishful thinking.
>
> Whahahahahahaha... You people can't even deal or explain paragraph 2
> in Chapter 22 of Miller's book. You, somehow changed it into paragraph
> 3, and so on... whahahahahaha... illiterate fool... sad this... .-)
>
citation at the begining of the chapter as a paragraph, which most
reasonable people would not, viewing it more correctly as a part of
the header. It is disingenuous to use your own lack of clarity as
evidence of others lack of comprehension.
>
> > Sir Peter
>
> > "...in a sane society you would have
> > been stripped from your rights."
> > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
Transremaxculver
prehaps it would be better if you provided a quote of the particular
claim which has you so emotionaly involved. Or prehaps this is too
straightforward a method for scientologists to comprehend
>
> > > > > he refuses to explain
> > > > > where Miller got this astounding bit of information from.
>
> > > > Told you twice.
>
> > > > > For sure he
> > > > > didn't gave a source for it.
>
> > > > Twice.
>
> > > It is NOT found in the Forbes article... are you going to explain why
> > > not, of course you are not... You didn't even check the article for
> > > it, the Transxxxgirl didn't do that either.
>
> > Oh yes I did everything Miller reports from that article is in the
> > article.
>
> You are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
assertion, I gave two links in a post above.
>
> > > > > One could spend some time to establish
> > > > > how much else he did not account for.
>
> > > > Assuming.
>
> > > Took me a few minutes to find 3. Today with the Internet this can be
> > > easily done, but not back in 1987... Time catches up with
> > > Miller... .-)
>
> > Still not demonstrated the first, don't get ahead of yourself.
>
> You continue lying....
>
first assertion you have made
>
> > > But explain where Miller got his extra-ordinarily claim found at
> > > Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 in his precious 'biography'... you are not
> > > going to explain are ya? Nonononono, because he either made it up or
> > > more likely he was surfaced with information that had to be
> > > implemented in the book somehow. Some people wanted this published.
>
> > Everything Miller claims forbes reported is demonstrably present in
> > the Forbes Article.
>
> Fourth time you are repeating your LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
article, I have provided the links, you and others can check for
themselves, I checked it carefully, al the claims are in that
article.
>
> > > Explain Sir Peter, or admit he did not account for his claim! Or do
> > > you want to be effectively branded as a manipulative liar and
> > > avoider... .-)
>
> > Everything Miller claims is in Forbes is in Forbes.
>
> Fifth time you repeat your LIE!!!!!!!
Asserting something is a lie is not sufficient, especially when the
information is freely available for others to consider. This is
typical Scientology obsfucation, say something often enough with
enough conviction, and it will become true: except in the face of
evidence repetition becomes useless.
> Here we have it folks, Sir Peter does not even have the courage to
> respond to this message of mine. And Transxxx is repeating a lie as
> many as 5 times.
So it the article Miller References accurately
> Check up in Miller's book, paragraph 2 in chapter 22. This is easily
> checked. Both the printed book, and the on-line version of the book
> denote this as the same paragraph. These 2 dishonest jerks (Sir Peter
> the Bot, and Transxxx) simply can't deal with it. I would say they are
> at least somewhat seriously deluded, sad this...
>
> Mind that Miller's book is filled with such 'referencing' (i.e. no
> referencing)... don't believe me, check it for yourself. The No. 1
> book of the anti-Scientology movement this is... do your calculation.
> It will only live because of ignorance, if not it will end up in the
> trashbin very rapidly indeed.
>
Millers book is important, but I wouln't put it as the No 1 book of
anti-scientology, that has absolutely got to be Dianetics, which is
far more poorly referenced than any minor ommission Miller may have
inadvertently been guilty of, and which roadrunner has yet to properly
demonstrate. If this claim of Millers, is so damning, so unsupported,
why does roadrunner not cite it clearly so that it can be fully
considered, rather than hiding behind obfuscation and accusation,
which are very poor debating tools.
Roadrunner
Paragraph 2 in Chapter 22 can only mean ONE thing. Both in the book
and in the on-line version this is the same unmistakable paragraph.
So, clear up the word paragraph... You instead expect me to spoonfeed
a child. Your comrad in mind Sir Peter the Bot even confuses it with
paragraph 3. Utterly amazing...
Indeed this is far too straghtforward for your mind as you will be
forced to admit that Miller has supplied NO source for his remarkable
claim in that paragraph 2. For you it is impossible to admit any such
thing. Because, you are unable to admit ANY errors and inconsistencies
in regards to Miller and similar, in addition you will have to
consider that Miller made many such unsourced claims.
Here below you stubbornly persist in your false claim. Paragraph 2 in
Chapter 22 is utterly unaccounted for.
If you persist in this false claim of yours than I can rightfully
brand you being either a liar or suffering from delusions. Be careful
little girl... be very careful... .-)
RR
Transremaxculver
I think you need to clarify what exactly you are talking about, by
quoting exactly the text/claim you are refering to, because everything
he cites as from Forbes, is accountable for in Forbes, now you claim
that we are actually talking about the preceding paragraph, in which
Miller discusses nothing that was not common knowledge at the time.
This implies a lack of clarity on your part, a simple quote of the
claim you find so outrageous, from you would sufice to settle the
confusion. Why not simply state the 'offending claim' in your reply to
this post.
> Indeed this is far too straghtforward for your mind as you will be
> forced to admit that Miller has supplied NO source for his remarkable
> claim in that paragraph 2.
Which claim? That hubbard vanished for the best part of 6 years, most
sources seem to agree that this is true, thought there are some that
still believe he died in 1980. Presumably they also believe his body
was kept on ice for all of that time.
> For you it is impossible to admit any such
> thing. Because, you are unable to admit ANY errors and inconsistencies
> in regards to Miller and similar, in addition you will have to
> consider that Miller made many such unsourced claims.
I think in this thread we have already identified that there were
possible referencing errors, so your claim here is disingenuous. It is
also possible that there are other errors, biography not being an
exact science, however you have yet to demonstrate that the first
'error' you have chosen to focus on is an error at all. In fact as yet
you have failede even to clearly identify what the supposed error is.
> Here below you stubbornly persist in your false claim. Paragraph 2 in
> Chapter 22 is utterly unaccounted for.
So far as I can tell all the claims made in what you now claim as
paragraph 2 were common knowledge at the time, those claims attributed
to Forbes in what you now identify as paragraph 3 are identifyable in
the Forbes article, your scientology inspired tactic of not clearly
identifying the claim you believe is false or erronious, simply makes
your argument obscure and incomprehensible.
The model you should prehaps adopt would be as follows,
In paragraph 2 of Chapter 22 of Bare Faced Messiah Miller says
" (Quoted text) " p xx,
Then it would be very clear what you were talking about, instead of
all this obfuscation and missrepresentation.
> If you persist in this false claim of yours than I can rightfully
> brand you being either a liar or suffering from delusions. Be careful
> little girl... be very careful... .-)
>
You can claim what you like, it will neither make it true, nor
convince others to believe what you have to offer. The observations I
have made are demonstrably supported by the evidence, available. Your
observations concerning Millers text have yet to be clarified, let
alone be supported by evidence either way.
Roadrunner
That's a lie... no one else than he says what he claims in paragraph
2. But he does not account for it in any form. So where did he get it
from????
> This implies a lack of clarity on your part, a simple quote of the
> claim you find so outrageous, from you would sufice to settle the
> confusion. Why not simply state the 'offending claim' in your reply to
> this post.
>
> > Indeed this is far too straghtforward for your mind as you will be
> > forced to admit that Miller has supplied NO source for his remarkable
> > claim in that paragraph 2.
>
> Which claim? That hubbard vanished for the best part of 6 years, most
> sources seem to agree that this is true, thought there are some that
> still believe he died in 1980. Presumably they also believe his body
> was kept on ice for all of that time.
In 1986 not even a body could be presented. Examine the facts please.
>
> > For you it is impossible to admit any such
> > thing. Because, you are unable to admit ANY errors and inconsistencies
> > in regards to Miller and similar, in addition you will have to
> > consider that Miller made many such unsourced claims.
>
> I think in this thread we have already identified that there were
> possible referencing errors
BS, no reference error, this is a LACK of reference...
>, so your claim here is disingenuous. It is
> also possible that there are other errors, biography not being an
> exact science, however you have yet to demonstrate that the first
> 'error' you have chosen to focus on is an error at all. In fact as yet
> you have failede even to clearly identify what the supposed error is.
>
> > Here below you stubbornly persist in your false claim. Paragraph 2 in
> > Chapter 22 is utterly unaccounted for.
>
> So far as I can tell all the claims made in what you now claim as
> paragraph 2 were common knowledge at the time
Paragraph 1 would fit that description. Paragraph 2 would most
definitely not fit the bill.
>, those claims attributed
> to Forbes in what you now identify as paragraph 3 are identifyable in
> the Forbes article
I never queried paragraph 3.
I understand the trick you try to pull though, you just try to put it
aside now by making a general claim of 'But that was general knowledge
at the time.' (paragraph 2). Isn't that so? I call your bluf!
RR
Roadrunner
Here I have clearly pointed out what is paragraph 3, and STILL here
below you quote ANOTHER paragraph and not 2. Can you count????? 2 is
foregoing 3 Kindergarten this is, jeez...
Why are you quoting paragraph 1 here????? Are you stupid, are you
blinded because you can't deal with the paragraph lying in between and
therefore you can't see it???? It must be...
>
> Ok so paragraph 2 must be,
>
> For nearly six years, no one knew where L. Ron Hubbard was hiding or
> whether he was dead or
> alive. He was hunted high and low by television and newspaper
> reporters, federal investigators and
> law officers: none of them unearthed a single clue to his whereabouts.
> Mary Sue, his loyal and
> loving wife for more than twenty-five years, did not know where her
> husband was, neither did their
> children. The Commodore had effectively vanished.
>
> Not sourced to the article you claim, and essentially common knowledge
> since it is commented on by numerous sources during that period.
Jeez, you really don't know how to deal with this. You are not
supposed to count quotations that appear following the chapter titles,
each chapter appears to have something like that. The text, damned,
the article text.
RR
Transremaxculver
Still no clear reference, I am beginning to think that you have just
invented an idea of some kind of unsupported claim by Miller in your
own mind, since you are unable to quote exactly what you think is in
error.
> > This implies a lack of clarity on your part, a simple quote of the
> > claim you find so outrageous, from you would sufice to settle the
> > confusion. Why not simply state the 'offending claim' in your reply to
> > this post.
>
> > > Indeed this is far too straghtforward for your mind as you will be
> > > forced to admit that Miller has supplied NO source for his remarkable
> > > claim in that paragraph 2.
>
> > Which claim? That hubbard vanished for the best part of 6 years, most
> > sources seem to agree that this is true, thought there are some that
> > still believe he died in 1980. Presumably they also believe his body
> > was kept on ice for all of that time.
>
> In 1986 not even a body could be presented. Examine the facts please.
>
If there was no body where did Deputy Coroner Don Hines get his blood
samples from.
>
> > > For you it is impossible to admit any such
> > > thing. Because, you are unable to admit ANY errors and inconsistencies
> > > in regards to Miller and similar, in addition you will have to
> > > consider that Miller made many such unsourced claims.
>
> > I think in this thread we have already identified that there were
> > possible referencing errors
>
> BS, no reference error, this is a LACK of reference...
You have yet to clarify even what you think is in error, if there is
something to be discussed, qoute it clearly, otherwise we might have
to conclude that this is something you have made up.
> >, so your claim here is disingenuous. It is
> > also possible that there are other errors, biography not being an
> > exact science, however you have yet to demonstrate that the first
> > 'error' you have chosen to focus on is an error at all. In fact as yet
> > you have failede even to clearly identify what the supposed error is.
>
> > > Here below you stubbornly persist in your false claim. Paragraph 2 in
> > > Chapter 22 is utterly unaccounted for.
>
> > So far as I can tell all the claims made in what you now claim as
> > paragraph 2 were common knowledge at the time
>
> Paragraph 1 would fit that description.
Presumably you mean
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his
own life is false.' (Ron DeWolf, formerly L. Ron Hubbard Junior, May
1982)"
> Paragraph 2 would most
> definitely not fit the bill.
Presumably you mean.
"For nearly six years, no one knew where L. Ron Hubbard was hiding or
whether he was dead or alive. He was hunted high and low by television
and newspaper reporters, federal investigators and law officers: none
of them unearthed a single clue to his whereabouts. Mary Sue, his
loyal and loving wife for more than twenty-five years, did not know
where her husband was, neither did their children. The Commodore had
effectively vanished."
> >, those claims attributed
> > to Forbes in what you now identify as paragraph 3 are identifyable in
> > the Forbes article
>
> I never queried paragraph 3.
OK so which bit of Paragraph 2 cited abopve has you so wound up.
> I understand the trick you try to pull though, you just try to put it
> aside now by making a general claim of 'But that was general knowledge
> at the time.' (paragraph 2). Isn't that so? I call your bluf!
P-I Staff and News Services TUESDAY, January 28, 1986 L. RON HUBBARD,
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FOUNDER, DIES
"L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer who founded the
controversial Church of Scientology three decades ago, has died of a
stroke, the church announced last night. He was 74. Hubbard,"
And now the important bit
"who had not been seen in public since 1980,"
Demonstrates his absence-disapearance was common knowledge.
"died Friday at his ranch near San Luis Obispo, 150 miles northwest of
downtown Los Angeles, said the Rev. Heber Jentzsch, president of the
Church of Scientology International."
It is further supported by Ron DeWolfs November 6, 1982, Riverside,
California court, suing for control of his father's estate, saying
that his father was either dead or incompetent, where the issue of
Hubbard being contactable was such an issue.
Not even the Co$ disputes he was out of the public eye, so exactly
what is the point you are trying to make.
> >, your scientology inspired tactic of not clearly
> > identifying the claim you believe is false or erronious, simply makes
> > your argument obscure and incomprehensible.
>
> > The model you should prehaps adopt would be as follows,
>
> > In paragraph 2 of Chapter 22 of Bare Faced Messiah Miller says
> > " (Quoted text) " p xx,
This remains your best option.
Transremaxculver
Which is what we originally assumed, so now we appear to have an
additional paragraph created by roadrunner which apparently exists
between paragraphs one and two. Which roadrunner now identifies as as
paragraphs one and three. Presumably at some point he will quote it
and clear up the confusion.
Peter Schilte
In your deluded mind it will be. In fact it isn't. This happens when
you assume too much, in this case that we have the printed version and
not using the on-line version.
> You won't get anywhere with '26 October', whereas '27 October'
> accounts for paragraph 3. It seems though that the on-line version has
> an error in transcript.
>
Really!
> Both you and Transxxx are refusing to deal with the issue here.
>
As I observed before, communicating isn't your best quality.....
Peter Schilte
Fact.
>
>
> > References to his own web site.
>
> You think...
>
Fact.
>
>
> > Arguing about claims never made,
>
> A lie.
>
Fact.
>
>
> > Now identifying mysterious outlandish claims by Miller not present in
> > the article referenced when they demonstrably are.
>
> A lie.
>
Fact, even confirmed by you to me.
>
>
> > Clarity are not some of the moments roadrunner has.
>
> Indeed, and so you continue to refuse to address Miller's claims as he
> made in paragraph 2 in chapter 22 of his book. I have thrown this at
> you people in this very thread how many times now? And you and Sir
> Peter the Bot still refuse to address it, and instead attack me.
That is the result of YOUR bad communication skills.
All you had to doe was referring to a quoted text. But you still seem
to be afraid to do so.
> Utterly amazing, you people are very deluded and false indeed... you
> are cowards... .-)
>
You are projecting again.
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> RR
Peter Schilte
> On 28 Dec, 15:37, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 dec, 05:19, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Well he isn't often very clear, so it always has the potential to be
> > > confusing.
>
> > > Links to videos that don't play.
>
> > > References to his own web site.
>
> > > Arguing about claims never made,
>
> > > Now identifying mysterious outlandish claims by Miller not present in
> > > the article referenced when they demonstrably are.
>
> > > Clarity are not some of the moments roadrunner has.
>
> > Com courses only teach how to communicate withing the bounderies of a
> > scientology mindset. If the other person don't understand it is
> > DEFINITELY that persons fault, NEVER the scientologist's: Ecce Homo
> > Novis (sic, Hubbard was mistaken as it should be NovUs).
>
> > I only wish Snoeck would apply the same strict rules to Hubbard's
> > books.
> > Yet I think it will be what it is: Wishful thinking.
>
> Whahahahahahaha... You people can't even deal or explain paragraph 2
> in Chapter 22 of Miller's book. You, somehow changed it into paragraph
> 3, and so on... whahahahahaha... illiterate fool... sad this... .-)
>
You would have had a point if you had quoted the text you refer to.
But your communication skills are so bad that it didn't even come up
in your mind to do so. It would have made it so much easier, wouldn't
have lead to confusion and misunderstandings.
But you choose not to....
Peter Schilte
I think Snoeck refers to this:
"After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation."
And he apparently thinks that Miller's referring to Forbes also
involves this.
And there Snoeck is wrong.
Miller's referring only involves this:
"Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be
traced.
[1]", the first part of Paragraph 3.
Snoeck assumes wrong that Paragraph 2 is being referenced by Miller.
And he dares to call others illiterate?
Having read the Forbes article I can only confirm the correctness of
Miller's reference, and conclude that Snoeck is wrong , as he
misunderstood what exactly was referenced.
That makes all of his name calling, invalidations, degrading and
accusations totally insane.
Roadrunner
> I think Snoeck refers to this:
> "After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
> were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
> and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
> solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
> fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
> acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation."
>
> And he apparently thinks that Miller's referring to Forbes also
> involves this.
I said "as it seems", Miller threw this paragraph in there and does
not account for it. No source, nothing.
>
> And there Snoeck is wrong.
>
> Miller's referring only involves this:
> "Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
> Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
> Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
> liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
> church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be
> traced.
> [1]", the first part of Paragraph 3.
> Snoeck assumes wrong that Paragraph 2 is being referenced by Miller.
>
> And he dares to call others illiterate?
>
> Having read the Forbes article I can only confirm the correctness of
> Miller's reference, and conclude that Snoeck is wrong , as he
> misunderstood what exactly was referenced.
>
> That makes all of his name calling, invalidations, degrading and
> accusations totally insane.
Wouldn't think so, amazing how you continue your hatred and finding
wrong.
1. How long did it took you to locate paragraph 2? It's like you
avoided it like the plague.
2. Transxxx first mistook paragraph 3 as paragraph 2. When I pointed
out that this was paragraph 2, she then took paragraph 1 as if
paragraph 2... whahahahahahaha...
3. Miller does not account for what he claims in paragraph 2, and the
both of you can not admit he does not account for it.
Are you going to admit he did not source that? His book is filled with
such stuff. It has bad referencing overall.
RR
Roadrunner
It is not my fault that you people can't find paragraphs.
>
> > Utterly amazing, you people are very deluded and false indeed... you
> > are cowards... .-)
>
> You are projecting again.
No, sir Peter the Bot in action... whahahahaha... funny...
RR
Roadrunner
Nutty, nutty...
>
> > You won't get anywhere with '26 October', whereas '27 October'
> > accounts for paragraph 3. It seems though that the on-line version has
> > an error in transcript.
>
> Really!
Yes!!!!!!!
>
> > Both you and Transxxx are refusing to deal with the issue here.
>
> As I observed before, communicating isn't your best quality.....
Fact is that you people can't deal with paragraph 2 and what it says.
The both of you can't admit Miller made a remarkable claim that
appears utterly unsourced. And no one else, as far as I can determine,
makes this claim.
Where did he get it from? The both of you will not address this
issue... .-)
Roadrunner
OMG, you are nuts... whahahahahaha... whahahahaha... I start to think
you are at the level of Sir Peter according to intelligence and
literacy... You may have studied a bit university, but here you
explain that you can't think...
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... .-)
RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
Nutty, nutty, UTTERLY AMAZING this... YOU included the, separate from
the text, heading quotation, as a paragraph. And here you accuse me of
doing that... you are a nut little girl...
Any can follow up on what I say. You mixed it all up, you must be
quite confused, little girl.... whahahahaha... .-)
RR
>
>
>
> > > Sir Peter
>
> > > "...in a sane society you would have
> > > been stripped from your rights."
> > > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl-Hide quoted text -
Roadrunner
> On 27 dec, 19:53, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 18:07, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 27 dec, 17:42, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Dec, 14:52, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 27 dec, 11:37, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 27 Dec, 05:27, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 27 dec, 04:43, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > > > > So where did Miller get what he says in paragraph 2 Chapter 22
> > > > > > > > > from?????????????? He made an extraordinary claim but utterly fails to
> > > > > > > > > account for it. But YOU will not explain it, you will just IGNORE
> > > > > > > > > it... whahahahahahaha... .-)
>
> > > > > > > > Er isn't Miller referencing THE PROPHET AND PROFITS OF SCIENTOLOGY -
> > > > > > > > of the information. And could just as easily be a publisher, of
> > > > > > > > typsetter error. Given the pressure the CO$ was attempting to apply to
> > > > > > > > Miller at the time through accusing him of Murder ect a small
> > > > > > > > referencing error can be forgiven.
>
> > > > > > > for himself, to manipulate.
>
> > > > > > It was no small referencing error, you manipulative liar...
>
> > > > > > RR
>
> > > > > > > Sir Peter
>
> > > > > > > "...in a sane society you would have
> > > > > > > been stripped from your rights."
> > > > > > > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
>
> > > > > > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> > > > > million, Miller's book misses one 0, and shows 40 in stead of 400.
> > > > > You won, by one 0.
> > > > > Satisfied?
>
> > > > > Still you based all this on a misprint. No real support for your
> > > > > claims and accusations so far.....
>
> > > > I don't talk about 0's. I talk about paragraph 2 Chapter 22 which says
> > > > nothing about some 0's, Miller does not account for it. Nor do you.
> > > > Where did he get it from?
>
> > > mean by paragraph 2 Chapter 22?
> > > There is one reference pointing at Forbes 27 October 1986, it says:
> > > "Hubbard raked in at least $40 million from various Scientology
> > > corporations.[8]"
> > > [8] Forbes, 27 October 1986
>
> > > Reading the Forbes article it mentions 400 million, not 40 million.
>
> > > (O these communication skills of scientologists: non-excisting.....)
>
> > Define what paragraph means... I am not to blame for your illiteracy.
> > You don't even understand paragraph 2 in chapter 22. Miller doesn't
> > account for what he claims in this paragraph anywhere.
>
> > This is total kindergarten, jeez...
>
> You, self proclaimed researcher, should have checked your claim. You
> mentioned 27 October, not 26 October. As 27 October didn't add up, I
> didn't understand what you meant with "paragraph 2 Chapter 22".
Got ya!!!!!! It is 27 October that in fact adds up, and 26 October
that doesn't lead anywhere. You seriously slipped here. Can you admit
you made quite an error here, Sir Peter the Bot, thy Mightiest of the
Mightiest? Of course you can not...
See, you BLINDLY assumed 26 October to be correct, when it was not.
You lied when you claimed that '27 October' didn't add up!!!! You
LIED!!!! Then you use this as an excuse why didn't understand that
with paragraph 2 chapter 22. Another LIE!!!! YOU DIDN'T CHECK UP ON
ANYTHING!!!!! You are as unserious as they come... So get a copy of
the book, you will see it says '27 October'. The on-line version has a
transcription error.
Hihi, still in kindergarten... .-)
Are the both of you aware that you've become the laughingstock around
here? .-)
Roadrunner
wrote:
> On Dec 29, 1:53 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 02:35, Transremaxculver <transremaxcul...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
snip
>
> > That's a lie... no one else than he says what he claims in paragraph
> > 2. But he does not account for it in any form. So where did he get it
> > from????
>
> Still no clear reference, I am beginning to think that you have just
> invented an idea of some kind of unsupported claim by Miller in your
> own mind, since you are unable to quote exactly what you think is in
> error.
You yourself admitted elsewhere that one does not include the
quotation directly following the chapter title. And thus paragraph 2
in Chapter will get you to the paragraph I have been referring to all
along.
>
> > > This implies a lack of clarity on your part, a simple quote of the
> > > claim you find so outrageous, from you would sufice to settle the
> > > confusion. Why not simply state the 'offending claim' in your reply to
> > > this post.
>
> > > > Indeed this is far too straghtforward for your mind as you will be
> > > > forced to admit that Miller has supplied NO source for his remarkable
> > > > claim in that paragraph 2.
>
> > > Which claim? That hubbard vanished for the best part of 6 years, most
> > > sources seem to agree that this is true, thought there are some that
> > > still believe he died in 1980. Presumably they also believe his body
> > > was kept on ice for all of that time.
>
> > In 1986 not even a body could be presented. Examine the facts please.
>
> If there was no body where did Deputy Coroner Don Hines get his blood
> samples from.
That you can get from any John Doe. Fingerprints 2 for that matter.
But did they show a body? Was Mary Sue allowed to see the remains?
>
> > > > For you it is impossible to admit any such
> > > > thing. Because, you are unable to admit ANY errors and inconsistencies
> > > > in regards to Miller and similar, in addition you will have to
> > > > consider that Miller made many such unsourced claims.
>
> > > I think in this thread we have already identified that there were
> > > possible referencing errors
>
> > BS, no reference error, this is a LACK of reference...
>
> You have yet to clarify even what you think is in error, if there is
> something to be discussed, qoute it clearly, otherwise we might have
> to conclude that this is something you have made up.
>
> > >, so your claim here is disingenuous. It is
> > > also possible that there are other errors, biography not being an
> > > exact science, however you have yet to demonstrate that the first
> > > 'error' you have chosen to focus on is an error at all. In fact as yet
> > > you have failede even to clearly identify what the supposed error is.
>
> > > > Here below you stubbornly persist in your false claim. Paragraph 2 in
> > > > Chapter 22 is utterly unaccounted for.
>
> > > So far as I can tell all the claims made in what you now claim as
> > > paragraph 2 were common knowledge at the time
>
> > Paragraph 1 would fit that description.
>
> Presumably you mean
>
> "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his
> own life is false.' (Ron DeWolf, formerly L. Ron Hubbard Junior, May
> 1982)"
This is not part of the article text, this is just a quotation
appearing under each chapter title.
RR
Peter Schilte
Roadrunner schreef:
> On 29 Dec, 05:39, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Snoeck refers to this:
> > "After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
> > were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
> > and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
> > solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
> > fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
> > acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation."
> >
> > And he apparently thinks that Miller's referring to Forbes also
> > involves this.
>
> I said "as it seems", Miller threw this paragraph in there and does
> not account for it. No source, nothing.
>
In your message of 27 dec, 11:18 you still were referring to the
Forbes article.
> >
> > And there Snoeck is wrong.
> >
> > Miller's referring only involves this:
> > "Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
> > Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
> > Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
> > liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
> > church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be
> > traced.
> > [1]", the first part of Paragraph 3.
> > Snoeck assumes wrong that Paragraph 2 is being referenced by Miller.
> >
> > And he dares to call others illiterate?
> >
> > Having read the Forbes article I can only confirm the correctness of
> > Miller's reference, and conclude that Snoeck is wrong , as he
> > misunderstood what exactly was referenced.
> >
> > That makes all of his name calling, invalidations, degrading and
> > accusations totally insane.
>
> Wouldn't think so, amazing how you continue your hatred and finding
> wrong.
>
Well, you WERE wrong, thinking that the Forbes reference also involved
paragraph 2 chapter 22.
You pointed that reference out several times.
> 1. How long did it took you to locate paragraph 2? It's like you
> avoided it like the plague.
>
Irrelevant.
> 2. Transxxx first mistook paragraph 3 as paragraph 2. When I pointed
> out that this was paragraph 2, she then took paragraph 1 as if
> paragraph 2... whahahahahahaha...
>
That is due to your very clear and transparent communication skills,
which in fact are not existing.
> 3. Miller does not account for what he claims in paragraph 2, and the
> both of you can not admit he does not account for it.
>
There is a lot more he doesn't account for. We are talking about a
book, not a scientific work meant for university students and
scientists. Your point was that it wasn't anywhere in the Forbes
reference, and you repeated that several times.
> Are you going to admit he did not source that? His book is filled with
> such stuff. It has bad referencing overall.
>
I already did. So what? It is a BOOK.
Bad referencing is still referencing. Your point was there was NO
reference for paragraph 2 chapter 22 in the Forbes article by Richard
Behar.
Now you have changed your tune trying to safe face.
Peter Schilte
Roadrunner schreef:
Thanks for that addition to my message. Indeed you are.
> >
> > > You won't get anywhere with '26 October', whereas '27 October'
> > > accounts for paragraph 3. It seems though that the on-line version has
> > > an error in transcript.
> >
> > Really!
>
> Yes!!!!!!!
>
> >
> > > Both you and Transxxx are refusing to deal with the issue here.
> >
> > As I observed before, communicating isn't your best quality.....
>
> Fact is that you people can't deal with paragraph 2 and what it says.
You assume too much again. You can't, and will never admit you are the
only cause for this confusion.
> The both of you can't admit Miller made a remarkable claim that
> appears utterly unsourced.
You change yoiur tune to safe face. Your point was that paragraph 2
chapter 22 wasn't found anywhere in the referenced Forbes article.
> And no one else, as far as I can determine,
> makes this claim.
>
That you can't determine whether or not there are others making that
claim is irrelevant.
> Where did he get it from? The both of you will not address this
> issue... .-)
>
It is of no importance, even if it isn't true that:
"After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation. "
In fact it is rather irrelevant.
Peter Schilte
Roadrunner schreef:
No, all you did was assuming that everybody has the printed version
and were not aware that the on-line version has a typo/misprint.
> It is 27 October that in fact adds up, and 26 October
> that doesn't lead anywhere.
That explains my confusion.
> You seriously slipped here.
No, you did by assuming others have the printed version as well.
> Can you admit
> you made quite an error here, Sir Peter the Bot, thy Mightiest of the
> Mightiest? Of course you can not...
>
I made no error, so there isn't anything to admit.
You however again followed your assumptions without using your brain.
> See, you BLINDLY assumed 26 October to be correct, when it was not.
And why was that?
> You lied when you claimed that '27 October' didn't add up!!!!
No, it didn't, per the on-line version of Barefaced Messiah. But with
all your self proclaimed "literacy" you don't understand that.
> You
> LIED!!!!
No. You assume again. An stop these ridiculous "!!!!!". It appears
insane.
>Then you use this as an excuse why didn't understand that
> with paragraph 2 chapter 22. Another LIE!!!! YOU DIDN'T CHECK UP ON
> ANYTHING!!!!!
So, tell me, did YOU know about the misprint? I checked, re-checked
and nothing came up.
> You are as unserious as they come... So get a copy of
> the book, you will see it says '27 October'. The on-line version has a
> transcription error.
>
Really? And NOW you tell me....
> Hihi, still in kindergarten... .-)
>
Still the insane laughter.
> Are the both of you aware that you've become the laughingstock around
> here? .-)
>
You are assuming again!
Sir Peter
"...in a sane society you would have
been stripped from your rights."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> RR
>
>
> >
> > Sir Peter
> >
> > "...in a sane society you would have
> > been stripped from your rights."
> > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
> >
> > http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> >
> > > RR
> >
> > > > Sir Peter
> >
> > > > "...in a sane society you would have
> > > > been stripped from your rights."
> > > > - Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner, 19 May 2010, at 19.44.
> >
> > > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> >
Roadrunner
> Roadrunner schreef:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 05:39, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think Snoeck refers to this:
> > > "After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
> > > were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
> > > and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
> > > solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
> > > fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
> > > acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation."
>
> > > And he apparently thinks that Miller's referring to Forbes also
> > > involves this.
>
> > I said "as it seems", Miller threw this paragraph in there and does
> > not account for it. No source, nothing.
>
> In your message of 27 dec, 11:18 you still were referring to the
> Forbes article.
Tsk, tsk, he doesn't account for his claims in paragraph 2... and if
it is not in the Forbes article then he provides for no source for
it.
>
> > > And there Snoeck is wrong.
>
> > > Miller's referring only involves this:
> > > "Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
> > > Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
> > > Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
> > > liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
> > > church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be
> > > traced.
> > > [1]", the first part of Paragraph 3.
> > > Snoeck assumes wrong that Paragraph 2 is being referenced by Miller.
>
> > > And he dares to call others illiterate?
>
> > > Having read the Forbes article I can only confirm the correctness of
> > > Miller's reference, and conclude that Snoeck is wrong , as he
> > > misunderstood what exactly was referenced.
>
> > > That makes all of his name calling, invalidations, degrading and
> > > accusations totally insane.
>
> > Wouldn't think so, amazing how you continue your hatred and finding
> > wrong.
>
> Well, you WERE wrong, thinking that the Forbes reference also involved
> paragraph 2 chapter 22.
> You pointed that reference out several times.
So what source reference accounts for paragraph 2 Chapter 22????
>
> > 1. How long did it took you to locate paragraph 2? It's like you
> > avoided it like the plague.
>
> Irrelevant.
Yeah right... .-)
>
> > 2. Transxxx first mistook paragraph 3 as paragraph 2. When I pointed
> > out that this was paragraph 2, she then took paragraph 1 as if
> > paragraph 2... whahahahahahaha...
>
> That is due to your very clear and transparent communication skills,
> which in fact are not existing.
It's HER confusion, not mine. She also claimed that quotations topping
the article are not counted as paragraph. And she STILL picked the
WRONG paragraph. Amazing how you twist everything around...
whahahahaha...
>
> > 3. Miller does not account for what he claims in paragraph 2, and the
> > both of you can not admit he does not account for it.
>
> There is a lot more he doesn't account for.
Right on target!!!!
>We are talking about a
> book, not a scientific work meant for university students and
> scientists.
Such remarkable claims as taled in paragraph 2 Chapter 22 REQUIRE
referencing!!!!!! In particular if no one else tales about it.
>Your point was that it wasn't anywhere in the Forbes
> reference, and you repeated that several times.
My point was that if it is not found in the Forbes reference then
where did he get it from! THAT was my point!
>
> > Are you going to admit he did not source that? His book is filled with
> > such stuff. It has bad referencing overall.
>
> I already did.
Thank you very kindly!
>So what? It is a BOOK.
> Bad referencing is still referencing.
Bad referencing equals pretty much NO referencing. You have a serious
misconception about matters here...
>Your point was there was NO
> reference for paragraph 2 chapter 22 in the Forbes article by Richard
> Behar.
My point was that he failed to account for a remarkable claim, a claim
that points at inside information. Data that no other persons have
made mention of. Admit that this would be a major flaw from Miller.
> Now you have changed your tune trying to safe face.
Whahahaha, when you are ADMITTING that I had right all along! You're
funny!
Astrid
wrote:
>
> Which is what we originally assumed, so now we appear to have an
> additional paragraph created by roadrunner which apparently exists
> between paragraphs one and two. Which roadrunner now identifies as as
> paragraphs one and three. Presumably at some point he will quote it
> and clear up the confusion.
>
trained to lead a topic away from criticism into long-winded nonsense
threads.
Have you read UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN by Krakauer? The book is a
great read, and the LDS responded to if officially, here:
http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/church-response-to-jon-krakauers-under-the-banner-of-heaven
The book is so well written that LDS had to respond, and if you read
the book, their response sounds both nit-picking and desperate,
mentioning all the GOOD Mormon people there were and are. Krakauer
responds to the Church's criticism for siding with an excommunicated
Mormon scholar with the following:
------------------
In response, Krakauer criticized the LDS Church hierarchy, citing the
opinion of D. Michael Quinn, a historian who was excommunicated in
1993, who wrote that "The tragic reality is that there have been
occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the
truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have
offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths,
omissions, and plausible denials." Krakauer wrote, "I happen to share
Dr. Quinn's perspective."
-------------------
Krakauer researched carefully, reading all the histories by faith-
promoting LDS scholars and just came to the conclusion that the
critical ones were more supported by fact. Scientology promoted
Hubbard as a war hero and nuclear physicist etc. However, the big
difference was there are no scholarly works by Scientologists about L.
Ron Hubbard's life or the history of the cult, just slippery
propaganda. Thus, you can't help but admire Miller's effort to sort
this all out, and make it into a linear story.
Scilons cannot respond to specific things in Miller's book any more
than they can talk about Xenu.
Anyway, I hope that the next book about Scientology is as fascinating
to read as UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN.
Peter Schilte
> On 29 Dec, 13:51, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Roadrunner schreef:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 05:39, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I think Snoeck refers to this:
> > > > "After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
> > > > were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
> > > > and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
> > > > solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
> > > > fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
> > > > acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation."
>
> > > > And he apparently thinks that Miller's referring to Forbes also
> > > > involves this.
>
> > > I said "as it seems", Miller threw this paragraph in there and does
> > > not account for it. No source, nothing.
>
> > In your message of 27 dec, 11:18 you still were referring to the
> > Forbes article.
>
> Tsk, tsk, he doesn't account for his claims in paragraph 2... and if
> it is not in the Forbes article then he provides for no source for
> it.
>
And you really think it is important?
>
>
>
>
> > > > And there Snoeck is wrong.
>
> > > > Miller's referring only involves this:
> > > > "Broeker also directed, apparently at the behest of the absent
> > > > Commodore, a massive corporate reorganization of the Church of
> > > > Scientology, ostensibly designed to further shield Hubbard from legal
> > > > liabilities and to ensure that the income flowing to him from the
> > > > church, then running at about $1 million a week, could never be
> > > > traced.
> > > > [1]", the first part of Paragraph 3.
> > > > Snoeck assumes wrong that Paragraph 2 is being referenced by Miller.
>
> > > > And he dares to call others illiterate?
>
> > > > Having read the Forbes article I can only confirm the correctness of
> > > > Miller's reference, and conclude that Snoeck is wrong , as he
> > > > misunderstood what exactly was referenced.
>
> > > > That makes all of his name calling, invalidations, degrading and
> > > > accusations totally insane.
>
> > > Wouldn't think so, amazing how you continue your hatred and finding
> > > wrong.
>
> > Well, you WERE wrong, thinking that the Forbes reference also involved
> > paragraph 2 chapter 22.
> > You pointed that reference out several times.
>
> So what source reference accounts for paragraph 2 Chapter 22????
>
Well, you don't know. So don't blame me when I don't know.
>
>
> > > 1. How long did it took you to locate paragraph 2? It's like you
> > > avoided it like the plague.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Yeah right... .-)
>
In case you think it's relevant, explain why.
>
>
> > > 2. Transxxx first mistook paragraph 3 as paragraph 2. When I pointed
> > > out that this was paragraph 2, she then took paragraph 1 as if
> > > paragraph 2... whahahahahahaha...
>
> > That is due to your very clear and transparent communication skills,
> > which in fact are not existing.
>
> It's HER confusion, not mine.
You really have communication disabilities. YOU caused the confusion.
> She also claimed that quotations topping
> the article are not counted as paragraph. And she STILL picked the
> WRONG paragraph. Amazing how you twist everything around...
> whahahahaha...
>
That is also twisting? How many definitions for twisting are there? Or
are these only in your mind....
>
>
> > > 3. Miller does not account for what he claims in paragraph 2, and the
> > > both of you can not admit he does not account for it.
>
> > There is a lot more he doesn't account for.
>
> Right on target!!!!
>
How many biogrphies do you know that have references to every
paragraph or phrase? It's a book, not a scientific study., apparently
you are unable to differentiate between them.
> >We are talking about a
> > book, not a scientific work meant for university students and
> > scientists.
>
> Such remarkable claims as taled in paragraph 2 Chapter 22 REQUIRE
> referencing!!!!!! In particular if no one else tales about it.
>
No, YOU said YOU couldn't find support for this paragraph. Claiming
support therefor doesn't exist is rather megalomanic.
> >Your point was that it wasn't anywhere in the Forbes
> > reference, and you repeated that several times.
>
> My point was that if it is not found in the Forbes reference then
> where did he get it from! THAT was my point!
>
You could have written a letter to Miller, asking the details, if you
really, REALLY think it is so very important.
>
>
> > > Are you going to admit he did not source that? His book is filled with
> > > such stuff. It has bad referencing overall.
>
> > I already did.
>
> Thank you very kindly!
>
> >So what? It is a BOOK.
> > Bad referencing is still referencing.
>
> Bad referencing equals pretty much NO referencing. You have a serious
> misconception about matters here...
>
> >Your point was there was NO
> > reference for paragraph 2 chapter 22 in the Forbes article by Richard
> > Behar.
>
> My point was that he failed to account for a remarkable claim, a claim
> that points at inside information. Data that no other persons have
> made mention of. Admit that this would be a major flaw from Miller.
>
And in your perception it invalidates the complete book...... Because
of one paragraph that apparently, you are right there, suggests inside
information. Does it mean it isn't true?
I really wish you would be so scrutinous with Hubbard's dianetics.
> > Now you have changed your tune trying to safe face.
>
> Whahahaha, when you are ADMITTING that I had right all along!
Right? You had (sic) right? With what?
> You're
> funny!
>
You really have no idea.....
Skipper
<83281a8e-ba46-406b...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
Roadrunner <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't think so, amazing how you continue your hatred and finding
> wrong.
Yes it is. What other of your own personal neuroses and psychoses would
you like to project on others today?
Roadrunner
You skipped this... .-)
>
> > > > Both you and Transxxx are refusing to deal with the issue here.
>
> > > As I observed before, communicating isn't your best quality.....
>
> > Fact is that you people can't deal with paragraph 2 and what it says.
>
> You assume too much again. You can't, and will never admit you are the
> only cause for this confusion.
Always finding faults in others than yourself and those in your
group...
>
> > The both of you can't admit Miller made a remarkable claim that
> > appears utterly unsourced.
>
> You change yoiur tune to safe face. Your point was that paragraph 2
> chapter 22 wasn't found anywhere in the referenced Forbes article.
You are foul twister... this has been observed... .-)
>
> > And no one else, as far as I can determine,
> > makes this claim.
>
> That you can't determine whether or not there are others making that
> claim is irrelevant.
It is very relevant indeed. It indicates that his unsourced claim
finds no support anywhere, and that he either made it up, or was
supplied inside information to be able to write a discrediting book
which most likely he was hired to produce. Also because of the
deadline he apparantly was subjected to.
>
> > Where did he get it from? The both of you will not address this
> > issue... .-)
>
> It is of no importance, even if it isn't true that:
> "After Hubbard skipped from Hemet with the Broekers, the apartments
> were closed. Once all the papers and personal effects had been packed
> and moved out, a working party cleaned each apartment with an alcohol
> solution to remove fingerprints, carefully wiping down all the walls,
> fixtures, door knobs, shelves, windows and mirrors. Pat Broeker,
> acting on Ron's orders, supervised the operation. "
> In fact it is rather irrelevant.
Of course you deem it being irrelevant and only because it sheds quite
a shadow on the credibility of Miller. So what else did he not account
for, this is the question that is being raised because of it. Thank
you for confirming. .-)