State Revokes Psychiatrist's License
Unknown
"A top psychiatrist at University of Massachusetts
Memorial/Marlborough Hospital took nude photographs of one patient and
made 12 loans to another, the state medical board said yesterday in a
ruling that revoked his medical license."
"A lawyer for the victim called that a typical evasion, and said
[doctor's name] took a bizarre approach to treating the Marlborough
woman, using sex and beatings to 'treat" her depression, which stemmed
from childhood physical and sexual abuse."
JLHartley
work.
Captain Amerika
Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
newspaper ...someday.
Chris Leithiser
>
> Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
> newspaper ...someday.
Don't watch for it, make it happen.
mimus
>Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
>newspaper ...someday.
About the time the DOJ and FBI suddenly start doing their jobs,
instead of allowing Scientology not only to run its criminal
operations completely unopposed in the United States but to crush
those who object in the courts, which are themselves run on the
Scientology system of "ethics" and "justice", under which the
wealthiest win?
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Fluffygirl
"Captain Amerika" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ca23d4d$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
> newspaper ...someday.
Perhaps *CofS*'s tax exemption may be revoked.
Perhaps it won't be.
But *Scn* is just a body of ideas and it doesn't HAVE a tax exemption.
CofS does, though.
C
roger gonnet
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3caf...@news2.lightlink.com...
Your arguments become tiring, C. You'd think once by yourself, instead of
always putting your scn = great data. Unless you're there like others before
you, to drag people into the new "churches" of scn?
r
Starshadow
roger gonnet wrote:
No, she's simply pointing out to people that there is a difference in the
belief system of Scn'y and the "Church" of Scn'y. That's
not the same as proseletysing, which she's already
commented on NUMEROUS times as being abbhorent to her,
personally.
And regardless of what you or I think about the belief
system and Hubbard's intent, it still exists as a belief
system independent of the official, barratrous, crime cult.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
and Goddess of Hypocrisy and Negativity,Queen of Mean,
Wicked Wiccan of the NW, and Ruler of Bullydom as crowned
by Shirley Wilson (Queen of Whingeing, Tantrums, And Foot
Stomping Web-Tv User).
"Scientology--Keeping Fraud Working"
www.xenu.net
DIANNA WAGNER
"Starshadow" <stars...@starshadow.net> wrote in message
news:3CAFB6E8...@starshadow.net...
>
....
> > >>
> >>But *Scn* is just a body of ideas and it doesn't HAVE a tax exemption.
> >>
> >
> > Your arguments become tiring, C. You'd think once by yourself, instead
of
> > always putting your scn = great data. Unless you're there like others
before
> > you, to drag people into the new "churches" of scn?
> >
>
> No, she's simply pointing out to people that there is a difference in the
>
> belief system of Scn'y and the "Church" of Scn'y. That's
> not the same as proseletysing, which she's already
> commented on NUMEROUS times as being abbhorent to her,
> personally.
>
> And regardless of what you or I think about the belief
> system and Hubbard's intent, it still exists as a belief
> system independent of the official, barratrous, crime cult.
Well, it seems to me that part of their "belief system," as revealed in the
written, spoken, farted and belched "scriptures" of L. Ron Hubbard is
precisely that they are to be a barratrous crime cult. "The purpose of the
law suit is to harass, not to win." ---"It's perfectly acceptable to step
outside the law to advance Scientology, since the law itself is aberrant"
That's what he said, ain't it?
Poopsy Charmicheal
>
> > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3caf...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>"Captain Amerika" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3ca23d4d$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >>
> >>>Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
> >>>newspaper ...someday.
> >>>
> >>Perhaps *CofS*'s tax exemption may be revoked.
> >>
> >>Perhaps it won't be.
> >>
> >>But *Scn* is just a body of ideas and it doesn't HAVE a tax exemption.
> >>
> >
> > Your arguments become tiring, C. You'd think once by yourself, instead
of
> > always putting your scn = great data. Unless you're there like others
before
> > you, to drag people into the new "churches" of scn?
> >
>
> No, she's simply pointing out to people that there is a difference in the
>
> belief system of Scn'y and the "Church" of Scn'y. That's
> not the same as proseletysing, which she's already
> commented on NUMEROUS times as being abbhorent to her,
> personally.
>
> And regardless of what you or I think about the belief
> system and Hubbard's intent, it still exists as a belief
> system independent of the official, barratrous, crime cult.
>
Just like the Scientologists who ignore the criminal acts that the Church
commits, Claire ignores the parts of the PHILOSOPHY that causes the Church
to commit those crimes. In order to continue calling herself a
"Scientologist outside the Church", she must stay oblivious to things she
doesn't want to see.
It's the same robotic mindset of some of the brainwashed Churchies we see
here, just a different set of things to look away from.
Poopsy
Fluffygirl
"roger gonnet" <roger....@worldnet.fr> wrote in message
news:a8ort6$27l8$5...@news6.isdnet.net...
>
> "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3caf...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Captain Amerika" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ca23d4d$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
> > > newspaper ...someday.
> >
> > Perhaps *CofS*'s tax exemption may be revoked.
> >
> > Perhaps it won't be.
> >
> > But *Scn* is just a body of ideas and it doesn't HAVE a tax exemption.
>
> Your arguments become tiring, C.
Then don't read 'em.
Problem solved.
Good luck.
C
Fluffygirl
"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:IvYr8.5004$f97.24...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
There are a lot of Scientologists who aren't even IN CofS, being either
expelled, inactive, or whatever, but in any event, totally unwilling to do
anything in CofS. Such as myself, Ralph Hilton, Basicbasic, C of A and
Cerridwen- all of who post here.
Scn is a body of ideas. There are, as I said, many Scientologists who have
nothing to do with the church. Therefore to say "scientology came to my
house and was mean to my dog" is quite inaccurate.Whereas "CofS members or
private detectives/operatives hired by CofS came to my house and were mean
to my dog" would be far more accurate.
CofS is the church/cult/corporate entity/mystic spelling bee/whatever the
fuck whose misdeeds we all enjoy complaining about so very much.
C
Fluffygirl
"Starshadow" <stars...@starshadow.net> wrote in message
news:3CAFB6E8...@starshadow.net...
>
>
> roger gonnet wrote:
>
> > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3caf...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>"Captain Amerika" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3ca23d4d$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >>
> >>>Made you look, didn't I? Watch for this very headline in your local
> >>>newspaper ...someday.
> >>>
> >>Perhaps *CofS*'s tax exemption may be revoked.
> >>
> >>Perhaps it won't be.
> >>
> >>But *Scn* is just a body of ideas and it doesn't HAVE a tax exemption.
> >>
> >
> > Your arguments become tiring, C. You'd think once by yourself, instead
of
> > always putting your scn = great data. Unless you're there like others
before
> > you, to drag people into the new "churches" of scn?
> >
>
> No, she's simply pointing out to people that there is a difference in the
>
> belief system of Scn'y and the "Church" of Scn'y. That's
> not the same as proseletysing, which she's already
> commented on NUMEROUS times as being abbhorent to her,
> personally.
>
> And regardless of what you or I think about the belief
> system and Hubbard's intent, it still exists as a belief
> system independent of the official, barratrous, crime cult.
Right. And another thing I do is I criticize the elements of the PHILOSOPHY
of Scientology itself. Because THERE are some problems in it. There are some
policies and so forth that Hubbard wrote that were the thoughts that
fathered the deeds we so enjoy bitching about today.
Some people here think I don't know that or don't think that. Those people
really ought to read the MANY posts I write criticizing Hubbard *himself*
and naming specific policies (and in a couple cases bits of "tech") with
which I have disagreement and what my disagreements are.
The church would NEVER have gotten in the pickle it's in (caused by its own
actions and those of Hubbard and Mary Sue, when they were in charge) had
Hubbard not inculcated various prejudices, biases, lust for power, interest
in the group at the expense of the individual in certain policies.
I've said that many times.
But some people would like to maintain the fiction that I think the
philosophy is perfect, and it's just the modern day CofS that's naughty.
Those people have skipped right over things I've said specific to problems
in the philosophy and with Hubbard himself all of which can be found on this
newsgroup and also which can be found in my postings on beliefnet and
askme.com.
So WHY would those particular folks do that?
Because that way they can say I don't face up to what's in the religion and
it's this real nice fantasy of this dewey eyed brainwashed Scientologist and
they can make me wrong and themselves right, set themselves up to be great
fonts of wisdom.
Well, those individuals MAY have some correct evaluations on occasion and
may be very wise indeed at times, but their powers of observation regarding
my stance aren't so hot since I CONSTANTLY make specific negative comments
about Hubbard himself and the flaws extant in the philosophy itself.
As my friend Lori would say "What part of that do they not understand?"
But, see, that would leave those particular individuals nothing to complain
about- if they were to actually pay attention to those negative things I
said. They'd actually have to give credibility to the fact that I see both
sides of the equation.
Additionally, there are people here who see NO problem with anyone saying
"Scientologists do this, that and the other thing" or even "Some
Scientologists do this, that or the other thing" or "clams are idiots" or
whatever the fuck, but let someone say "~Some~ critics" and they start
screeching about generalizations.
Double standards.
The last refuge of those who don't have a leg to stand on.
C
Gerry Armstrong
No, definitely read them. And apply reason to them. That will cause
Claire to rabbit, to blow and to killfile you.
Reason solves the Claire unreason problem. Once she's killfiled you
you've won all the arguments she could possibly concoct and they're no
longer tiring.
Reason is to Scientologists like pork is to Jews.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Beverly Rice
> "Starshadow" <stars...@starshadow.net> wrote in message
> > And regardless of what you or I think about the belief
> > system and Hubbard's intent, it still exists as a belief
> > system independent of the official, barratrous, crime cult.
> Well, it seems to me that part of their "belief system," as revealed in the
> written, spoken, farted and belched "scriptures" of L. Ron Hubbard is
> precisely that they are to be a barratrous crime cult. "The purpose of the
> law suit is to harass, not to win." ---"It's perfectly acceptable to step
> outside the law to advance Scientology, since the law itself is aberrant"
> That's what he said, ain't it?
That is from a Policy Letter. That is where things can get a
bit confusing, in the in Co$ there is Policy and there is
"technology".
Now there is technology that can be used to carry out policy,
and policies that dictate technology.
In the Co$, though, Policy is senior to Technology . . .
but PURPOSE is senior to policy.
Purpose seems to be dictated by who ever is in charge, and
right now that is David Miscavige, prior to that, it was
Ill Rum Tummy Tum.
The nice thing for people who get ~OUT~ of the physical
organization calling itself Co$ . . .
is they are free to pick and choose what they want, and
for the most part policy is dropped, because it is the
technology they are interested in . . .
and PURPOSE?!!!
HA . . . .
they no longer are under the domination of ~anothers~
purpose . . .
they are ~free~ to set and follow their ~own~ purpose.
Do I agree with LRH tech? Not really, but so what, as
long as it isn't being used to hurt anybody then that is
fine.
After all, ~any~ "religion" can be used to harm others
or to hurt others, or as an excuse for actions which
are not really spiritual.
I support freed scientologists, just like any other
followers of any religion or philosophy, as long as
they don't use what they have to hurt others, just
the same attitude I have with any other followers of
any religion or philosophy.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>DIANNA WAGNER wrote:
>> "Starshadow" <stars...@starshadow.net> wrote in message
>
>> > And regardless of what you or I think about the belief
>> > system and Hubbard's intent, it still exists as a belief
>> > system independent of the official, barratrous, crime cult.
>
>> Well, it seems to me that part of their "belief system," as revealed in the
>> written, spoken, farted and belched "scriptures" of L. Ron Hubbard is
>> precisely that they are to be a barratrous crime cult. "The purpose of the
>> law suit is to harass, not to win." ---"It's perfectly acceptable to step
>> outside the law to advance Scientology, since the law itself is aberrant"
>> That's what he said, ain't it?
>
>
>That is from a Policy Letter. That is where things can get a
>bit confusing, in the in Co$ there is Policy and there is
>"technology".
>
>Now there is technology that can be used to carry out policy,
>and policies that dictate technology.
>
>In the Co$, though, Policy is senior to Technology . . .
>
>but PURPOSE is senior to policy.
Orders are senior to purpose, goals and policy.
Policy in Scientology has two central classifications: "sheepdip
policies," and "de facto policies."
Scientology's sheepdip policies act as a cloak for its de facto
policies.
Policies which align with Scientology's fair game doctrine are the de
facto policies. Policies which cover up fair game, "cancel" fair game,
or make it appear that Scientology has a basic philosophy, policy and
practice different from fair game, are the cult's sheepdip policies.
>
>Purpose seems to be dictated by who ever is in charge, and
>right now that is David Miscavige, prior to that, it was
>Ill Rum Tummy Tum.
What, you agree with me and not with the CL op's BS conclusion? This
is great progress indeed.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Phil Scott
wrote:
I think its not real simple... my view is that DM does in fact call perhaps ALL
of the shots relative to some issues and in dealing with the army of pawns...
but on a higher level I think there are a range of other interests that he is
only associated with at best and most likely subservient to.
Remember he was just a kid in knee pants when he took over the cult...a huge
world wide crimiinal empire.. thats not a knee pants thang..and it started
before he dropped out of hight school...and established going thing with
billions in fraud and insider connections.
He isnt running *that by any stretch imho... but he IS running the brainwash
org end of the mess and for sure is involved in some aspects of what was going
long before he arrived.
To try to pin it all on DM misses the point of the larger pre existing scene.
I think he is the front guy for the most part... now who has the brains he
doesnt?
The men at the top... US govt attorneys no less... that defend the cult you see.
Phil Scott
Beverly Rice
> Beverly Rice <dbj...@mpinet.net> wrote:
> >Purpose seems to be dictated by who ever is in charge, and
> >right now that is David Miscavige, prior to that, it was
> >Ill Rum Tummy Tum.
>
> What, you agree with me and not with the CL op's BS conclusion? This
> is great progress indeed.
It is not about you, and it is not about CL.
Knowing that DM is the head of the RTC and "Co$" and
in charge of the Sea Org is common knowledge.
It doesn't have anything to do with agreeing with you,
disagreeing with you, agreeing with CL, disagreeing with
CL.
I hold that DM, CST and every other person in any type
of leadership or corporate role that holds any part of
enabling the Co$ to become the monstronsity that it is,
is liable for ramifications.
It's not an "either or" thing with me, you know that.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$/CST/Copyright Issue,
Beverly
>
DIANNA WAGNER
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb0...@news2.lightlink.com...
"body of ideas" you call Scientology (and for purposes of this discussion
I'll accept your hair-splitting about "Scientology" as distinct from "CoS")
are all the "ideas" Hubbard wrote, spoke, or otherwise emitted from various
bodily orifices? Isn't that essentially the definition of "Scientology
scriptures"? And isn't it true that these "scriptures" hold that among the
beliefs of the "religion" of Scientology (even as it is distinct from CoS)
are the beliefs that "aberrated wog law" should not deter Scientologists
from advancing Scientology, that anyone who opposes Scientology is to be
punished by both legal and extra-legal means, etc., etc.? Is Scientology
outside the "Church" not based on the same scriptures? I'm sorry, I realize
you are sincere in your belief that this religion has something to commend
itself to you and others, but it is simply not so. "Scientology," as the
term may apply to both the "religion" and the "church," is a house of cards
built on the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master con
aritst, or both. That was apparent to me on my first cursory perusal of
"Dianetics." Not that I wouldn't defend to the death your right to cling to
those beliefs, but I would NOT defend any actions predicated on such
antisocial values as those we're discussing.
> C
>
>
Fluffygirl
"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:ux7s8.5522$F13.27...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cb0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> > There are a lot of Scientologists who aren't even IN CofS, being either
Sure. I've remarked on that on this forum MANY times.
So what. Anyone who accepts a religion, a philosophy, any body of ideas as a
package deal is a fool.
So I DO make the distinction because the Scn'ists who do the things you
mention- which DO occur- happen to all be (with the possible exception of
the McLaughreys) affiliated with CofS.
> I'm sorry, I realize
> you are sincere in your belief that this religion has something to commend
> itself to you and others,
That's not the issue I was attempting to address in this thread.
I believe that would be a topic for a different thread.
> but it is simply not so. "Scientology," as the
> term may apply to both the "religion" and the "church," is a house of
cards
> built on the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master
con
> aritst, or both.
So what?
I was discussing something else entirely.
I don't need to defend my beliefs because that's just not my thing. I don't
proselytize. But I do address and debunk stereotypes and lack of
differentiation about Scn'ists etc. I also do so on another forum about
critics to the die-hard CofS members. (the conversations are well nigh
identical as the ones I have here. Gee. I wonder why.)
>That was apparent to me on my first cursory perusal of
> "Dianetics." Not that I wouldn't defend to the death your right to cling
to
> those beliefs,
Babe, I don't need to cling. I don't cling to anything except maybe a hard
man in a good bed...
No, I subscribe to whatever I subscribe to because of personal observation
and experience.
But, truly, I'd have made the same observation even had I been a non
Scn'ist- total man from mud type.
I think a little precision is a helpful thing.
> but I would NOT defend any actions predicated on such
> antisocial values as those we're discussing.
There are certain policies and writings of Hubbard's that were based on his
own prejudices, biases and lust for power. Those things comprise probably
about less than 1% of Scn. But they are very noticeable since they are
practiced so very much by the church now and also by the church when Hubbard
was still alive.
And they are also noticeable because of people who state or imply that
that's all there is to Scn.
Those people have fallen prey to their own lack of comprehension of that
subject.
Bottom line- lots of Scn'ists who aren't in the church, don't do OSA
thingies- don't care. Just want to audit, study, word clear, etc. And we
also have a church that places undue emphasis on some very hidebound,
ridiculous, hurtful and at times even illegal writings and practices.
Scn the philosophy is a body of ideas. It's not a church. The church of Scn
is the church or cult or mystic spelling bee that does those things. They
disregard the more user friendly and compassionate policies in favor of the
meaner, power and money mongering ones.
Again- it's a fact that Scn is just a body of ideas. Even if one thought all
of them were absolutely worthless and icky it would not change the fact that
it's not the body of ideas that does those things, it's DM and da boyz who
do. The fact that they use Scn scriptures to do that is irrelevant BECAUSE
there are many more Scn scriptures and ideas that they flout. Oddly enough,
detractors don't comment on those. Gee. I wonder why not. Golly. (I'll let
ya know when I come up with the answer. I'm sure you'll be waiting
anxiously. Heh!)
C
roger gonnet
For sure. But since C wants it like she acts as she believed it grerat, it's
her righty indeed to play that game. But she should then stop using words
falsely.
r
DIANNA WAGNER
>
>
> "DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:ux7s8.5522$F13.27...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cb0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
>
> > >
the
> > "body of ideas" you call Scientology (and for purposes of this
discussion
> > I'll accept your hair-splitting about "Scientology" as distinct from
> "CoS")
> > are all the "ideas" Hubbard wrote, spoke, or otherwise emitted from
> various
> > bodily orifices? Isn't that essentially the definition of "Scientology
> > scriptures"? And isn't it true that these "scriptures" hold that among
the
> > beliefs of the "religion" of Scientology (even as it is distinct from
CoS)
> > are the beliefs that "aberrated wog law" should not deter Scientologists
> > from advancing Scientology, that anyone who opposes Scientology is to be
> > punished by both legal and extra-legal means, etc., etc.? Is Scientology
> > outside the "Church" not based on the same scriptures?
>
> Sure. I've remarked on that on this forum MANY times.
"Sure, it is based on the same scriptures," or "sure, it's not based on the
same scriptures"? I missed your previous remarks on that.
> So what. Anyone who accepts a religion, a philosophy, any body of ideas as
a
> package deal is a fool.
>
> So I DO make the distinction because the Scn'ists who do the things you
> mention- which DO occur- happen to all be (with the possible exception of
> the McLaughreys) affiliated with CofS.
>
>
> > I'm sorry, I realize
> > you are sincere in your belief that this religion has something to
commend
> > itself to you and others,
>
> That's not the issue I was attempting to address in this thread.
>
> I believe that would be a topic for a different thread.
Well, that was meant as an olive branch. But if you're gonna poke me in the
eye with 'em, then no more olive branches for you! :-[
> > but it is simply not so. "Scientology," as the
> > term may apply to both the "religion" and the "church," is a house of
> cards
> > built on the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master
> con
> > aritst, or both.
>
> So what?
>
> I was discussing something else entirely.
Then I'm lost. I thought we were talking about the "body of ideas," the "set
of beliefs" which I described as
"the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master
con aritst, or both." What was the entirely different thing you were
discussing?
> I don't need to defend my beliefs because that's just not my thing. I
don't
> proselytize. But I do address and debunk stereotypes and lack of
> differentiation about Scn'ists etc. I also do so on another forum about
> critics to the die-hard CofS members. (the conversations are well nigh
> identical as the ones I have here. Gee. I wonder why.)
Well, you certainly don't need to defend your beliefs to me. But I'm sure
you are as aware as I am that you have here again dodged the questions I
posed by bringing up "stereotype debunking, " "lack of differentiation," and
another newsgroup, none of which has anything to do with the questions at
hand. The issues I brought up are not stereotypical jabs at Scientology.
Rather, they are documented, indisputable features of the Hubbard
philosophy. Besides, stereotypes get to BE stereotypes for a reason.
>
> >That was apparent to me on my first cursory perusal of
> > "Dianetics." Not that I wouldn't defend to the death your right to cling
> to
> > those beliefs,
>
> Babe, I don't need to cling. I don't cling to anything except maybe a hard
> man in a good bed...
>
I'm flattered you call me "Babe." I love that movie. ---- Heeeeyyyyy, wait a
minute! Why, I oughtta.....
> No, I subscribe to whatever I subscribe to because of personal observation
> and experience.
>
> But, truly, I'd have made the same observation even had I been a non
> Scn'ist- total man from mud type.
>
> I think a little precision is a helpful thing.
>
>
> > but I would NOT defend any actions predicated on such
> > antisocial values as those we're discussing.
>
> There are certain policies and writings of Hubbard's that were based on
Those things comprise probably
> about less than 1% of Scn. But they are very noticeable since they are
> practiced so very much by the church now and also by the church when
Hubbard
> was still alive.
Every word Hubbard ever wrote or said about Scientology, 100% of it, is
based on his
own prejudices, biases and lust for power. Absolutely every last bit.
Otherwise, he would have produced his "research," that proved Scientology to
be 100% correct, infallible, "on a par with the discovery of fire and
superior to the invention of the wheel," "on the order of chemistry and
physics in its precision," yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyone making such grandiose
claims without ever producing a single smidgen (I'd settle for half a
smidgen) of objective evidence to support those claims is a fraud! Anyone
making such claims, without offering evidence, and who has been proven by
irrefutable, iron clad documentation to have lied about everything in his
background, accomplishments, education, awards, etc., etc., ad infinitum, is
a fraud! It's just how it is.
> And they are also noticeable because of people who state or imply that
> that's all there is to Scn.
Scientology is a fraud! That's all there is to it. Of course, some people
are helped by some aspects of Scientology, just as some people are helped by
homeopathic remedies or sugar pills. It's known as the placebo effect,
which, unlike anything Hubbard ever claimed about Scientology, is a well
known and thoroughly documented phenomenon.
> Those people have fallen prey to their own lack of comprehension of that
> subject.
I fear you fail to see who's fallen prey to what here.
> Bottom line- lots of Scn'ists who aren't in the church, don't do OSA
> thingies- don't care. Just want to audit, study, word clear, etc. And we
> also have a church that places undue emphasis on some very hidebound,
> ridiculous, hurtful and at times even illegal writings and practices.
>
> Scn the philosophy is a body of ideas. It's not a church. The church of
Scn
> is the church or cult or mystic spelling bee that does those things. They
> disregard the more user friendly and compassionate policies in favor of
the
> meaner, power and money mongering ones.
>
> Again- it's a fact that Scn is just a body of ideas. Even if one thought
all
> of them were absolutely worthless and icky it would not change the fact
that
> it's not the body of ideas that does those things, it's DM and da boyz who
> do. The fact that they use Scn scriptures to do that is irrelevant BECAUSE
> there are many more Scn scriptures and ideas that they flout. Oddly
enough,
> detractors don't comment on those. Gee. I wonder why not. Golly. (I'll let
> ya know when I come up with the answer. I'm sure you'll be waiting
> anxiously. Heh!)
Again, you beg the question. Are the reprehensible ideas of "fair game,"
legal harrassment, covert ops, dirty tricks, etc., which are prescribed by
Hubbard in Scientology's "scriptures, " among the core values of Scientology
or not? I hold that they are. The fact that it is the officials of the
"Church" who engage in the nasty behavior rather than the disaffected
renegade Scientolgists is what's irrelevant. And, in case you haven't
noticed, I have commented on all the other "Scn scriptures and ideas that
they flout." It's all nonsense!
Please understand, from what I've read on this ng, I can see that you are a
sincere, intelligent person, with integrity to spare, an asset to your
community, a peachy kid and a nifty dancer. But the notion that Scientology
is anything other than a huge load of Bandini, whether practiced in or out
of the "church," is where you and I part company.
> C
>
>
DIANNA WAGNER
server.
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>
> "DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:ux7s8.5522$F13.27...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cb0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
>
> > >
> > You beg the question. Is it is, or is it ain't true that, included in
the
> > "body of ideas" you call Scientology (and for purposes of this
discussion
> > I'll accept your hair-splitting about "Scientology" as distinct from
> "CoS")
> > are all the "ideas" Hubbard wrote, spoke, or otherwise emitted from
> various
> > bodily orifices? Isn't that essentially the definition of "Scientology
> > scriptures"? And isn't it true that these "scriptures" hold that among
the
> > beliefs of the "religion" of Scientology (even as it is distinct from
CoS)
> > are the beliefs that "aberrated wog law" should not deter Scientologists
> > from advancing Scientology, that anyone who opposes Scientology is to be
> > punished by both legal and extra-legal means, etc., etc.? Is Scientology
> > outside the "Church" not based on the same scriptures?
>
> Sure. I've remarked on that on this forum MANY times.
"Sure, it is based on the same scriptures," or "sure, it's not based on the
same scriptures"? I missed your previous remarks on that.
> So what. Anyone who accepts a religion, a philosophy, any body of ideas as
a
> package deal is a fool.
>
> So I DO make the distinction because the Scn'ists who do the things you
> mention- which DO occur- happen to all be (with the possible exception of
> the McLaughreys) affiliated with CofS.
>
>
> > I'm sorry, I realize
> > you are sincere in your belief that this religion has something to
commend
> > itself to you and others,
>
> That's not the issue I was attempting to address in this thread.
>
> I believe that would be a topic for a different thread.
Well, that was meant as an olive branch. But if you're gonna poke me in the
eye with 'em, then no more olive branches for you! :-[
> > but it is simply not so. "Scientology," as the
> > term may apply to both the "religion" and the "church," is a house of
> cards
> > built on the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master
> con
> > aritst, or both.
>
> So what?
>
> I was discussing something else entirely.
Then I'm lost. I thought we were talking about the "body of ideas," the "set
of beliefs" which I described as
"the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master
con aritst, or both." What was the entirely different thing you were
discussing?
> I don't need to defend my beliefs because that's just not my thing. I
don't
> proselytize. But I do address and debunk stereotypes and lack of
> differentiation about Scn'ists etc. I also do so on another forum about
> critics to the die-hard CofS members. (the conversations are well nigh
> identical as the ones I have here. Gee. I wonder why.)
Well, you certainly don't need to defend your beliefs to me. But I'm sure
you are as aware as I am that you have here again dodged the questions I
posed by bringing up "stereotype debunking, " "lack of differentiation," and
another newsgroup, none of which has anything to do with the questions at
hand. The issues I brought up are not stereotypical jabs at Scientology.
Rather, they are documented, indisputable features of the Hubbard
philosophy. Besides, stereotypes get to BE stereotypes for a reason.
>
> >That was apparent to me on my first cursory perusal of
> > "Dianetics." Not that I wouldn't defend to the death your right to cling
> to
> > those beliefs,
>
> Babe, I don't need to cling. I don't cling to anything except maybe a hard
> man in a good bed...
>
I'm flattered you call me "Babe." I love that movie. ---- Heeeeyyyyy, wait a
minute! Why, I oughtta.....
> No, I subscribe to whatever I subscribe to because of personal observation
> and experience.
>
> But, truly, I'd have made the same observation even had I been a non
> Scn'ist- total man from mud type.
>
> I think a little precision is a helpful thing.
>
>
> > but I would NOT defend any actions predicated on such
> > antisocial values as those we're discussing.
>
> There are certain policies and writings of Hubbard's that were based on
Those things comprise probably
> about less than 1% of Scn. But they are very noticeable since they are
> practiced so very much by the church now and also by the church when
Hubbard
> was still alive.
Every word Hubbard ever wrote or said about Scientology, 100% of it, is
based on his
own prejudices, biases and lust for power. Absolutely every last bit.
Otherwise, he would have produced his "research," that proved Scientology to
be 100% correct, infallible, "on a par with the discovery of fire and
superior to the invention of the wheel," "on the order of chemistry and
physics in its precision," yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyone making such grandiose
claims without ever producing a single smidgen (I'd settle for half a
smidgen) of objective evidence to support those claims is a fraud! Anyone
making such claims, without offering evidence, and who has been proven by
irrefutable, iron clad documentation to have lied about everything in his
background, accomplishments, education, awards, etc., etc., ad infinitum, is
a fraud! It's just how it is.
> And they are also noticeable because of people who state or imply that
> that's all there is to Scn.
Scientology is a fraud! That's all there is to it. Of course, some people
are helped by some aspects of Scientology, just as some people are helped by
homeopathic remedies or sugar pills. It's known as the placebo effect,
which, unlike anything Hubbard ever claimed about Scientology, is a well
known and thoroughly documented phenomenon.
> Those people have fallen prey to their own lack of comprehension of that
> subject.
I fear you fail to see who's fallen prey to what here.
> Bottom line- lots of Scn'ists who aren't in the church, don't do OSA
> thingies- don't care. Just want to audit, study, word clear, etc. And we
> also have a church that places undue emphasis on some very hidebound,
> ridiculous, hurtful and at times even illegal writings and practices.
>
> Scn the philosophy is a body of ideas. It's not a church. The church of
Scn
> is the church or cult or mystic spelling bee that does those things. They
> disregard the more user friendly and compassionate policies in favor of
the
> meaner, power and money mongering ones.
>
> Again- it's a fact that Scn is just a body of ideas. Even if one thought
all
> of them were absolutely worthless and icky it would not change the fact
that
> it's not the body of ideas that does those things, it's DM and da boyz who
> do. The fact that they use Scn scriptures to do that is irrelevant BECAUSE
> there are many more Scn scriptures and ideas that they flout. Oddly
enough,
> detractors don't comment on those. Gee. I wonder why not. Golly. (I'll let
> ya know when I come up with the answer. I'm sure you'll be waiting
> anxiously. Heh!)
Again, you beg the question. Are the reprehensible ideas of "fair game,"
Starshadow
DIANNA WAGNER wrote:
And part of the belief system of Xtianity is the book
collection known as The Holy Bible, wherein YHWH
continually enjoins his followers to slaughter the the
infidels. And part of the belief system of Islam is the
Qu'ran, wherein Allah regularly extorts his followers to
slaughter the infidels. And part of the belief system of
virtually every proseletysing religion or cult are
sections of their writings wherein the followers are
extorted by their gods or leaders to slaughter the infidels.
Oh, I'm sorry, your point was...?
Mine was that the belief systems say many things. There
were plenty of occasions that Ron mouthed platitutes, and
his followers can pick or choose from those too, just like
other belief system followers, rather than the "search and
destroy" aspects.
Starshadow
DIANNA WAGNER wrote:
Well, lemme find some antisocial values from another
well known tax exempt religion.
Hmm, looking at the Book of Joshua, I see where YHWH
tells Joshua to command armies to overthrow cities,
wherein they kill everyone from the kings of the cities,
to the babies in arms, only keeping as "prey" the cattle
and possessions of the people they've killed.
In Judges YHWH commands his people to steal another
tribes' women, basically abducting them by stealth.
This is after he told another group of his people to go
to a city and destroy all the inhabitants, right down to
babies in arms, except for virgin women, which they could
abduct and make wives of.
Samuel, first book. David, at the behest of YHWH, slays
everyone in a city, so they won't "tell on him" (plausable
deniability at its finest). Second book, some of YHWH's
favored folk kill a crippled son of David's enemy by
stealth. Not exactly an act of war even by the war rules
back then.
Then we get to Kings, chapter two, wherein one of YHWH's
chosen prophets first goes up a mountain and is mocked by
some little kids and called an old bald headed coot, which
he was, so he curses them in the name of his god who sends
two she bears to tear forty two of those kids to bits for
sassing his favored prophet. Then another of his favored
gets rid of his opposition by proclaiming a worship
service for an opposing religion, and when everyone has
gathered the doors of that temple are shut and they kill
everyone at the behest of YHWH.
But wait, you say, isn't that thousands of years ago?
Well, to be sure those followers have some years up on
Scn'y, but consider Yeshua ben Joshua, who also said "I am
come not to bring peace but a sword" and told people to
leave father and mother and family (disconnect, in Scn'y
terms) to follow him.
So one can be selective and still have a fairly benign
belief system, in other words. Which is what many of those
who follow the belief system outside the official "church"
do, actually.
And I have zero quarrel with that. I'd much rather fight
against actual CofS abuses, myself, than quibble about
whose belief system is nuttier. As Robert Heinlein used to
say, "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh,"
and that would certainly include mine--which ain't Scn'y, btw.
---
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
and Goddess of Hypocrisy and Negativity,Queen of Mean,
Wicked Wiccan of the NW, and Ruler of Bullydom as crowned
by Shirley Wilson (Queen of Whingeing, Tantrums, And Foot
Stomping Web-Tv User).
"Scientology--Keeping Fraud Working"
www.xenu.net
--
? 2??<
Poopsy Charmicheal
Good point, Starshadow. I think I'm finally start to get what you are
saying.
Or is it Claire who says this?
Poopsy
Steve Plakos
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
It sounds like a good point because it sounds so reasonable. The problem I have
with it rather defines the "problem" I have with Fluffy, to whit, there is *no*
"philosophy" of scientology. scientology calls itself an "applied religious
philosophy" but there is no philosophy all there is is the "technology"; that's
the "applied" part of the definition. Hubbard said that if you applied
"standard tech standardly" you'd get standard results. What results? Well, all
the great benefits of being a "clear" or an "OT" of course. Claire has never
said exactly what "benefits" she gets from scientology (she's actually, IIRC,
never said what her OT level was (is?)).
So, what "selective" parts of scientology are benign? I would submit that
anything that is benign inside of scientology does not require belief in
scientology to enjoy it. LRH was a liar and cheat. He never had an original
thought in his miserable existence. Therefore, what is left is far from
benign, it is malignant and it needs to be exposed for what it is, evil.
Steve
Poopsy Charmicheal
"Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3CB2225A...@concentric.net...
I know. I was being nice. I said that I was starting to understand, not that
I agreed at all.
The actual problem with the argument above is that all the things it said to
do to those people in the Bible were acts that were not thought to be
criminal at the time, and were how people actually acted with one another.
They were orders to forward the mores and survival behavior of the group in
the environment that existed around them.
Hubbard, on the other hand, wrote orders to commit actual crimes, contrary
to the mores of the society, and the need to solve problems this way in his
environment.
There is a very big difference between the stuff in the Bible, and stuff
written by Hubbard for this reason. David was a warrior, Hubbard was a
criminal con man.
And anyway - who the hell would want to root through all that horeshit and
scoop out a religion for themselves?
Poopsy
Fluffygirl
"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Gbcs8.5764$801.29...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > I'm sorry, I realize
> > > you are sincere in your belief that this religion has something to
> commend
> > > itself to you and others,
> >
> > That's not the issue I was attempting to address in this thread.
> >
> > I believe that would be a topic for a different thread.
>
> Well, that was meant as an olive branch. But if you're gonna poke me in
the
> eye with 'em, then no more olive branches for you! :-[
I didn't mean that as a poke. I just figured it as a different issue. Didn't
mean to give offense.
>
> > > but it is simply not so. "Scientology," as the
> > > term may apply to both the "religion" and the "church," is a house of
> > cards
> > > built on the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a
master
> > con
> > > aritst, or both.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > I was discussing something else entirely.
>
> Then I'm lost. I thought we were talking about the "body of ideas," the
"set
> of beliefs" which I described as
> "the nonsensical and bizarre teachings of a lunatic, or a master
> con aritst, or both." What was the entirely different thing you were
> discussing?
The difference between Scn- a set of ideas- and CofS and those who say
Scientology did this and that when they mean CofS, or usually, OSA.
>
> > I don't need to defend my beliefs because that's just not my thing. I
> don't
> > proselytize. But I do address and debunk stereotypes and lack of
> > differentiation about Scn'ists etc. I also do so on another forum about
> > critics to the die-hard CofS members. (the conversations are well nigh
> > identical as the ones I have here. Gee. I wonder why.)
>
> Well, you certainly don't need to defend your beliefs to me. But I'm sure
> you are as aware as I am that you have here again dodged the questions I
> posed by bringing up "stereotype debunking, " "lack of differentiation,"
and
> another newsgroup, none of which has anything to do with the questions at
> hand.
Actually, it is relevant to what I was saying.
>The issues I brought up are not stereotypical jabs at Scientology.
> Rather, they are documented, indisputable features of the Hubbard
> philosophy. Besides, stereotypes get to BE stereotypes for a reason.
Less than 1% of this philosophy contains the things that are so problematic.
See the last part of my post in response to Newsman regarding the difference
between an abusive church and the philosophy of that church.
> >
> > > but I would NOT defend any actions predicated on such
> > > antisocial values as those we're discussing.
> >
> > There are certain policies and writings of Hubbard's that were based on
> Those things comprise probably
> > about less than 1% of Scn. But they are very noticeable since they are
> > practiced so very much by the church now and also by the church when
> Hubbard
> > was still alive.
>
> Every word Hubbard ever wrote or said about Scientology, 100% of it, is
> based on his
> own prejudices, biases and lust for power.
Actually, no. His tech on auditing, word clearing and so forth were theories
he had about enlightenment. They may be good, valid, or bad, invalid but
they were his personal endeavors toward that subject.
He kept revamping various techniques and procedures in a very easy to see
linear faxhion past the point where he had all he needed to just keep
adherents adhered, hook line and sinker. Obviously it was an avocation and
calling of sorts. This does not preclude the interest he began to develop in
money and power. Most people think those things are mutually exclusive. I'm
sorry to say that they are not.
>Absolutely every last bit.
> Otherwise, he would have produced his "research," that proved Scientology
to
> be 100% correct, infallible, "on a par with the discovery of fire and
> superior to the invention of the wheel," "on the order of chemistry and
> physics in its precision," yadda, yadda, yadda.
No, all that this means is that he didn't want to produce those things. It
did not mean that he was insincere. Neither did it mean that he was sincere.
Just meant that he didn't want to. He figured the proof of the methods could
be seen in actually doing them. I'm inclined to agree except that I very
much disagree with his insistance on people looking at this stuff as science
and THEN not providing any proof or studies. If he didn't want to provide
those things, fine, great. But I would say then, then don't call it a
science.
> Anyone making such grandiose
> claims without ever producing a single smidgen (I'd settle for half a
> smidgen) of objective evidence to support those claims is a fraud!
No, actually, that doesn't follow. Many mystics, religious types,
philosophers don't provide double blind studies and the like. Hubbard- like
those others- invites people to try the ideas out for size. If they work,
then there's your proof.
There is nothing wrong with this approach. But again, I think that then one
would just about have to ditch the oh look how scientific we are approach.
>Anyone
> making such claims, without offering evidence, and who has been proven by
> irrefutable, iron clad documentation to have lied about everything in his
> background, accomplishments, education, awards, etc., etc., ad infinitum,
is
> a fraud! It's just how it is.
Nope.
Suggest you read some history.
>
> > And they are also noticeable because of people who state or imply that
> > that's all there is to Scn.
>
> Scientology is a fraud! That's all there is to it.
No, actually all this says is that you think it is.
> Of course, some people
> are helped by some aspects of Scientology, just as some people are helped
by
> homeopathic remedies or sugar pills. It's known as the placebo effect,
> which, unlike anything Hubbard ever claimed about Scientology, is a well
> known and thoroughly documented phenomenon.
Auditing procedures can obviously be seen to not be placebos. Anyone who's
done any Scn knows that. And I'd think so even if I were a non Scn'ist. Lots
of techniques in the world- in and out of Scn- work just fine and aren't
always the placebo effect.
>
> > Those people have fallen prey to their own lack of comprehension of that
> > subject.
>
> I fear you fail to see who's fallen prey to what here.
Oh, no. I see quite clearly. (no pun intended)
Nope.
>Are the reprehensible ideas of "fair game,"
> legal harrassment, covert ops, dirty tricks, etc., which are prescribed by
> Hubbard in Scientology's "scriptures, " among the core values of
Scientology
> or not? >
Nope. The core value of Scn is the idea of postulates and considerations.
That is what's at the core.
The fact that there are other ideas of varying degrees of benificence extant
in Scn does not preclude or occlude that.
Again, the non user friendly scriptures of Scn comprise prolly less than 1%.
>I hold that they are. The fact that it is the officials of the
> "Church" who engage in the nasty behavior rather than the disaffected
> renegade Scientolgists is what's irrelevant.
Sure. Because that's not what I was saying.
Most of Scn is about potulates, considerations, states of being. Period.
I could also point to many very user firendly scriptures the church is NOT
applying to critics. Stuff Hubbard also wrote.
Doesn't mean that other stuff isn't there or that he didn't say it, just
means that those things are just one very small part of what Hubbard did
write/say and that certain individuals- DM an da boyz and LRH and MSH back
when, too- choose to emphasize certain of these writings and disregard
others.
A critic who doesn't see that there are these other things and what the
ratio is, is about as bright as a Scn'ist who thinks evrything's all roses,
LRH never did anything wrong or dumb, DM is perfect, nobody fari games
anybody, etc. Which is to say, not very.
>And, in case you haven't
> noticed, I have commented on all the other "Scn scriptures and ideas that
> they flout." It's all nonsense!
Oh, like the ones where he says it's a good idea to talk to people? Or that
it's better to get along with one's family then just make them wrong for not
being in Scn? Or the ones where he sas it's a bad idea to learn something
only so you can pass the test or the one where he says that the first
barrier to learning is deciding you know it all already?
Yep, those are just nonsense.
Wow.
Golly.
I particularly hate the ones where he advises taking responsibibility for
one's own actions, speaking freely...boy, I can see where you'd have to
write those off...
<giggle>
Ok, ok, I'm a snot...I admit it...
>
> Please understand, from what I've read on this ng, I can see that you are
a
> sincere, intelligent person, with integrity to spare, an asset to your
> community, a peachy kid and a nifty dancer.
Well, dunno 'bout that last. Did you ever watch Seinfeld? I dance kinda like
Elaine Bennis or like Winona Rider in Reality Bites when she was in the
convenience store and My Sharona was playing...
(she later said she was worried people would think she really meant to
dance that way and my thought was "Huh? There was something wrong with
that?")
> But the notion that Scientology
> is anything other than a huge load of Bandini, whether practiced in or out
> of the "church," is where you and I part company.
Well, sure. You're not a Scn'ist.
No offense, but I find that critics who never give credence to anyone in
CofS or any idea in Scn ever being any good are just like some Scn'ists I've
talked to who only see a "world of illusion where everything's peaches and
cream." ( from Jungle Love by Steve Miller)
C
DIANNA WAGNER
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb2...@news2.lightlink.com...
Starshadow
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
As you very well know, I think, I am not Claire and Claire
is not me.
--
--
Starshadow
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
Tell that to the fundies who advocate doing them to the
people TODAY. It's a two edged sword. There's the benign
part, and the part that is rather nasty.
> Hubbard, on the other hand, wrote orders to commit actual crimes, contrary
> to the mores of the society, and the need to solve problems this way in his
> environment.
>
> There is a very big difference between the stuff in the Bible, and stuff
> written by Hubbard for this reason. David was a warrior, Hubbard was a
> criminal con man.
Tell that to the people in the city who were LAWFULLY
occupying that city. And once again, how about the people
who the fundies of TODAY adovocate against? How about the
people who decide they are warriors of whatever god they
follow who strap explosives to their bodies and detonate
them? Who fly airplanes into buildings? Who bomb abortion
clinics in the name of "saving innocents"? Who are
soldiers in lawful wars who in the name of whatever god or
whatever religion rape and kill those who are NOT fellow
soldiers? The list goes on and on.
Now back to Hubbard. He also wrote totally contradictory
platitudes of various types. Now mind you, I don't believe
that he meant any of them. But they are there, and can be
followed by any who believe in what he was doing, to the
exclusion of the orders to (GO and OSA insiders) to commit
actual crimes.
Back to the Bible, there are plenty of instances wherein
the god's chosen folk went in by stealth--JUST LIKE THE GO
or its sucessor OSA--and committed crimes in stealth
against the laws of the city-state they trespassed into.
>
> And anyway - who the hell would want to root through all that horeshit and
> scoop out a religion for themselves?
>
> Poopsy
>
>
>
Obviously there are some people who do.
As long as they aren't committing crimes, and abuses it's
fine with me.
--
--
Poopsy Charmicheal
>
>
> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
>
> > "Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:3CB2225A...@concentric.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Starshadow" <stars...@starshadow.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3CB14E54...@starshadow.net...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>DIANNA WAGNER wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:3cb0...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:IvYr8.5004$f97.24...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Starshadow" <stars...@starshadow.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:3CAFB6E8...@starshadow.net...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>But *Scn* is just a body of ideas and it doesn't HAVE a tax
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>exemption.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
You are right about the fundamentalists, and the fanatical martyrs.
I used to have such high regard for religion. But I am finding that I have
less and less need for it, for precisely the reasons that you and I are
discussing, Starshadow.
> >
> > And anyway - who the hell would want to root through all that horeshit
and
> > scoop out a religion for themselves?
> >
> > Poopsy
> >
> >
> >
>
> Obviously there are some people who do.
>
> As long as they aren't committing crimes, and abuses it's
> fine with me.
>
Everything Hubbard wrote was designed to create a Scientologist as a
soldier/slave for Ron, and now for the Church.
Do you really think that there ever could be a Church of Scientology, that
would not produce lying, fanatical criminals?
Poopsy
Starshadow
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
To be fair, there are plenty of religions which don't
proseletyse, and those tend to be freer of the abuses,
since they see no need to convert the unconverted.
>
>>>And anyway - who the hell would want to root through all that horeshit
>>>
> and
>
>>>scoop out a religion for themselves?
>>>
>>>Poopsy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Obviously there are some people who do.
>>
>>As long as they aren't committing crimes, and abuses it's
>>fine with me.
>>
>>
>
> Everything Hubbard wrote was designed to create a Scientologist as a
> soldier/slave for Ron, and now for the Church.
>
> Do you really think that there ever could be a Church of Scientology, that
> would not produce lying, fanatical criminals?
Since there certainly are splinter groups in the Free Zone
and since many of them are not lying, fanatical criminals
I guess that might answer your question.
Fluffygirl
"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:4Rts8.6690$_U3.34...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> You're in some serious denial here.
Nice dialogue- NOT!
Babe, I know far more about Scn than you ever have or ever will. I know the
flaws extant in the philosophy and not just the ones in the church. I know
what works, I know what doesn't.
And really my own personal convictions are none of your business in any
event. I don't come on to this forum for that and I've already stated that.
But since YOU brought up the digression, I graciously went with it and
humored you because I thought you actually wanted some meaningful dialogue.
This particular answer clues me in that my very first impression of you was
right on the money.
So don't bother me with your bogus value judgments again. You do not know me
and you obviously don't know much about Scn.
A lot of critics I've run into decry certain policies quite rightly but
usually get the interpretations wrong because they don't really understand
Scn.
You are such a one.
One has to know WHY something's not ideal, what's wrong with it. It's not
enough to say "oh yeah, well it's crap and I just know that it is" etc.
Next time you answer someone here I suggest you stick to the original
questions being discussed rather than making it about that person.
So - fuck denial. That's just a buzzword by someone to label someone whom
she does not know when that first someone can't even stay on the topic being
discussed.
Keep your filthy value judgments and labels to yourself.
C
DIANNA WAGNER
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cb3...@news2.lightlink.com...
Fluffygirl
"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:CaIs8.389$kD6.38...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> See what I mean?
Yes, we can.
We can see exactly what you mean.
Someone who says "It's bad because I say so and that's all there is to it."
Someone analyzing someone she doesn't even know after endless deflection.
Next time you want to post something in response to someone else,I strongly
suggest you not discuss the individual him or herself and your oh so bogus
ideas about them. Those are off topic.
Too bad you can't stay on topic and leave off the ad hominem comments and
insults.
My life really is none of your concern and you do not know me.
I'd like to see the standard of criticism raised and I personally am doing
my best to raise it since I am a critic and a Scientologist.
C
Poopsy Charmicheal
> news:CaIs8.389$kD6.38...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > See what I mean?
>
> Yes, we can.
>
> We can see exactly what you mean.
Yes we can. YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
> Someone who says "It's bad because I say so and that's all there is to
it."
She never said that. You are mischaracterizing her argument again.
Fluffy the Straw Man!
> Someone analyzing someone she doesn't even know after endless deflection.
>
> Next time you want to post something in response to someone else,I
strongly
> suggest you not discuss the individual him or herself and your oh so bogus
> ideas about them. Those are off topic.
You, as a Scientologist who continues to promote Scientology, and who uses
logical fallacies and belligerant communication to try to shut people up,
are most definitely ON TOPIC. Your tactics are straight from Hubbard.
> Too bad you can't stay on topic and leave off the ad hominem comments and
> insults.
Too bad you can't string three logical sentences together to make one point
that had anything to do with what someone said to you.
> My life really is none of your concern and you do not know me.
>
> I'd like to see the standard of criticism raised and I personally am doing
> my best to raise it since I am a critic and a Scientologist.
>
> C
This is a hoot!
Claire! Stop being so fucking serious! Jesus!
Poopsy
Starshadow
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
> "Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cb3...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
>>
>>"DIANNA WAGNER" <WAGNER...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>news:CaIs8.389$kD6.38...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>See what I mean?
>>>
>>Yes, we can.
>>
>>We can see exactly what you mean.
>>
>
> Yes we can. YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
>
>
>>Someone who says "It's bad because I say so and that's all there is to
>>
> it."
>
> She never said that. You are mischaracterizing her argument again.
>
> Fluffy the Straw Man!
Au contraire, Poopsy, that's EXACTLY what a one line
response to a pretty reasoned out argument is.Did she
answer point a point? Nope, just a "You are in denial", to
a long post with point and counterpoint, up to then. So if
I can see that she summed it all up with "it's bad because
I say so and that's all there is to it," when I disagree
that Hubbard had any benign intent, then it's pretty
obvious to anyone, who is actually countering points with
actual counterpoints, rather than skipping the whole thing
with a summed up "I don't feel like going into it, you're
wrong, and that's all there is to it."
And you, Poopsy, are doing the same thing.
>
>>Someone analyzing someone she doesn't even know after endless deflection.
>>
>>Next time you want to post something in response to someone else,I
>>
> strongly
>
>>suggest you not discuss the individual him or herself and your oh so bogus
>>ideas about them. Those are off topic.
>>
>
> You, as a Scientologist who continues to promote Scientology, and who uses
> logical fallacies and belligerant communication to try to shut people up,
> are most definitely ON TOPIC. Your tactics are straight from Hubbard.
>
I dont see Claire trying to promote Scn'y, merely correct
what she sees as incorrect ideas about it. Personally
speaking, I prefer to learn the correct ideas and then I
can discuss Scn'y with those still in the mindset with
some intelligence. If you think that's "Promoting Scn'y",
that sounds like a personal problem.
And she's not trying to shut anyone up. All she's saying
is her opinion on what's on topic or not, and what she's
willing to discuss. You do the SAME THING. I've seen it.
So do I, incidentally. So do most people on this ng.
>>Too bad you can't stay on topic and leave off the ad hominem comments and
>>insults.
>>
>
> Too bad you can't string three logical sentences together to make one point
> that had anything to do with what someone said to you.
Too bad neither of you will even ADDRESS what someone said
to either of you. One sums things up by saying "That's it
and that's all" and the other chimes in with a "Yeah, and
you're in denial, too." Heckuva way to win an argument or
discussion. Yeah, right.
>
>>My life really is none of your concern and you do not know me.
>>
>>I'd like to see the standard of criticism raised and I personally am doing
>>my best to raise it since I am a critic and a Scientologist.
>>
>>C
>>
>
> This is a hoot!
>
> Claire! Stop being so fucking serious! Jesus!
>
> Poopsy
Was all of the above a JOKE?? Where are the emoticons?
Claire seemed to be of the impression that the two of you
were trying for a serious discussion. Funny, that's what
it looked like to me and that's why I chimed in, too. I
see things a tad differently from you, and I don't even
agree with Claire about the value of Hubbard's work.
So, Poopsy, what's the punchline? Do tell, I'd love to
have a good chuckle in the morning.
And don't tell me it's "Ron trolled the Scn'ists". I already heard it,
from Source.
---
ladayla
>>
>Mine was that the belief systems say many things. There
>were plenty of occasions that Ron mouthed platitutes, and
>his followers can pick or choose from those too, just like
>other belief system followers, rather than the "search and
>destroy" aspects.
Starshadow, that is not really true. A follower of the Scn philosophy Who even
thinks of picking and choosing among the beliefs of that system, will be
summarily sent to ethics to get their mind right. If they persist in their
wayward selectivity activity, they will be declared.
la