Hubbard's college grades
The Exile
Hubbard's Academic Records 1930-1932
George Washington University, School of Engineering
1st semester 1930-31
English ½ , Rhetoric C
General Chemistry D
Mechanical Engineering 3/4 B
Analytical Geometry F
Physical Education C
First Year German E
Civil Engineering B
2nd semester 1930-1931
English, Rhetoric B
General chemistry D
Mechanical Engineering C
Physical Education A
First Year German F
Differential Calculus F
1st semester 1931-1932
Physics, Dynamics of
Sound and Sight E
Differential Calculus D
Plane Analytical Geometry D
English, Short Stories B
2nd semester 1931-1932
Integral Calculus D
English, Short Stories B
Physics, Electricity
and Magnetism D
Nuclear Physics F
These are the grades of the founder of Scientology before he flunked
out. The last two semesters he was on academic probation but still
failed to improve.
These records speak for themselves yet Hubbard went on to claim
himself a nuclear scientist and a doctor. It is not just that Hubbard
got low grades but he lied about them time after time.
The cost of $cientology courses can run as high as $1,000 per hr., a
fact not adverstised by $cientology.
Hubbard also claimed to be a graduate of the"University of Sequoia."
Indeed, he did have a degree from that school; too bad it turned out to
be a diploma mill run by a chiropractor who conferred degrees upon
whoever he felt worthy of them. See HCOPL 14 Feb. 1966.
The point is not that he got low grades but rather that he lied about
them. And took full credit for a bogus degree not worth the paper it was
written on.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Anonymous
On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>them time after time.
I'm sure you wouldn't say anything so disparaging about a person unless you
had solid proof for the assertion.
So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
I would really be grateful. I'm trying to document lies.
The Exile
Ron was a lousy student, a fact that doesn't sit too well with
Scientologists. They rightly point out that some prominent people made
huge contributions to society and knowledge in general without a
sheepskin to hang on the wall. But this is not really the point. The
point is that he lied about his background and assumed academic airs
that he didn't have and didn't earn. Hubbard lied about every aspect of
his life so he wasn't shy about covering up his educational
shortcomings.
"L. Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists, . . ."
-from the dust jacket of his "All About Radiation."
"L. Ron Hubbard was trained in mathematics, science and engineering
at George Washington University, in government at Princeton and has a
Doctor of Philosophy degree." - dust flap on "A History of Man." [true
but slanted, he was "trained in math", Etc at G.W.U. only he did so
poorly in them. He did study government at Princeton but it was only a
US Navy course in military government, he did have a degree in
philosophy -from a diploma mill.]
"I was a Ph.D., Sequoia's University and therefore a perfectly valid
doctor under the laws of the State of California." HCOPL 14 Feb. 1996
"Doctor Title Abolished."
"I happen to be a nuclear scientist; I am not a psychologist or a
psychiatrist." -"Dianetics: The modern Miracle." Feb. 6, 1952.
These are just a few references. As far as I know Hubbard was still
calling himself "Doctor" when the famous picture of him auditing a
tomato plant was taken, he loved to spout of nonsense about his many
degrees to the press. Too bad investigative reporting was not so
advanced as it is today.
Most of the critical books written concerning Hubbard include similar
references to Ron's lies about his education. See pages 57-58 of Jon
Atack's "A Piece of the Blue Sky." This book is still in print, no
critic should be without it. Of course Scientology sued the author but
was never able to impeach the main body of the work which included
references to Hubbard's phoney claims to degrees.
-The Exile
Starshadow
a nuclear physicist despite having flunked college and flunked physics in
particular. I'm certain I remember other attempts to portray himself as
having been a bright and apt pupil.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>them time after time.
>
>I'm sure you wouldn't say anything so disparaging about a person unless you
>had solid proof for the assertion.
>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
Or one quote where he describes himself, or knowingly allows others
to describe him, as a nuclear physicist?
Would you count the bit in History of Man where he....
(1) says to understand what I'm going to know next you would have
to know nuclear physics, then goes on to explain it [implying
that he does].
(2) doesn't even talk about the nucleus but about electromagnetism, and
(3) makes elementray howlers in that subject anyway.
--
<_" '_> <(*)_" <3' "__> <__"T '_> ">>>>
(_)(_)
to say that clams have a "spore method of reproduction" is about as
sensible as saying they have alloy wheels & crossply tyres---me,1988
Martin Hunt
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>I'm sure you wouldn't say anything so disparaging about a person unless you
>had solid proof for the assertion.
>
>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>
>Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
>
>I would really be grateful. I'm trying to document lies.
Start with his college transcripts:
1930-31 1st semester
English 1/2, Rhetoric C
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering 3/4 B
Analytical Geometry F
Physical Education C
First year German E
Civil Engineering B
2nd semester
English 1/2 Rhetoric B
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering C
Physical Education A
First year German F
Differential Calculus F
1931-2 1st semester
Physics, dynamics of sound
and light E
Differential Calculus D
Integral Calculus
Plane Anal. Geometry D
English, short stories B
2nd semester
Integral Calculus D
English, Short Stories B
Physics, electricity
and magnetism D
Nuclear Physics F
The grade point average comes to a D. Hubbard was expelled after
this performance, and his education prior to this point was not any
better.
Now, some of Hubbard's lies about his education:
"L. Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists..." -
jacket of _All About Radiation_.
"...L. Ron Hubbard was trained in mathematics, science and engineering at
George Washington University, in government at Princeton and has a Doctor
of Philosophy degree." - jacket of _A History of Man_.
"I was a Ph.D., Sequoia's University and therefore a perfectly valid
doctor under the laws of the State of California." - HCOPL 14 Feb. 1966
"Doctor Title Abolished". (he did purchase a degree from this infamous
diploma mill, but it was certainly *not* a "perfectly valid doctor".)
"L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D. C.E." ... "Scientology was organized by L.
Ron Hubbard, an American, who has many degrees" - red volume #2,
PAB #82.
"From Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary, Supplement
No. 5: di.a.net'ics noun:
"A system for the analysis, control and development of human
thought evolved from a set of coordinated axioms which also
provide techniques for the treatment of a wide range of mental
disorders and organic diseases: term and doctrines introduced
by L. Ron Hubbard, American engineer. (Gr. dianoetikos - dia,
through plus noos, mind) - di.a net'.ic adj." - (as quoted in
_Science of Survival_ without correction; obviously, Hubbard
lied to the dictionary. He was not a CE, not even *close* to
being one.)
There's so many lies from LRH about his education in his
materials and his tapes that it could take days to track them
all down and post them - even if I had all 3,000 tapes to quote
from. He goes on about "old GW" and his academic achievements
endlessly, claiming to be a "nuclear physicist" in the 1st class
of such taught in the US, a "doctor" a "civil engineer", etc.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is evil to the core." - Jesse Prince, former core
Scientologist.
http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/prince/prince.htm
William Barwell
>
>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>them time after time.
>
>had solid proof for the assertion.
>
>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
OK, your wish is my command. Here is my list of Hubbard's
early lies about being a nuclear physicist, even though
he wasn't and flunked what few courses he had in science.
The following FAQ is about his nuclear physicist lies.
He made others. He paraded around a PhD in philosophy
until it became known it was a storebought diploma from
Evergreen University, a diploma mill. He hinted he was a trained
mathematician, though he flunked math. A few such claims
will pop up below. He made a few insinuations he passed
his college courses and graduated, when he did not.
Basic liar and fraud.
Here ya go.
The Claims of Hubbard to be a Nuclear Physicist FAQ
W.C. Barwell October 22, 1997
********************************************************
All though Hubbard was booted from George Washington
University for failing grades after only four semesters,
it did not stop him from repeatedly lying thgat he was
a nuclear physicist. He was proud of the fact that he
was supposedly a student in the alledged first class
in nuclear physics in an American University, although
he flunked all science and math courses he ever took.
Here is a collection of Hubbard's claims to have been a
nuclear physicist.
This listing is almost certainly not exhaustive.
********************************************************
"Dianetics: The Modern Miracle".
February 6, 1952
As also found transcribed in the Research and Discovery series.
Old Tech volumes, Vol. 3 page 470
New Tech Volumes. Vol. 5 page 143
---------------
"I happen to be a nuclear physicist; I am not a
psychologist nor a psychiatrist nor a medical doctor."
..............
"To some degree, it was my responsibility that this
world got itself an atom bomb, because there were only a
handful of nuclear physicists in the thirties - only a handful.
And we were all beating the desk and saying "How wonderful it
will be if we discover atomic fission," because we decided that
the thing to do with atomic fission was to go out and discover
the stars, to make big passenger liners that would go ten times
around the world on the same fuel. This was what we endeavoured
to do with atomic fission. The government stepped in and
gave us three billion dollars. I had nothing to do with that
program; I would *not* have had anything to do with the program.
Three billion dollars to destroy all of man."
********************************************************
OEC volume 6, April 14, 1961
Hubbard claims to be a nuclear physicist.
----------
"WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?
"For hundreds of years physical scientists have been seeking
to apply the exact knowledge of the physical universe they had
gained to Man and his problems.
"Newton, Sir James Jeans, Einstein, have all sought to find the
exact laws of human behavior in order to help mankind.
"Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, C.E., Ph.D., a nuclear physicist,
Scientology has demonstrably achieved this long-sought goal.
Doctor Hubbard, educated in advanced physics and higher mathematics
and also a student of Sigmund Freud and others, began his present
researches thirty years ago at George Washington University. The
dramatic result has been Scientology... It is the science of the Man,
the Woman, and the Child in the street. It belongs to us, the people,
not to any vested interest on earth.
*******
L. Ron Hubbard - HCO Information Letter 14 April 1961
OEC Vol 6, p. 196
Under the Signature appears the following statement:
"(Please note: The article 'What is Scientology?' has been entirely
re-written by Ron, and this one should be used in preference to
the original one which was written in Johannesburg and issued from
there - HCO Sec WW)"
********************************************************************
L. Ron Hubbard
Creating A New Civilization Tape Series
Tape A Postulate Out Of A Golden Age
December 6 1956
-----
We are in such a period today. A period artificially imposed.
I don't suppose there is any individual any place who wants
actively to impose a tyrany on the United States.
These boys, who do this today merely want gain for themselves.
They say it would be very nice and I would be very safe, if.
You now. If I could supress certain opinions being spoken.
If I could do this... They nibble away just a little bit you
see, and then one fine day you find a whole sphere of knowledge
partioned off for some good adequate reasonable reason. What is
this sphere of knowledge? Well it's science. But you say, we're
supposed to have science, that's progress. All of a sudden they
see an electronics engineer, and they say, 'you know, you're
supposed to be over there, behind that barbed wire over there.
Well the electronic engineers of the country have not yet noticed
They are inside barbed wire. They are! But they go backwards
and forwards past armed guards to get to and from work.
I wouldn't work under these conditions!
A fellow offered me a job one time. He said, all you have to do
walk in here, leave your gun at the gate, walk in here, and you're
supposed to walk around for eight hours a day, and do so and so and
so and so. And I said where, and he said in that enclosure over there.
And I said what's the difference between that and a prison camp?
Ohh! He said, that's nonsense. You get paid in there.
That was the first and only time the goverment offered me a post as
nuclear physicist. That was the end of that.
The uh, government offered that post. They tried to kidnap me
on another one by the way. They said, you're still in the reserves,
and we can call you back to active duty on research in the field of
mind. You are still in the service, the admiral said, ha ha!
**********************************************************
THE MAN WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY
HCOB 26 May 1959
"The HASI and all its concerns is founded on the work
of one man, L. Ron Hubbard, engineer, explorer, nuclear
physicist and writer. Holding in his mind a knowledge
of Eastern thought gained in his travels, his instruction
in psychology from a medical doctor who has studied
personally under Sigmund Freud, and his training in
mathematics and nuclear physics, L. Ron Hubbard found
himself convalescing in hospital towards the end of the
second world war, after a distinguished career in the
United States Navy."
-------
The Man Who Invented Scientology HCOB 26 May 1959
The Bulletin is signed and copyrighted 'L.Ron Hubbard' and dated
26 May 1959. It is headed: "The following article appeared recently
in the London City Press. It may be used by City Offices and Area
Offices for information to papers."
The title is 'The Man Who Invented Scientology' and the extract (bear
in mind that Hubbard having authorised its use as a PR handout, then
claims copyright...) reads "The HASI [Hubbard Association of
Scientologists International] and all its concerns is [sic] founded on
the work of one man, L. Ron Hubbard, engineer, explorer, nuclear
physicist and writer'.
John Atack
************************************************************
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Lisa Chabot
"But in adapting a dead mathematics to new modern uses, I so assaulted
the prejudices of my professors who thought dead mathematics should
have no use that I learned once more about our world."
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/Page76.htm
He's probably just trying to explain away his really bad grades here,
but he is claiming that he really understood it after all. Uh huh.
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
"What I mean by a shifty eye," continued Miss Marple, "is the kind
that looks very straight at you and never looks away or blinks."
Podkayne
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
> Well it's science. But you say, we're
> supposed to have science, that's progress. All of a sudden they
> see an electronics engineer, and they say, 'you know, you're
> supposed to be over there, behind that barbed wire over there.
> Well the electronic engineers of the country have not yet noticed
> They are inside barbed wire. They are! But they go backwards
> and forwards past armed guards to get to and from work.
Reminds me a bit of the story in the Lensman books (E.E. "Doc" Smith, a
*real* PhD) about an ancestor of Kim Kinnison who worked in an ordinance
plant during WWII. Supposedly it's highly autobiographical.
Oddly enough, none of those ordinance engineers were the least bit upset
about the security...
Anonymous
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, sadly unable to
read and understand a simple question, offered up the following drivel...
>In article <1998081005...@replay.com>, Anonymouse squeaks:
>>On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>>them time after time.
>>
>>I'm sure you wouldn't say anything so disparaging about a person unless you
>>had solid proof for the assertion.
>>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>
> Or one quote where he describes himself, or knowingly allows others
> to describe him, as a nuclear physicist?
<SNIP OFF-TOPIC RANT>
No, special-education poster child, that was NOT the question.
Can I get your attention directed here for a moment? Here, look at the
bouncing furry birdie. Tha-a-a-a-a-t's it. Uh-oh! Your eyes are drifting
and your head is lolling again. Over here! Lookeee! Birdie! Birdie!
Thaaa-a-a-at's a boy.
Now, the question was this:
>>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
See, the claim was made that he "lied 'time after time' about his grades."
Do you understand this simple concept? Well, that's what we call a
"subject." See? That's the "subject" or "topic" being discussed here, and
the idea is to try to stay on it. And the subject is GRADES, and QUOTES
where Mr. Hubbard "lied time after time" about them.
Oh, dear me, there you go drooling off and rolling your head again.
<Sigh> Don't know if there is any hope of getting you to understand this.
Well, if anything is getting through, here is the assignment:
Answer the question that was asked, or shut the fuck up.
See? It's really simple. Uh, Dave? Dave? Over here, Dave...
Yuck. Somebody get a bib, would you?
Martin Hunt
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>See, the claim was made that he "lied 'time after time' about his grades."
>Do you understand this simple concept? Well, that's what we call a
>"subject." See? That's the "subject" or "topic" being discussed here, and
>the idea is to try to stay on it. And the subject is GRADES, and QUOTES
>where Mr. Hubbard "lied time after time" about them.
This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of
them. Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's
lies about his education. For more carefully documented lies, I
recommend Russell Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
>Answer the question that was asked, or shut the fuck up.
Don't ask for things, have them given to you, and then complain
that you haven't; it makes you look like a Scientologist.
Anonymous
>This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of
>them. Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's
>lies about his education. For more carefully documented lies, I
>recommend Russell Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate
your claims right here, in public.
The comment was:
>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>them time after time.
I observe that not a single one of you was able to answer the
question, which was:
>Would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>
>Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer people
to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
liars.
QED
DeoMorto
people
to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
liars.
QED>>
QNED actually - maybe you should actually read the stuff when its posted?
david Bird already posted the answers to this
1) Hubbard said in the Miracle of Dianetics Lecture "I am a nuclear physicist"
2) Many HCOPLs by Hubbard state he was CE - Chartered Engineer - which he was
not
3) He claimed he was Doctor and then decided to "renounce" it.
What would you call the above statements about college grades - telling the
truth??
Jeez you are full of it. A shill for a liar. Oh well, QED
DeoMorto - the truly censored.
ef
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> > QNED actually - maybe you should actually read the stuff when its posted?
> >david Bird already posted the answers to this
> >
> >1) Hubbard said in the Miracle of Dianetics Lecture "I am a nuclear
physicist"
> >
> >2) Many HCOPLs by Hubbard state he was CE - Chartered Engineer - which he was
> >not
> >
> >3) He claimed he was Doctor and then decided to "renounce" it.
> >
> > What would you call the above statements about college grades - telling the
> >truth??
> >
> > Jeez you are full of it. A shill for a liar. Oh well, QED
>
> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
okeoke... let's not quibble. according to the documentation then, elronh
did, thus, not lie about his *grades*, he lied about his *degrees*.
there. happy now?
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>a nonny-rodent:
>|
>|QED
>
> QNED actually - maybe you should actually read the stuff when its posted?
>david Bird already posted the answers to this
somebody posted that stuff, yes, but 'twasn't me.
>
>1) Hubbard said in the Miracle of Dianetics Lecture "I am a nuclear physicist"
>2) Many HCOPLs by Hubbard state he was CE - Chartered Engineer - which he was
>not
>3) He claimed he was Doctor and then decided to "renounce" it.
>
> What would you call the above statements about college grades - telling the
>truth??
Rob Clark
>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and
then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists in the world, going
on after that to make all sorts of wild unsubstantiated accusations against
nuclear physicists.
>Liars.
loony.
>QED
i said "quod erat demonstrandum, baby"
"ooh, you speak french!"
airhead, thomas dolby
rob
Starshadow
> deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote:
>
> >annonymouse>>Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer
> >people
> >to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
> >quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
> >liars.
> >
> >
> > QNED actually - maybe you should actually read the stuff when its posted?
> >david Bird already posted the answers to this
> >
> >
> >2) Many HCOPLs by Hubbard state he was CE - Chartered Engineer - which he was
> >not
> >
> >3) He claimed he was Doctor and then decided to "renounce" it.
> >
> > What would you call the above statements about college grades - telling the
> >truth??
> >
>
> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>
>
> QED
Jaysus, what a maroon!
If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!! Does it
have to be spelled out word for word before you see this?
Or are there colleges (not diploma mills!) that you know of that award
degrees to people they give failing grades to??
What the hell do you reason with? (I know, stupid question. Anonyclam
has pulled a blue tarp over its brain and marked it "do not disturb" for
the duration.)
Anonymous
Steve A
> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
OKOK, so Ron never actually said "I got straight A's in physics at
high school".
But he was clearly not above misrepresenting his credentials, as has
been described here.
For the benefit of newbies, this is how Scns wriggle out of telling
the real truth: a critic states that Hubbard lied about his college
grades in a debate about the claims made for Hubbard's credentials.
The official scientologist for this thread then challenges the critic,
and - sure enough - he "wins". Because, by ignoring the semantics of a
statement, and resorting instead to dictionary-defining every separate
word, he can successfully argue that "Hubbard never lied about his
grades", while conveniently forgetting to mention the thousands of
book jackets, statements, PR releases, etc., etc., wherein Hubbard is
claimed as some kind of genius scientist, nuclear physicist, Doctor or
whatever.
So, Hubbard did _not_ lie about his grades? How does this make people
like Lisa McPherson, who died while on the Introspection Rundown, a
procedure devised by Hubbard-who-didn't-lie-about-his-grades, and
claimed to be a cure for "psychotic breaks" - the Scn term for what
Lisa McPherson had suffered, and which most of us would recognise as a
psychotic episode.
> Liars.
Scientologists. Same thing.
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
j-p.s
>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
OK, considering you're so interested in this technicality, how about "L
Ron lied about the majority of his education; he implied that he was a
chartered engineer, which would almost certainly have required at least
better grades than the god-awful ones he got to even be considered for the
course. He lied about a degree and he lied about a doctorate."
Will that do, you self-important, oversensitive shill? Or have you
finished shooting yourself in the foot?
--
J-P
http://www.c-u-p.demon.co.uk/ -- see who's playing at The Edinburgh Fringe
Cruel & Unusual Punishment present: SQUARE PEGS 24th-29th August 1998
Bobby Parker
From: nob...@replay.com (Anonymous) Re: Hubbard's college grades
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of them.
Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's lies about his
education. For more carefully documented lies, I recommend Russell
Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate your
claims right here, in public.
The comment was:
It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time
after time.
I observe that not a single one of you was able to answer the question,
which was:
Would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer people
to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
liars.
QED
=================================
I think the whole point here is:
1. LRH lied about his education.
2. Some $cieno books have short biographies of him which contain lies.
3. The person (singular) who posted the comment in question about LRH
and his grades later retracted the "grades" part.
4. You are bashing an admitted mistake instead of sticking with the
issue (see#1)
Here's my" biography "of LRH:
LRH was one sick puppy who flunked out Nuclear Physics Class at George
Washington University, got poor grades in other courses, didn't even
attend High School, and claimed, without evidence of course, that he was
the youngest Eagle Scout. He sucked in the Navy, went to hospital for
stomach ulcers, and claimed he was wounded, crippled, and blinded, then
"healed himself" with his amazing new "technology" What a pathetic liar.
Thank God for documents and for those who knew LRH personally that roll
over laughing at his $cieno "biographies"
Maybe we could all pitch in and hire professional historian to look at
the rediculous claims LRH and other's made about his "acomplishments"
and put an end to the pathetic assertion by the clams that it is all
true.
Bobby
Starshadow
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>
> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>
> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >>
> >>
> >> QED
> >
> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> >
> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>
> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> studies, for example.
>
> You obviously can't think. Go back to school, maroon.
>
You can't get a degree when you flunk, you stupid sod. Word-clear
"straw man"...we aren't talking about your fool dead guru getting high
grades and no degree, we are talking about the *opposite*!!!
Christ on a crutch, if you think what you are doing is thinking, then
you are to be pitied. And you might check out a book on elementary logic,
because if you think that you are being a real wit, then you are half
right.
Martin Hunt
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
>the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
>complete the curriculum.
Hubbard flunked out of college, dude.
>You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
You culties are just lousy at confronting facts, and liars too.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>
>look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and
>then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.
Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
complete the curriculum.
You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
Anonymous
>On the contrary, the OSA scum-clown is setting up a straw man.
>
>L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a liar about his academic achievements
>whether he specifically lied about his *grades* or not.
My dear friend - the "straw man" was made by none other than by lousy
critics. Here is the original sentence:
On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>them time after time.
You now say that it's a straw man, yet, this comes straight from a
sentence made by you lousy critics. You once more illustrate my point:
critics are liars.
Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.
You critics are a laughing stock.
Anonymous
>In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, Anonymous wrote:
>
>>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>
>OK, considering you're so interested in this technicality, how about "L
>Ron lied about the majority of his education; he implied that he was a
>chartered engineer, which would almost certainly have required at least
>better grades than the god-awful ones he got to even be considered for the
>course. He lied about a degree and he lied about a doctorate."
>
>Will that do, you self-important, oversensitive shill? Or have you
>finished shooting yourself in the foot?
That would be much better indeed :-)
Anonymous
>In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>>
Ben The Allen
>>
>> If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
>>tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>
>No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>studies, for example.
>
>You obviously can't think. Go back to school, maroon.
>
Wheee....alright, we've got four possible states here...Hubbard could
a) have good grades and a degree in nuclear physics, b) bad grades and
a degree in nuclear physics, c)good grades and no degree in nuclear
physics, or d)bad grades and no degree in nuclear physics.
One can have good grades and fail to get a degree -- this is true, and
I thank you for pointing it out. This is state "c". State "a" is also
possible, as to get a degree in a complex field such as nuclear
physics one must have good grades. State "d" represents one who flunks
out of a course, and is also obviously possible.
You, by bringing up the possibility that their exists the possibility
of good grades without a degree have suggested that grades and degrees
are not totally related. You imply (at least, I believe you
imply...perhaps you can clarify your position) that this
disassociation works both ways; that since one does not have to have a
degree to have good grades in a subject, one does not have to have
good grades in a subject to have a degree.
This is a wrong assumption, One who received grades as bad as LRH's
could never have received a degree from any reputable school in any
subject. State "b", the one you are trying to say is possible, is in
fact not possible, and by lying about possessing a degree Hubbard was
also lying about having good grades.
Of course, this is totally moot, since Hubbard's bad grades and lack
of a degree is information available to the public. I for one wonder
if you are in fact actually reading the posts you are replying to.
---
Ben Allen,
Of course, it has to be *Kevin's* dead cat to count.
hei...@eskimo.com
Lame stuff is fun.
remove e and l to e-mail
roger gonnet
>
> >
> >Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
> >quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.
Take a look at Russell Miller and Jon Atacck's books, not to
speak of mine soon to be out; you could find there some very
interesting facts... and those were proferred by your
tchurdch, which was itself under the tyrannic orders from
its tyrannic despot founder...
Roger
Steve A
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
> >On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >
> >look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and
> >then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.
>
> Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
> the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
> complete the curriculum.
But he *didn't* make the whole curriculum. Where is his degree in
nuclear physics?
> You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
Unbelievable! The words of the truly deluded.
Steve A
> gr...@gradyward.com (Grady Ward) wrote:
>
> >On the contrary, the OSA scum-clown is setting up a straw man.
> >
> >L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a liar about his academic achievements
> >whether he specifically lied about his *grades* or not.
>
> My dear friend - the "straw man" was made by none other than by lousy
> critics. Here is the original sentence:
>
> On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
> >them time after time.
>
> You now say that it's a straw man, yet, this comes straight from a
> sentence made by you lousy critics. You once more illustrate my point:
>
> critics are liars.
>
> Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
> quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.
>
> You critics are a laughing stock.
Have you any idea what impression this schoolyard hair-splitting gives
you, Anonymous, and by extension the "church" you shill for?
Not a good one, I can assure you.
Steve A
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>
> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>
> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >>
> >> Liars.
> >>
> >> QED
> >
> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> >
> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>
> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> studies, for example.
OTOH, if you have utterly lousy grades, it is unlikely that you will
make a big hit in the world of science: yes, there *are* people who
have done it - Einstein is a good example - but Einstein produced
research which the scientific establishment could work with, even if -
as in the case of his Special Theory of Relativity - his hypothesis
could not be proven for nine years, until 1919 when an eclipse of the
sun gave researchers a chance to measure his predicted light-bending
effects.
Hubbard, however, was evidently incapable of conducting any sort of
scientific research, grades or no grades.
Remember, too, that he didn't *just* get bad grades: he went on to lie
outrageously about his skills and qualifications. Had he been
unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
education was too boring, but then, like Einstein, he had pursued his
studies in a scientific manner, it is conceivable that, like Einstein,
Hubbard might have had some degree of scientific credibility.
But to suggest that because Hubbard did not lie about his grades, he
must have been telling the truth about his degree, his status as a
nuclear physicist, etc., etc., is a stupid and naive attempt to bend
the truth.
> You obviously can't think. Go back to school, maroon.
Well, that's that Inducto told, eh!
Unit 61
>
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>
> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>
> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >>
> >> Liars.
> >>
> >> QED
> >
> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> >
> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>
> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> studies, for example.
>
You obviously can't spell moron. Go back to school with him.
John
David M. Cook
>unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
Actually, I think this is a myth. Einstein's grades were not that bad.
Certainly not anywhere near as bad as Hubbard's, whose only A is in Phys Ed.
Dave Cook
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>QUOTE=============================================================
>I observe that not a single one of you was able to answer the question,
>which was:
>Would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
>Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer people
>to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
>quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
>liars.
Obviously, nonny-mouse, you are acting the complete moron and
denying the obvious just to stir people up and waste time.
>I think the whole point here is:
>1. LRH lied about his education.
>2. Some $cieno books have short biographies of him which contain lies.
>3. The person (singular) who posted the comment in question about LRH
>and his grades later retracted the "grades" part.
>4. You are bashing an admitted mistake instead of sticking with the
>issue (see#1)
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>>In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>
>>> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>>> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>>>
>>> Liars.
>>>
>>> QED
>>
>> Jaysus, what a maroon!
>> If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
>>tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>
>No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>studies, for example.
Hey, stupid: buy a textbook on logic.
You can [on these assumptions] have reasonable grades
but not have a degree, for other reasons.
But you can't have rotten grades, and still
have your degree.
The one does not contradict the other, fool.
In article <MPG.10415a6d5...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
Starshadow <stars...@mindless.com> writes:
> You can't get a degree when you flunk, you stupid sod. Word-clear
>"straw man"...we aren't talking about your fool dead guru getting high
>grades and no degree, we are talking about the *opposite*!!!
> Christ on a crutch, if you think what you are doing is thinking, then
>you are to be pitied. And you might check out a book on elementary logic,
>because if you think that you are being a real wit, then you are half
>right.
In article <NV811Mdl...@islandnet.com>, Martin Hunt writes:
>>Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
>>the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
>>complete the curriculum.
>
>Hubbard flunked out of college, dude.
>
>>You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
>
>You culties are just lousy at confronting facts, and liars too.
William Barwell
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote:
>
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>
>Liars.
>
Now if you want to be technical about, There are soem scattered
quotes on his tapes where he lies. "I easily learned math",
I'll have to hunt that one down. He didn't.
His claimed PHD. That was a lie.
In his early tapes he implied his scientific training in nuclear
physics was that basis of Scientology.
He had no real training in physics, flunking out.
Looks like I have another FAQ to write over the next few months.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>>
>>then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.
>
>the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
>complete the curriculum.
>
>
>
One mo' time. Hubbard flunked out. And later repeatedly lied about being
a nuclear physicist, heavily implying he studied this at George Washington
University.
Now, he lied, and as has been pointed out, when you lie about having a
degree, you lie about your grades being passable enough to get a degree.
So yes, he lied.
You are without logic.
Now, tell us why he lied about being a nuclear physicist and having a PhD
in Philosophy?
Which he did.
What sort of man does that?
Martin Hunt
and done; he said he was a "CE" and a "Physicist", while, in reality,
he flunked out. According to him, he passed, whereas in reality,
he failed. Anon's arguments are mere sophistry; he'd no doubt argue
that Hubbard never said there was no Jesus, just that there was no
Christ, which "isn't the same thing." Free clue, Diane-esque anon:
"grades" and "education" are the same damn thing in this context.
Hubbard *failed*, and he lied when he said he succeeded.
Captain Nerd
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>Even better. Some day professional historian will make the history of
>the thousands and thousands similar lies and fuzzy logic critics
>displayed in this forum.
Oh, c'mon, "Boxer," why not just go "Ding! Next" like you
did a few months back? It was at least easy to killfile
on that pattern.
You're getting attention now, but most people will get
tired of your trolling, and ignore you again. Just give it
up now and save us all time and bandwidth.
Cap.
--
===============================================================================
= Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
= "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
===============================================================================
Stanley Anderson
>No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>studies, for example.
flunking grades, drop out of college, and get a (valid) degree.
Given that Hubbard's grades were low; that he dropped out of college;
his claim of a degree is a lie; and it is a lie that necessarily encom-
passes that he 1) attended college for a sufficient period of time;
2) while making grades in his courses which were sufficient;
3) to obtain a degree in a chosen field.
We know that Hubbard didn't attend college long enough to get a
degree; didn't make grades in his courses which would have been
sufficient to get a degree had he continued to attend college;
and 3) diddn't obtain a degree (except that phony 'doctorate' from
a diploma mill).
If you claim to have been elected President of the United States, I
will state that you lied about getting enough votes in Texas to be
elected.
Stan Anderson
Bobby Parker
"grades" should have been "degrees"
Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998, 10:31pm (CDT+5)
From: one....@somewhere.land
<snip>
okeoke... let's not quibble. according to the documentation then, elronh
did, thus, not lie about his *grades*, he lied about his *degrees*.
there. happy now?
Bobby
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
I would have to check a biography. My impression is that he did not go
from school to university because he did not have the money to do so.
Therefore he wrote his material on special relativity in his spare time,
while working (?)as a schoolteacher.
Rob Clark
ben "the" allen wrote:
>>Of course, this is totally moot, since Hubbard's bad grades and lack
>>of a degree is information available to the public. I for one wonder
>>if you are in fact actually reading the posts you are replying to.
>Well, Ben that's very good reasoning of yours, but quite beside the
>point, really. If you read my posts carefully you would have seen that
>I never argued about whether LRH got a degree or not, or whether he
>got good grades or not.
dear drooler:
you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly lying about
his grades. in fact i seem to recall a statement by hubbard where he admitted
to truly bad grades, probably in the early days.
however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue. hubbard made statements later
about his career and qualifications which by their very nature imply if not good
grades at least passable grades, whereas hubbard's grades were obviously those
of a flunking student. if he never directly lied about his grades, he pretty
clearly and obviously made statements about his academic stature that blatantly
imply a greater degree of academic success than he in fact enjoyed.
now you can whine and whimper all you like about whether or not he specifically
lied about his Phys Ed grades or whatever, but he OBVIOUSLY lied in stating that
he was a nuclear physicist and a Ph.D. (unless you count the diploma mill degree
he bought).
rob
Al Landeck
In article <1998081623...@replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>gr...@gradyward.com (Grady Ward) wrote:
>
>>On the contrary, the OSA scum-clown is setting up a straw man.
>>
>>L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a liar about his academic achievements
>>whether he specifically lied about his *grades* or not.
>
>My dear friend - the "straw man" was made by none other than by lousy
>critics. Here is the original sentence:
>
>On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>them time after time.
>
>You now say that it's a straw man, yet, this comes straight from a
>sentence made by you lousy critics. You once more illustrate my point:
>
>critics are liars.
>
>Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
>quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.
>
>You critics are a laughing stock.
>
>
I don't know... how about a phony PhD from a mail order diploma mill?
Is that good enough for you?
Al
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNdjibIZil1trMzqdAQHdIQP9Hv6XDqEOc7ukcBZaIH5h6YC9qJsiGGbN
YcyZpLft8uvWKFJn8eQ+UljvaNthPbw0HVk3fEetWfROCPdLMLnQ+ZoId8XWVsiz
dOVnsgizjKjzPXErVOSOrCI8a/NqUz3JQw9nX6NhRg+nAcMo/FLiWR53wNEkYrzm
saSyN6/cJNk=
=UfSe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Room 666
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>dear drooler:
>
>you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly
>lying about his grades.
Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost,"
because he first has to get in a cheap shot (dear drooler) to soften
the damaging effect of the admission, and then makes sure he puts in
the "probably," to further soften it up and leave room for doubt.
But Rob, as they are saying about Slick Willy's confession, "It's a
good start."
But then, of course, you go and louse the whole thing up:
>however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue.
Oh, no, no, no, no, NO! PLEASE, Rob! Now you start to sound so
pathetic. You start to sound like a Presidential advisor, shuckin' and
jivin', trying to misdirect and obfuscate and prevaricate--not to say
"lie."
There IS no "larger issue." FLUNK! Here's the only issue that this
thread was EVER about:
1. A critic, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com>, told a lie. He claimed,
falsely, that Hubbard lied "time after time" about his grades. That is
a lie. It wasn't stated as opinion, or a guess--it was stated emphatically
as FACT. Yet it is a lie.
2. An anonymous poster asked him to post quotes where Hubbard had done
that, or even ONE quote where Hubbard had done that.
3. The Exile neither posted a quote to back up his assertion, nor
apologized for having told the lie in the first place.
4. An army of critics have jumped on the bandwagon, trying to turn this
thread into ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE LIE TOLD BY ANOTHER
CRITIC, and trying to make a certain Anonymous, who has been doing
nothing but trying to get the question answered honestly, out to be the
bad guy or some sort of idiot, when he obviously is correct.
Why are you, and every other critic who has posted on this thread, being
such hypicrites about this? Why don't you hold The Exile to the same
standard that you hold Scientologists to? Why do you defend his lie?
I, personally, would have a great deal more respect for The Exile if he
would be man enough to step forward and admit that what he said was not
true, and end this idiotically long thread.
In the meantime, every critic who tries to change the subject of the
thread, or tries to claim a "bigger issue" in order to minimize the
original lie, just looks like a fool, and a liar himself. It is a
pathetic exercise to watch.
Give it up. The Exile is busted. Admit the lie. And demand that The
Exile admit it. And then drop it. Find something better to do.
Bobby Parker
From: nob...@replay.com (Anonymous) Re: Hubbard's college grades
park...@webtv.net (Bobby Parker) wrote:
Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998, 2:40am (CDT+7)
From: nob...@replay.com (Anonymous)
=================================
Bobby wrote:
I think the whole point here is:
1. LRH lied about his education.
Anonymous wrote:
No. The whole point is the statement that was being made that he time
and again lied about his grade.
Bobby writes:
That's YOUR point. You're posting on ars, and if I'm correct, didn't
bring up the subject. I've only seen that comment made by ONE person.
2. Some $cieno books have short biographies of him which contain lies.
3. The person (singular) who posted the comment in question about LRH
and his grades later retracted the "grades" part.
****
Anonymous writes:
Really? I haven't seen that. Can you quote it? Or is it yet another lie?
Bobby writes:
Unlike you, in your self-deceit, other's aren't perfect. I'm willing to
admit that the person that made the correction did not make the
"original" statement about LRH's "grades" Unlike some, my mistakes are
not made intentionally to mislead (lie). So you need to word clear "lie"
and "liar." You seem to use those terms alot.
4. You are bashing an admitted mistake instead of sticking with the
issue (see#1)
Anonymous writes:
1. I didn't see any admission of the mistake by the person who posted
the comment
Bobby writes:
I admited my mistake above. I'll need to keep a copy of this in case
you try to drag this stupidity on and on for many postings.
Anonymous writes:
2. I am arguing the issue ("lie time and again" about his grade). You
are not
Bobby writes:
Nor is any one else. At least the critics. Unless, you can refer me to a
post where, in the past few days, some critic is still arguing that LRH
lied about his grades.
For some reason, your arguments seem to go nowhere and are full of
insults and "vomit" that even critics find unacceptable.
I will no longer read or respond to your posts. You see, I have a life
and a career and very little time to post here, and even less time to do
hours of research on the history of a thread so that I can avoid the
slightests of mistakes. Oh, I forgot, You call them "lies"
Anonymous wrote:
3. Your see#1 should really be see#3 (shows again how critics are so
mind garbled that they even mix up statements they themselves have made
a few seconds before).
Bobby writes:
Wrong again. And you have again made a fool of yourself. (That, of
course, isn't necessary because you already are one)
I was referring to point #1, LRH lied about his education. Of course,
the statement was made by one person that LRH lied about his grades
(maybe or maybe not, I don't know that he did) But the posts thereafter
focused on his (LRH's) statements about his credentials.
I won't waste my time with petty arguments and fault finding such as
yours, I like to take the issues wherever they lead.
Anonymous wrote:
1) I'll be please to see the admission of mistake you speak about.
Bobby writes:
Using your "a=a" (idiot) logic: critic=critic=critic, I can justify that
mistake. You see, "A" critic commented that the "grades" should have
been "degrees" Again, I'm not going to waste my time looking it up. You
find it.
You see, normally It's common courtesy to make the reference more easily
available. But since I'm responding to your post, and you have proven
yourself unworthy of any respect here on ars., You can go fuck yourself.
Anonymous wrote:
2) Alternatively, I'll be content to see an admission of mistake from
you about the admission of mistake made by the other bright critic.
Bobby writes:
You should be content then
Anonymous writes:
3) Failing 1 or 2, I shall taunt you a liar, and add it up to you
critics' bill in hell.
Bobby writes:
You believe in hell? Good, you're going then. LRH believed he was Satan,
and that makes you a Satan follower. LRH is probably there right now,
waiting for all you stupid clams to join him.
There's something your retarded little mind cannot comprehend. So I'll
make it as simple as possible: MISTAKES ARE NOT LIES. Lies are
intentional misleading statements. You seem to be quick to make that
accusation. It takes a liar to know a liar and it's all in the eye of
the beholder. How often have I accused you of lying? How often have you
accused me of lying? Alot more times, huh? So WHO's the LIAR?
Maybe we could all pitch in and hire professional historian to look at
the rediculous claims LRH and other's made about his "acomplishments"
and put an end to the pathetic assertion by the clams that it is all
true.
Anonymous writes:
Even better. Some day professional historian will make the history of
the thousands and thousands similar lies and fuzzy logic critics
displayed in this forum.
Bobby writes:
There you go with your "lies" accusations again. Please understand that
critics make mistakes, sometimes very ambiguous mistakes, indeed. It
takes a critic to err. But to flat out lie takes a $cientologist,
I've wasted my last keystrokes on answering your "shit-vomit" posts. I
know it's hard for you to comprehend as a $cientologist, but critics
usually don't buy information coming from a clam, especially if it is
accompanied by insults and "vomit" You'll learn in time. Hope you
understand. Good luck?
Bobby
roger gonnet
>
> On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
> > Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> > "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> > where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> > answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>
> high school".
And was presented from the start in France as "a nuclear
physicist", a "Dr Honoris Causa from the cedar's university"
- he resigned this title later in a policy - near 79, saying
he did not need such titles while it was Justice Latey who
had flunked him -; he did present himself with various other
"qualities" he never had the shade of one - like "honesty,
courage, etc).
Roger
roger gonnet
>
> In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, Anonymous wrote:
>
> >Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>
> Ron lied about the majority of his education; he implied that he was a
> chartered engineer, which would almost certainly have required at least
> better grades than the god-awful ones he got to even be considered for the
> course. He lied about a degree and he lied about a doctorate."
>
> Will that do, you self-important, oversensitive shill? Or have you
> finished shooting yourself in the foot?
Dont't forget this one: you know how fierce the
scientologists are for "dipomas" and certificates. Did you
ever saw any diploma from the George Washington College?
That's it!
The only trick I've seen is a mots probably faked letter
translated for a leaflet sent to major publishers and
writers in France on "education" etc... where the "aplied
scholastics" front of scam boasted that Hubbard had written
in the 40s to his dean of College, explaining how much he
admired some education etc... and criticizing some others.
Roger
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
: >dear drooler:
: >you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly
: >lying about his grades.
: Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost,"
These anons are so cute. Fixed on the word "grades", it's hopping up and
down over its "victory."
Never mind that it subsequently generated a long thread discussing, at
length, the dozens of lies Hubbard *did* tell about his education,
degrees, academic achievements, etc.
But, of course, the oh-so important semantic distinction was driven home
(snicker).
Hey, Anon. Are you really a critic? C'mon, 'fess up. <g>
Beck
Steve A
>
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
> >dear drooler:
> >
> >you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly
> >lying about his grades.
>
> Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost,"
> because he first has to get in a cheap shot (dear drooler) to soften
> the damaging effect of the admission, and then makes sure he puts in
> the "probably," to further soften it up and leave room for doubt.
>
> But Rob, as they are saying about Slick Willy's confession, "It's a
> good start."
>
> But then, of course, you go and louse the whole thing up:
>
> >however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue.
>
> Oh, no, no, no, no, NO! PLEASE, Rob! Now you start to sound so
> pathetic. You start to sound like a Presidential advisor, shuckin' and
> jivin', trying to misdirect and obfuscate and prevaricate--not to say
> "lie."
>
> There IS no "larger issue." FLUNK! Here's the only issue that this
> thread was EVER about:
This is Usenet. There are no Thread Police, and this thread is, by
common custom, now about the general issue of Hubbard and the
misrepresentations of his qualifications.
If you don't like it, go start another thread. You can call it
"CRITICS AND BIGOTS HATE HARASS COLLEGE FLUNK GRADE or something, but
keep it in all caps, so I know to ignore it.
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1
quizara...@my-dejanews.com
Room 666 <sch...@hell.high> wrote:
>
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
> >dear drooler:
> >
> >you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly
> >lying about his grades.
>
> Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost,"
> because he first has to get in a cheap shot (dear drooler) to soften
> the damaging effect of the admission, and then makes sure he puts in
> the "probably," to further soften it up and leave room for doubt.
>
> But Rob, as they are saying about Slick Willy's confession, "It's a
> good start."
>
> But then, of course, you go and louse the whole thing up:
>
> >however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue.
>
> Oh, no, no, no, no, NO! PLEASE, Rob! Now you start to sound so
> pathetic. You start to sound like a Presidential advisor, shuckin' and
> jivin', trying to misdirect and obfuscate and prevaricate--not to say
> "lie."
>
> There IS no "larger issue." FLUNK! Here's the only issue that this
> thread was EVER about:
>
A misstatement is as much a lie as a deliberate attempt to avoid telling the
truth. If I am going to take scientologists to task for lying, it is only
fair that I hold critics to that same standard. Any lie weakens the whole
argument, for or against. Make sure of your facts before you present them.
If you are not sure of your facts, state so and express it as an opinion.
You may still be taken to task for your words, but you won't be called a
liar. Statements containing absolutes are almost always untrue. (Notice
that use of the word 'almost' prevents the previous sentence from being an
'absolute'.) Make sure of your words (and use a spell checker) before you
hit the send button. As one wise man once said (and I apologise for having
to paraphrase it but I don't have the quote in front of me) "It is better to
remain silent and have people think you are an idiot, than to speak out and
confirm it".
[For those participants whose first language is not english, some leeway will
be extended as far as making misstatements are concerned. Facts, stated as
such, will be challenged as usual.]
--
"Those who hunger after wisdom often seek it
in the highest heights, or profound depths"
from "Infinity's Shore" by David Brin
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Starshadow
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>
> >In article <1998081623...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
> >> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
> >>
> >> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> QED
> >> >
> >> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> >> >
> >> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
> >>
> >> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> >> studies, for example.
> >>
> >>
> >"straw man"...we aren't talking about your fool dead guru getting high
> >grades and no degree, we are talking about the *opposite*!!!
>
>
> You critics *are* talking about LRH's grades. Here's the original
> message.
>
> On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
> >them time after time.
>
> >you are to be pitied. And you might check out a book on elementary logic,
> >because if you think that you are being a real wit, then you are half
> >right.
>
> to admit that it was misstated, but feel the need to make a second lie
> in your pathetic attempt to justify the first. After all, you are a
> critic, right?
>
Okay, this is the last post to this thread since you seem to have a
real hangup about understanding that Hubbub didn't have to say word for
word "I got fabulous grades!" to lie about them. Hubbub claimed time
after time to have expertise and degrees in areas he flunked out of
college in, which is lying by omission. He claimed to be a nuclear
physicist, when he in fact flunked physics. He claimed to be a
mathemetician, when he flunked college entirely. He claimed a number of
times to be an expert in areas he knew diddly about and when in fact, he
--get this, because I'm only going to repeat it ONE MORE TIME--- FLUNKED
out of classes in these fields.
Now I know you have the attention span of the mollusc that you are, but
lying by omission and inference COUNTS even in a court of law.
Now be a good clam and FOAD. I won't reply to any other post, on this
subject, from you.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Archangel
[snip all]
It's very simple. Hubbo claimed to be a PhD, a nuclear physicist, etc.
All of these things IMPLY passing grades in college. He didn't have
'em. Thus, through his statements, he implies a falsehood--a LIE. If
someone claims to be a virgin, and we find out later that they've had
sex, we may legitimately call them a liar, even though they never stated
"I've never had sex." (no offense to the Christians present.)
Archangel
ef
park...@webtv.net (Bobby Parker) wrote:
> okeoke... let's not quibble. according to the documentation then, elronh
> did, thus, not lie about his *grades*, he lied about his *degrees*.
> there. happy now?
<puts hand up>
i'm the one who said that. in fact, i said it half-jokingly (only half,
however). and *why* did i say it half-jokingly, oh my little
literal-quibblingers?
because... to profess to a degree, implies also professing to the grades
necessary in order to acquire said degree. at the very least, passing
grades.
cause hons, they (whoever) don't *give* you that there degree without the
grades.
thus, this unbelievably stupid wordclearing fiesta that is so very
desperately being foisted upon one is... well... bullshit.
he lied about his degrees; ergo he lied about his grades.
period.
ef
David M. Cook
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I would have to check a biography. My impression is that he [Einstein] did
>not go from school to university because
He graduated from ETH in Zurich in 1900, but didn't get his Ph.D. until 1905
when he wrote the papers on special relativity, brownian motion,
and the photoelectric effect...
>Therefore he wrote his material on special relativity in his spare time,
>while working (?)as a schoolteacher.
...while working in the patent office in Berne.
Dave Cook
Ben The Allen
>
>Well, Ben that's very good reasoning of yours, but quite beside the
>point, really. If you read my posts carefully you would have seen that
>I never argued about whether LRH got a degree or not, or whether he
>got good grades or not.
>
>
hahaahah SP2 biaziniatch!...pity he didn't bother to read the post...
---
Ben Allen,
Of course, it has to be *Kevin's* dead cat to count.
hei...@eskimo.com
Lame stuff is fun.
remove e and l to e-mail
Steve A
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrn6th2vk....@rama.escnd1.sdca.home.com>,
> David M. Cook <dave...@home.com> writes:
> >On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:16:30 GMT, Steve A <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
> >
> >Actually, I think this is a myth. Einstein's grades were not that bad.
> >Certainly not anywhere near as bad as Hubbard's, whose only A is in Phys Ed.
>
> I would have to check a biography. My impression is that he did not go
> from school to university because he did not have the money to do so.
> Therefore he wrote his material on special relativity in his spare time,
> while working (?)as a schoolteacher.
A teacher of his at Zuerich polytechnic, Hermann Minkowski, described
Albert as a "lazy dog" who, while bright, "never bothered about maths
at all". Sounds like someone else we know!
According to a short section on Einstein in John Gribbin's "In search
of the edge of time", and "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais,
Einstein only got into Zuerich Polytechnic after a failed attempt and
some serious cramming; again, he had to cram frantically to graduate
in 1900, and had to borrow lecture notes from a colleague, Marcel
Grossman, to whom he later turned in 1912 when he was trying to
construct a workable theory of gravity. FWIW, this theoretical work
was the foundation of his General Theory of Relativity.
Minkowski later appears, when he demonstrates a way in which the
Special Theory of Relativity could be expressed using cartesian
co-ordinates in four dimensions, based on previous work by Descartes
and Bernhardt Riemann, on which he lectured in 1908 in Cologne.
gerry armstrong
>mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>
>>This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of
>>them. Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's
>>lies about his education. For more carefully documented lies, I
>>recommend Russell Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
>
>The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate
>your claims right here, in public.
>
>The comment was:
>
>>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>>them time after time.
>
>I observe that not a single one of you was able to answer the
>question, which was:
>
>>Would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>>
>>Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
>
>Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer people
>to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
>quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
>liars.
>
>QED
>
Well now!
It's possible someone else answered this challenge already. In any
case, yes, Hubbard did lie about his colege grades over and over.
Hubbard lied about his grades *and* his degrees.
You will find in the $cientology literature on Hubbard a line which
goes something like: "While excelling at his studies he detested the
restraints of formal education..." It will take me some time to
retrieve this publication, but it is a very well known statement.
Excelling at his studies can only mean that Hubbard got great grades
(unless of course what's true for Hubbard and his cultists is what's
untrue for rational thinkers).
Hubbard wrote that description of himself. I had proof of Hubbard's
authorship of this lie while in possession of his papers. It was
repeated over and over on Hubbard's orders. It is very possible this
was admitted into evidence in CSC v. Armstrong, LASC No. C 420153,
along with a great number of Hubbard's lies about his credentials.
While Hubbard at times told the truth about his poor academic record,
it is clear he did so to give plausible deniability or deniable
plausibility to his many claims of academic excellence and
professional status (nuclear physicist, civil engineer, mathematician
and 26 other professions).
His cultists also like to make the charge that the cult's public
relations people, and not Hubbard, claimed that he was a nuclear
physicist. Unfortunately for this shore story I had that claim by
Hubbard in his own handwriting. When I showed this to Norman Starkey,
at a time he was accusing me of saying that Hubbard rather than the
PRs had made the false claim, Starkey blew a gasket, and I shortly
thereafter, coming to grips with the madness of $cientology's top
cultists, blew the org.
The impression Hubbard sought to implant in the mind of anyone reading
his statements promoting himself and his cult operation was that he
was academically accomplished, scientifically sound, honest, credible,
and properly degreed by the proper and usual academic institutions.
What every person believing this guy and investing time and money in
chasing his false promises must sooner or later come to grips with is
that Hubbard was academically unaccomplished, scientifically unsound,
dishonest, discredited, discreditable, and utterly undegreed by the
proper and usual academic institutions.
Gerry
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:45:18 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
><da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>not go from school to university because
>
>when he wrote the papers on special relativity, brownian motion,
>and the photoelectric effect...
>
>>while working (?)as a schoolteacher.
>
OK, I was half right. Graduated, and did his postgraduate study for
himself while working in a day job. :-> I did say I was uncertain.
--
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>>you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly
>>lying about his grades.
>
>Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost,"
>
>>however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue.
Hey, moron: if you can't understand a statement in context
then you need to get a brain. It is quite useless to say
that Phatso did not lie specifically about this or that grade
if he CLEARLY LIED ABOUT HIS ACCADEMIC ATTAINMENTS: for example
by claiming titles which go with a graduate level of education
in the field. Or simply by flaunting a "doctorate" printed on
wallpaper that does not betoken approved postgraduate study.
If you want to compare it with Clinton you may be quite right:
is is quite useless for him to deny having had full penetrative
intercourse with someone, when in the broader context it turns
out he had SOME sort of sexual contact leading to climax. Whether
or not there was actual penetration is irrelevant except in some
very special matters---in ordinary understanding sex took place.
And, in ordinary understanding, Hubbard was dishonest about
his educational attainments. Proven fact.
In article <5wK21Mdl...@islandnet.com>, Martin Hunt writes:
>Hubbard *did* lie repeatedly about his grades, when all is said
>and done; he said he was a "CE" and a "Physicist", while, in reality,
>he flunked out. According to him, he passed, whereas in reality,
>he failed. Anon's arguments are mere sophistry; he'd no doubt argue
>that Hubbard never said there was no Jesus, just that there was no
>Christ, which "isn't the same thing." Free clue, Diane-esque anon:
>"grades" and "education" are the same damn thing in this context.
>Hubbard *failed*, and he lied when he said he succeeded.
In<35D983E6...@aol.com>, Archangel <de1...@aol.com> writes:
>It's very simple. Hubbo claimed to be a PhD, a nuclear physicist, etc.
>All of these things IMPLY passing grades in college. He didn't have
>'em. Thus, through his statements, he implies a falsehood--a LIE.
In<6ragu6$f3c$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, William Barwell writes:
>Claiming to be a nuclear scientists when he flunked college is lying.
Perry Scott
>
>mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>
>>This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of
>>them. Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's
>>lies about his education. For more carefully documented lies, I
>>recommend Russell Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
>
>The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate
>your claims right here, in public.
>
>The comment was:
>
>>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>>them time after time.
This monumental waste of bandwidth really revolves around whether a
degree implies the grades necessary to get the degree. In fact, nobody
has ever asked me what grades I got, except the first time I was hired.
What remains is the degree I possess. I suppose I could say "BSEE/3.63",
but nobody really cares.
Some humor:
Q: The person with the highest grade-point average in medical school is
called a Valedictorian. What do they call the person with the lowest
grade-point average?
A: "Doctor".
To claim a degree, one claims the knowledge that goes with the degree. In
fact, the diploma is a signed statement by the school that the holder has
satisfied the school's requirements for the holder to make a claim to hold
a degree. Part of those requirements are (typically) to have demonstrated
the required knowledge of the subject matter, usually expressed through
a curriculum grades. At my college, I think minimum grades (2.0) in the
prescribed curriculum were in fact the ONLY requirement to obtain the
degree.
Thus, I find "anonymous"' arguments to be sophistry. If A implies B, and
A is false, then B is false as well. A = "degree", while B = "grades".
Hubbard at various times claimed to be a physicist ("All about Radiation"),
a mathematician (a quote about Calculus is somewhere in the PDC or PABs),
a Civil Engineer (forget where, but I could find it), and a pilot. He may
have claimed to be an Electrical Engineer in conjunction with the E-meter,
but I have not seen it.
And to be complete, here are Hubbard's grades at George Washington University,
the only college (other than the Sequoia diploma mill)that Hubbard is known
to have attended.
1st semester 1930-31
English 1 / 2 , Rhetoric
C
General Chemistry
D
Mechanical Engineering 3/4
B
Analytical Geometry
F
Physical Education
C
First Year German
E
Civil Engineering
B
2nd semester 1930-1931
General chemistry
D
Mechanical Engineering
C
Physical Education
A
First Year German
F
Differential Calculus
F
1st semester 1931-1932
Physics, Dynamics of Sound and Sight
E
Differential Calculus
D
Plane Analytical Geometry
D
English, Short Stories
B
2nd semester 1931-1932
Integral Calculus
D
English, Short Stories
B
Physics, Electricity and Magnetism
D
Nuclear Physics
F
Especially damning are Hubbard's Physics grades, which are indeed failing.
Hubbard claims to be a physicist in "All about Radiation".
Perry Scott [ScienoCensored 3 times]
Co$ Escapee
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology [ScienoCensored domain]
William Barwell
>>
>>you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly lying about
>>to truly bad grades, probably in the early days.
>
Ron sometimes admitted his lack of good college grades and studdy habits.
But then sometimes he lied.
He claimed in one tape (which I have around here and will find) that "I
learned calculus easily".
A lie.
He did in one tape imply he did graduate from George Washington
University, while in several other tapes he as much as admits (he implies
in a tricky manner actually) that he "left" GWU. Actually he was pushed
out for bad grades.
In several tapes, he does imply he has expertise in Math and Science
from his days at GWU.
He flunked math.
I will now put this on my list of things to dig out, and you can bet
buddy, several other critics will too. The material is there,
these lies will be dug out and posted.
Thanks to you for inspiring this FAQ that eventually will
be created.
William Barwell
Al Landeck <lan...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In article <1998081623...@replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>gr...@gradyward.com (Grady Ward) wrote:
>>
>>>On the contrary, the OSA scum-clown is setting up a straw man.
>>>
>>>L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a liar about his academic achievements
>>>whether he specifically lied about his *grades* or not.
>>
>>My dear friend - the "straw man" was made by none other than by lousy
>>critics. Here is the original sentence:
>>
>>>them time after time.
>>
>>sentence made by you lousy critics. You once more illustrate my point:
>>
>>critics are liars.
>>
>>Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
>>quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.
>>
>>You critics are a laughing stock.
>>
>>
>I don't know... how about a phony PhD from a mail order diploma mill?
>Is that good enough for you?
>
here Hubbard openly claims to have obtained a degree in nuclear physics.
His grades were good enough for a degree?
And that isn't a lie about his grades in college?
Well if that is what a Scientologist has to believe to make himself
feel good.......
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@
Radiation and Your Survival Tape 5 Tape 5704C13 13n April 1957
Hubbard lies about having a degree in nuclear physics.
"And I had just been studying a subject which threatens to
disturb the mental equlibrium of the world in future years,
nuclear physics. Someday, someday, somebody will want to
know something about the mind. And so I went on about my work,
I studied, I eventually got a degree in the subject, whatever
good that was."
.....
But when the first beckon came my way during the war, somebody had
been looking through the record books, and they found this fellow
Hubbard, nuclear physicist, "Where's *he* been?"
"Hey Hubbard. We're going to put you to work".
"Going to put you to work manfactoring bombs." "Going to put you
to work manufactoring bombs to kill women and children and destroy
cities!" And Hubbard said something rather astonishing.
He said he'd kill any man in a fair fight, and has killed many in the
ides of battle, but when it comes to slaughtering women and children
and destroying the human race, you had better go find yourself another
boy. And I will say this for my classmates, although they went along
with government projects, and with these project in the exegicies
of war and battle, practically every one of them has quit the ranks
of bomb development. At their cost, at their professional degradation,
nobody will use them, nobody will touch them, some of these boys are
now teaching mechanical engineering or something as an assistant
instructor, whose names were high in the rosters of atomic of atomic
activities. And they are no longer with it. They are no longer part
of these atomic projects. I have, if anything, merely the distinction
of refusing first."
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Martin Hunt
arms...@dowco.com (gerry armstrong) wrote:
>While Hubbard at times told the truth about his poor academic record,
>it is clear he did so to give plausible deniability or deniable
>plausibility to his many claims of academic excellence and
>professional status (nuclear physicist, civil engineer, mathematician
>and 26 other professions).
While we're on this thread on Hubbard's lies about his education,
I came across this PAB (Professional Auditor's Bulletin):
P.A.B. No. 82
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8
1 May 1956
SCIENTOLOGY
TRANSLATOR'S EDITION
by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.
... two lies: Ph.D and C.E. (Civil Engineer). Hubbard was neither.
WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? Scientology is that branch of psychology
which treats of human ability. It is an extension of DIANETICS
which is in itself an extension of old-time faculty-psychology of
400 years ago.
... See that? Scientology is merely a branch of psychology. Banishment
to those that would claim it a religion or call psychology suppressive!
IS SCIENTOLOGY VALID? Tens of thousands of case histories (reports
on patients, individual records), all sworn to (attested before
public officials), are in the possession of the organizations of
Scientology. No other subject on earth except physics and chemistry
has had such gruelling testing (proofs, exact findings).
... Hubbard didn't have the first clue about Science, obviously. No
doubt due to his failing grades.
WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY? Scientology was discovered (found), not
invented (created). It was organized by L. Ron Hubbard, an
American, who has many degrees and is very skilled by reason of
study. Sometimes Wundtian psychologists defend themselves by saying
Hubbard is insane; actually the Chicago Psychological Institute, a
Wundtian organization gave Hubbard many tests at his own request in
January of 1951 and found him unusually bright and extremely sane.
Hubbard was trained in nuclear physics at George Washington
University in Washington, D.C. before he started his studies about
the mind. This explains the mathematical precision of Scientology.
Doctor Hubbard has been given many honors for his work in the field
of the mind.
... "many degrees"? "Doctor Hubbard"? "honours for his work"? What
a fabric of lies. Hubbard may have been "trained in nuclear physics"
at his old GW "alma mater", but it obviously didn't sink in; a brief
glance at the ludicrous e-meter book atempting, foolishly, to
explain physical reality, forces, and particles proves that. As for
"mathematical precision", Hubbard rejected the entire subject of
calculus, and had little or no understanding of it.
L. Ron Hubbard
...he put his name, brazenly, to this pack of lies. The 3rd person
discussion of himself is bizarre; what was he, a butler? A queen?
Very few people can pull off the 3rd person successfully.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is evil to the core." - Jesse Prince, former core
Scientologist.
http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/prince/prince.htm
Martin Hunt
Room 666 <sch...@hell.high> wrote:
>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>dear drooler:
>>
>>you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly
>>lying about his grades.
>
>Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost,"
>because he first has to get in a cheap shot (dear drooler) to soften
>the damaging effect of the admission, and then makes sure he puts in
>the "probably," to further soften it up and leave room for doubt.
Hubbard lied about his grades; he claimed to be a Civil Engineer
and a PhD and a Nuclear Physicist, while in reality he flunked out
of college.
Stupid anon: you *need* grades to pass. Think about it. Oh, that
class in physics he brags about? He got an F. F, anon. F. Flunk.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is evil to the core." - Jesse Prince, former core
Scientologist.
http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/prince/prince.htm
Captain Nerd
>
>Tztztz.
^^^^^^^
>
>That is the best a bigot can do when he reaches the point of not being
>able to be understood.
>
>There's however much more about such bigots which can be read at
>http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw
>
Hey, it's "Lee Chang" wgert! Welcome back, "Lee!"
Boy, we've *missed you!* How was RPF?
Cap.
--
===============================================================================
= Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
= "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
===============================================================================
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>: Well, Ben that's very good reasoning of yours, but quite beside the
>: point, really. If you read my posts carefully you would have seen that
>: I never argued about whether LRH got a degree or not, or whether he
>: got good grades or not.
>
>
>Funny, here is what I saw:
> >
> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>
>And you replied:
>
> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> studies, for example.
>
>Sounds to me that you are arguing about LRH's grades.
>
>Can we all agree that LRH got bad grades when he actually took
>classes and the one "degree" he got was from a degree mill?
>
>If you disagree can you explain why?
I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not the point I am
addressing. Here is the point I am addressing:
>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>them time after time.
And the question was:
>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
So far no one could come with a single quote to show where LRH lied
about his grades, only with claims about his education. This doesn't
address the question at all. If you are going to argue that he lied
about his grade, you better come up with quotes to show where he did
so lie, or you should phrase it differently. To come up with quotes
about how he flunked his degrees or whatever doesn't show in anyway
how he "lied about his grades" other than through inconclusive
implications, which is way too short to sustain such an open
accusation.
A couple have admitted that this was a misstatement, and that's all I
am looking for, but it does take quite an amount of prodding to get
you critics to see this simple and straightforward point - which is
what is interesting...
Anonymous
>On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:16:30 GMT, Steve A <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
>
>Actually, I think this is a myth. Einstein's grades were not that bad.
>Certainly not anywhere near as bad as Hubbard's, whose only A is in Phys Ed.
Einstein flunked a whole year. He had to redo class.
Anonymous
>Anonymous wrote:
>>
>> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>>
>> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>> >>
>> >> Liars.
>> >>
>> >> QED
>> >
>> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
>> >
>> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
>> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>>
>> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>> studies, for example.
>>
>> You obviously can't think. Go back to school, maroon.
>
>
>You obviously can't spell moron. Go back to school with him.
I doubt that this is the kind of thing you learn at school :-)
wgert
(Starshadow) wrote:
>In article <1998081623...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>>
>> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>> >>
>> >> Liars.
>> >>
>> >> QED
>> >
>> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
>> >
>> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
>> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>>
>> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>> studies, for example.
>>
>> You obviously can't think. Go back to school, maroon.
>>
> You can't get a degree when you flunk, you stupid sod. Word-clear
>"straw man"...we aren't talking about your fool dead guru getting high
>grades and no degree, we are talking about the *opposite*!!!
>
> Christ on a crutch, if you think what you are doing is thinking, then
>you are to be pitied. And you might check out a book on elementary logic,
>because if you think that you are being a real wit, then you are half
>right.
Tztztz.
That is the best a bigot can do when he reaches the point of not being
able to be understood.
There's however much more about such bigots which can be read at
http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw
wgert
Parker) wrote:
>Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998, 2:40am (CDT+7)
>From: nob...@replay.com (Anonymous) Re: Hubbard's college grades
>
>mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>
>This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of them.
>Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's lies about his
>education. For more carefully documented lies, I recommend Russell
>Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
>
>
>The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate your
>claims right here, in public.
>The comment was:
>
>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time
>after time.
>
>I observe that not a single one of you was able to answer the question,
>which was:
>Would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
>Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer people
>to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
>quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
>liars.
>QED
Right!
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> writes:
>
>>No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>>grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>>studies, for example.
>
>You can have high grades and fail to get a degree; but you _can't_ have
>flunking grades, drop out of college, and get a (valid) degree.
>
>Given that Hubbard's grades were low; that he dropped out of college;
>his claim of a degree is a lie; and it is a lie that necessarily encom-
>passes that he 1) attended college for a sufficient period of time;
>2) while making grades in his courses which were sufficient;
>3) to obtain a degree in a chosen field.
>
>We know that Hubbard didn't attend college long enough to get a
>degree; didn't make grades in his courses which would have been
>sufficient to get a degree had he continued to attend college;
>and 3) diddn't obtain a degree (except that phony 'doctorate' from
>a diploma mill).
Again, these are all "proofs by implication", which in *no* is an
acceptable proof to sustain the statement that "it is not just that
Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time after time."
If you are going to make such claim, you better come up with hard
proof about it, i.e. actual quotes about him lying about his grades,
not some fancy explanations that can be argued back and forth until
you get blue in the face.
>If you claim to have been elected President of the United States, I
>will state that you lied about getting enough votes in Texas to be
>elected.
Why? Is Texas now the United States? This is getting weirder and
weirder.
Anonymous
>Here is what I referred to in my last post about a critic admitting the
>"grades" should have been "degrees"
Yes, but you said that the original poster has admitted to his
mistake. I haven't seen that.
>Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998, 10:31pm (CDT+5)
>From: one....@somewhere.land
> <snip>
>
>okeoke... let's not quibble. according to the documentation then, elronh
>did, thus, not lie about his *grades*, he lied about his *degrees*.
>there. happy now?
>
>Bobby
Anonymous
>On 18 Aug 1998 01:57:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>ben "the" allen wrote:
>
>>>Of course, this is totally moot, since Hubbard's bad grades and lack
>>>of a degree is information available to the public. I for one wonder
>>>if you are in fact actually reading the posts you are replying to.
>
>>Well, Ben that's very good reasoning of yours, but quite beside the
>>point, really. If you read my posts carefully you would have seen that
>>I never argued about whether LRH got a degree or not, or whether he
>>got good grades or not.
>
>dear drooler:
>
>you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly lying about
>his grades. in fact i seem to recall a statement by hubbard where he admitted
>to truly bad grades, probably in the early days.
Thanks. That is all I am asking for.
>however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue. hubbard made statements later
>about his career and qualifications which by their very nature imply if not good
>grades at least passable grades, whereas hubbard's grades were obviously those
>of a flunking student. if he never directly lied about his grades, he pretty
>clearly and obviously made statements about his academic stature that blatantly
>imply a greater degree of academic success than he in fact enjoyed.
>
>now you can whine and whimper all you like about whether or not he specifically
>lied about his Phys Ed grades or whatever, but he OBVIOUSLY lied in stating that
>he was a nuclear physicist and a Ph.D. (unless you count the diploma mill degree
>he bought).
That may be, but it's an other story.
Anonymous
>In article <1998081623...@replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
>>the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
>>complete the curriculum.
>
>Hubbard flunked out of college, dude.
So? You are once again speaking beside the point instead of
confronting the facts.
>>You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
>
>You culties are just lousy at confronting facts, and liars too.
Must make of you a cultie, then.
And what lie did *I* make? You are full of shit.
Anonymous
>On 17 Aug 1998 01:12:48 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>>
>> >On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>> >>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>> >>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>> >>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>> >
>> >look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and
>> >then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.
>>
>> Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
>> the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
>> complete the curriculum.
>
>But he *didn't* make the whole curriculum. Where is his degree in
>nuclear physics?
Who claimed that he made de curriculum?
>> You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
>
>Unbelievable! The words of the truly deluded.
What is unbelievable about that? some of you lousy critic said:
>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>them time after time.
and the question was asked:
>So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
And rather than address the question, you keep coming up with non
sequitur statements about his degrees, his education, and the rest of
your usual rant.
You prove to the world that *you* are the truly deluded, no matter
what you gratuitously assert.
Anonymous
>In article <1998081623...@replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>>>>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>>>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>>>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>>>
>>>look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and
>>>then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.
>>
>>Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
>>the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
>>complete the curriculum.
>>
>>You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
>
>One mo' time. Hubbard flunked out. And later repeatedly lied about being
>a nuclear physicist, heavily implying he studied this at George Washington
>University.
>Now, he lied, and as has been pointed out, when you lie about having a
>degree, you lie about your grades being passable enough to get a degree.
Only by implication, which is not enough to sustain in a valid way the
statement that "it is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied
about them time after time". The best proof of that is that you have
to come up with further theories to "explain" how what you say holds
water. Come up with actual quotes where he "lied about his low grades
time after time" or amend the sentence.
>So yes, he lied.
So, because "he lied about his degrees", therefore "he lied",
therefore "he lied about his grades". Yeah, sure.
>You are without logic.
I certainly am without *that* kind of "logic", for sure.
You critics are quickly satisfied with yourself, aren't you? Is that
why you call yourself "critics"?
Anonymous
>On 17 Aug 1998 01:07:28 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>> gr...@gradyward.com (Grady Ward) wrote:
>>
>> >On the contrary, the OSA scum-clown is setting up a straw man.
>> >
>> >L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a liar about his academic achievements
>> >whether he specifically lied about his *grades* or not.
>>
>> My dear friend - the "straw man" was made by none other than by lousy
>> critics. Here is the original sentence:
>>
>> On Sun, 09 Aug, "The Exile" <exil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>> >them time after time.
>>
>> You now say that it's a straw man, yet, this comes straight from a
>> sentence made by you lousy critics. You once more illustrate my point:
>>
>> critics are liars.
>>
>> Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even
>> quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.
>>
>> You critics are a laughing stock.
>
>Have you any idea what impression this schoolyard hair-splitting gives
>you, Anonymous, and by extension the "church" you shill for?
>
>Not a good one, I can assure you.
And how about the impression it gives about you, critics, unable to
get what is a simple and straightforward point, weaseling out like
rats, and trying to justify your lies?
ef
<pe...@nospam.ezlink.com> wrote:
> To claim a degree, one claims the knowledge that goes with the degree. In
> fact, the diploma is a signed statement by the school that the holder has
> satisfied the school's requirements for the holder to make a claim to hold
> a degree. Part of those requirements are (typically) to have demonstrated
> the required knowledge of the subject matter, usually expressed through
> a curriculum grades. At my college, I think minimum grades (2.0) in the
> prescribed curriculum were in fact the ONLY requirement to obtain the
> degree.
>
> Thus, I find "anonymous"' arguments to be sophistry. If A implies B, and
> A is false, then B is false as well. A = "degree", while B = "grades".
it *is* sophistry. and the hilarious part about it is that our pal the cos
"anonymous" is convinced he is winning the "argument". which, of course,
he created in order to "win".
well, hilarious, kinda. sad too. :-\
ef
Anonymous
>Hubbard *did* lie repeatedly about his grades, when all is said
>and done; he said he was a "CE" and a "Physicist", while, in reality,
>he flunked out.
<sigh>
To be a Physicist is not a grade, whatever "CE" means.
>According to him, he passed, whereas in reality,
>he failed. Anon's arguments are mere sophistry; he'd no doubt argue
>that Hubbard never said there was no Jesus, just that there was no
>Christ, which "isn't the same thing." Free clue, Diane-esque anon:
>"grades" and "education" are the same damn thing in this context.
>Hubbard *failed*, and he lied when he said he succeeded.
Oh great! So grade=degree=education...
I see that you are totally unable to make appropriate distinctions.
You are a critic, right?
Anonymous
>In article <1998081522...@replay.com>,
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote:
>>
>****************** Deleted ******************
>>
>>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>>
>>Liars.
>>
> Claiming to be a nuclear scientists when he flunk college is lying.
So lying about his education is lying about his degree is lying about
his having sex with Monica L. is lying about sexually abusing his
daughter is lying about his grades.
You are a critic, right?
>Now if you want to be technical about, There are soem scattered
>quotes on his tapes where he lies. "I easily learned math",
>I'll have to hunt that one down. He didn't.
Good. Quote where he repeatedly lied about his grades and I'll take
back my accusation that you are
a liar, a cheat, and a moron.
>His claimed PHD. That was a lie.
>
>In his early tapes he implied his scientific training in nuclear
>physics was that basis of Scientology.
>
>He had no real training in physics, flunking out.
Blablabla...
Gates are down, lights are flashing - no train.
Anonymous
>In article <1998081623...@replay.com>, Anonymous writes:
>>stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>>>In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>>
>>>> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>>>> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>>>> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>>>> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>>>>
>>>> Liars.
>>>>
>>>> QED
>>>
>>> Jaysus, what a maroon!
>>> If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
>>>tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>>
>>No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>>grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>>studies, for example.
>
> Hey, stupid: buy a textbook on logic.
>
> You can [on these assumptions] have reasonable grades
> but not have a degree, for other reasons.
> But you can't have rotten grades, and still
> have your degree.
> The one does not contradict the other, fool.
So? This is the same logic along which you brought up your non
sequitur quotes about LRH's degrees as a "proof" that he lied about
his grades time and again, and it doesn't make it truer because you
word it differently.
You obviously are an idiot, and a liar.
Anonymous
> Obviously, nonny-mouse, you are acting the complete moron and
> denying the obvious just to stir people up and waste time.
You seem to be completely satisfied with the non sequitur quotes you
brought up, taking, as usual, your wish for reality (a worrying
sign..), and completely oblivious to the fact that in no way it stands
as a valid proof for the statement that LRH lied about his grades time
and again.
Anyway, I have read enough of your endless lunacies, and I am going to
do the only sensible thing to do with fools such as yourself:
*PLONK*
Anonymous
>On 17 Aug 1998 01:09:26 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
>>
>> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
>> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
>> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
>> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
>> >>
>> >> Liars.
>> >>
>> >> QED
>> >
>> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
>> >
>> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
>> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
>>
>> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
>> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
>> studies, for example.
>
>OTOH, if you have utterly lousy grades, it is unlikely that you will
>make a big hit in the world of science:
Unlikely, but doesn't prove that he lied repeatedly about his grades.
>yes, there *are* people who
>have done it - Einstein is a good example - but Einstein produced
>research which the scientific establishment could work with, even if -
>as in the case of his Special Theory of Relativity - his hypothesis
>could not be proven for nine years, until 1919 when an eclipse of the
>sun gave researchers a chance to measure his predicted light-bending
>effects.
Einstein is only the most known example.
>Hubbard, however, was evidently incapable of conducting any sort of
>scientific research, grades or no grades.
OK. Then why are you coming up with or defending the statements that
he repeatedly lied about his grades?
>Remember, too, that he didn't *just* get bad grades: he went on to lie
>outrageously about his skills and qualifications. Had he been
>unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
>education was too boring, but then, like Einstein, he had pursued his
>studies in a scientific manner, it is conceivable that, like Einstein,
>Hubbard might have had some degree of scientific credibility.
>
>But to suggest that because Hubbard did not lie about his grades, he
>must have been telling the truth about his degree,
WOW! You are reading more in what I say than there is to it. I called
a poster on an obviously false statement, and I am sitting here amazed
(well, not really) about the weaseling out by you wondrous critics of
what is a pretty straightforward question.
>his status as a
>nuclear physicist, etc., etc., is a stupid and naive attempt to bend
>the truth.
Non-existent but in your fanciful imagination. A stupid and naive
attempt to bend the truth. Try to read what stands on the screen and
address the question directly, for a change.
Mike O'Connor
[...]
CHAPTER TWENTY
THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD
For heaven's sake, tell them I'm not God.
L. Ron Hubbard, quoted
by Eric Barnes, Public
Relations Chief of
New York Church
of Scientology
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, born in 1911 in Tilden, Nebraska, is a man of
many talents and accomplishments, although not quite as many as he claims.
In a number of biographies and autobiographies, both types of which were
said to have been written by him, he claims to have been descended from
Count de Loup, to be part French and Scotch and to have part of his family
come from Little Clacton, Essex. He claims to have been a blood brother of
the Pikuni Indians, "fast friends" with Calvin Coolidge Jr., and to be the
real life model for the book, play, and movie, Mister Roberts. He also
claims to have graduated in mathematics and engineering from Columbian
University (a part of George Washington University), sometimes claims to
have graduated in civil engineering from George Washington University, to
have attended Princeton University (sometimes the Princeton School of
Government) and to have gotten a Ph.D. from Sequoia University. He was a
prolific writer, a singer, an explorer (and claims to have been a member
of the Explorers Club since 1936), a seaman, a Lieutenant in the navy, who
was severely injured in the war. Many of these things are true; for
example, his family does come from Little Clacton, Essex, he was a writer,
he was an explorer (and a member of the Explorers Club, but since 1940.
not 1936 as he claimed). He was severely injured in the war (and in fact
was in a lifeboat for many days, badly injuring his body and hiseyes in
the hot Pacific sun).
But there are a number of unimportant things in his Brief Biography of L.
Ron Hubbard (which his son claims his father really wrote) that were
exposed by the Daily Mail in England as false. Because of these errors, it
tends to cast suspicion, perhaps unjustly, on the rest. Actually, most of
the "errors" in that biography and others, with the exception of his
academic background, were simply sins by omission. Although Hubbard admits
he wrote Screenplays and westerns, it was in science fiction that he made
his mark, a fact he conveniently omitted in his Brief Biography and
frequently underplayed elsewhere.
This is important because a science fiction background is not considered
good preparation for the understanding of true scientific phenomena and
also because Hubbard wrote so much science fiction at one time that it
would seem almost impossible that he could have carried on the careful
research he claimed he did to formulate Dianetics upon which Scientology
is based.
Nonetheless, Hubbard says Dianetics was based on his exhaustive research
with 270 subjects, and this research formed the basis of his engram and
other theories. A recent article in Freedom stated that Hubbard spent
thirtyfive years researching the mind before Dianetics came out. If this
is true, it means that he started researching at the age of three.
Generally, Hubbard is content to have people believe he spent twelve years
researching Dianetics before coming out with his basic book, Dianetics:
The Modern Science of Mental Health. He says that the research began with
his 1938 book, Excalibur which appears to have been the manuscript he
claims was stolen by the Russians.
During these twelve years, especially in the last three or four before
Dianetics came out, he wrote at least seventy-eight science fiction
stories alone (under his name, or the pseudonyms of Rene Lafayette and
Kurt Van Strachen) not to mention writing in other fields. With all this
writing. it's hard to believe he had the time to research those 270
subjects properly (to research them properly would require 540 people; a
control group that has not been given the Dianetic treatment should have
been included in the sample).
[...]
-- Paulette Cooper
The Scandal of Scientology
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has anyone seen the "Brief Biography" which is mentioned?
-Mike
Censored by Scientology
Xenu0
(Mike O'Connor) writes:
>Has anyone seen the "Brief Biography" which is mentioned?
>
I've always assumed that Ms Cooper meant the sketches in the backs of books
like DMSMH and 8-8008.
j-p.s
>Einstein flunked a whole year. He had to redo class.
I think this is a lie based on a misunderstanding. The grade scheme was
changed for one year in his school, and Einstein's grades appeared to drop
for one year, but so did everybody else's. It wasn't a reflection on
academic performance at all.
I don't think he had to redo that year. I think this myth has grown a bit
under dear old Anonymous' attempts to explain why Hubbard's grades were
awful, independent of everyone else's. He was actually academically quite
dim indeed. And a liar, much like Anonymous.
Bring on the next foot-bullet.
--
J-P
http://www.c-u-p.demon.co.uk/ -- see who's playing at The Edinburgh Fringe
Cruel & Unusual Punishment present: SQUARE PEGS 24th-29th August 1998
j-p.s
>Again, these are all "proofs by implication", which in *no* is an
>acceptable proof to sustain the statement that "it is not just that
>Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time after time."
How about we change it, then, to "it is not just that Hubbard got LOW
GRADES, but he LIED time after time about academic achievements which, had
he actually got them instead of INVENTING them, he would have to have had
much higher grades than the PITIFUL GRADES he REALLY got.
"He IMPLIED, in his LIES, that he got good grades. He MISLEAD people with
these implications. He was MANIPULATIVE in what he said and
UNTRUSTWORTHY."
Would you like me to carve this on the headstone we'll put over the grave
containing all your rather poor arguments? We can underline the words in
capitals if you want?
Steve A
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>
> >Have you any idea what impression this schoolyard hair-splitting gives
> >you, Anonymous, and by extension the "church" you shill for?
> >
> >Not a good one, I can assure you.
>
> And how about the impression it gives about you, critics, unable to
> get what is a simple and straightforward point, weaseling out like
> rats, and trying to justify your lies?
It may seem like a "simple point" to you, but to us lowly wogs it's
Deep Thought.
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Steve A
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>
> >On 17 Aug 1998 01:09:26 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >
> >> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
> >>
> >> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >> >>
> >> >> Liars.
> >> >>
> >> >> QED
> >> >
> >> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> >> >
> >> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
> >> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> >> studies, for example.
> >
> >OTOH, if you have utterly lousy grades, it is unlikely that you will
> >make a big hit in the world of science:
>
> Unlikely, but doesn't prove that he lied repeatedly about his grades.
I think we've established that "Hubbard didn't lie repeatedly about
his grades". You win that one, Anonymous.
But you do not dispute that Hubbard claimed academic credentials in
fields such as nuclear physics, not to mention a PhD, do you?
And do you not dispute that these claims were, in fact, false?
> >yes, there *are* people who
> >have done it - Einstein is a good example - but Einstein produced
> >research which the scientific establishment could work with, even if -
> >as in the case of his Special Theory of Relativity - his hypothesis
> >could not be proven for nine years, until 1919 when an eclipse of the
> >sun gave researchers a chance to measure his predicted light-bending
> >effects.
>
> Einstein is only the most known example.
Of course. But Einstein came up with theories that were testable. So
far, about the only thing he appears to have got wrong was the fact
that, since he couldn't conceive of a universe that was not static, he
fiddled in a cosmological constant to keep everything stable.
Three quarters of a century on, Einstein's theories have stood up to
the creation of a whole new area of study - quantum mechanics - and
still hold true, in the same way that Newton's theories still hold
true today.
IOW, they have stood the test not only of time, but of scientific
scrutiny.
The same cannot be said for *any* of Hubbard's so-called research.
Agreed?
> >Hubbard, however, was evidently incapable of conducting any sort of
> >scientific research, grades or no grades.
>
> OK. Then why are you coming up with or defending the statements that
> he repeatedly lied about his grades?
For the reasons I state in my next paragraph:
> >Remember, too, that he didn't *just* get bad grades: he went on to lie
> >outrageously about his skills and qualifications. Had he been
> >unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his
> >education was too boring, but then, like Einstein, he had pursued his
> >studies in a scientific manner, it is conceivable that, like Einstein,
> >Hubbard might have had some degree of scientific credibility.
> >
> >But to suggest that because Hubbard did not lie about his grades, he
> >must have been telling the truth about his degree,
>
> WOW! You are reading more in what I say than there is to it. I called
> a poster on an obviously false statement, and I am sitting here amazed
> (well, not really) about the weaseling out by you wondrous critics of
> what is a pretty straightforward question.
I am amazed that you seem to be so incapable of considering the
subject of his grades together with the rest of his academic claims. I
accept that someone made a mistake by saying "Hubbard lied about his
grades", rather than "Hubbard got lousy grades in college, then lied
about his academic qualifications". However, the debate has moved on,
and I find it most peculiar that you insist on chanting, time and
again, how terrible the critics are for making an incorrect statement.
Now, given that we accept that - to our knowledge - Hubbard never lied
about his college grades, do you accept that his claims for higher
academic qualifications were bogus?
> >his status as a
> >nuclear physicist, etc., etc., is a stupid and naive attempt to bend
> >the truth.
>
> Non-existent but in your fanciful imagination. A stupid and naive
> attempt to bend the truth. Try to read what stands on the screen and
> address the question directly, for a change.
yeah, whatever.
Steve A
wrote:
> ...he put his name, brazenly, to this pack of lies. The 3rd person
> discussion of himself is bizarre; what was he, a butler? A queen?
> Very few people can pull off the 3rd person successfully.
I hear that Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, can "pull off" two people
*simultaneously*.
Steve A
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>
> >On 17 Aug 1998 01:12:48 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >
> >> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 16 Aug 1998 00:11:35 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >> >>"lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> >>where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> >>answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >> >
> >> >look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and
> >> >then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.
> >>
> >> Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make
> >> the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will
> >> complete the curriculum.
> >
> >But he *didn't* make the whole curriculum. Where is his degree in
> >nuclear physics?
>
> Who claimed that he made de curriculum?
That claim is implicit in his claims of higher qualifications. It
would not have been possible for anyone to go on to get a PhD, become
a chartered engineer, or become a nuclear physicist with the grades he
got, particularly in the subjects in question (F for physics? F for
Flunk, more like).
> >> You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
> >
> >Unbelievable! The words of the truly deluded.
>
> What is unbelievable about that? some of you lousy critic said:
>
> >>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
> >>them time after time.
>
> and the question was asked:
>
> >So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
> >where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>
> And rather than address the question, you keep coming up with non
> sequitur statements about his degrees, his education, and the rest of
> your usual rant.
They are not "non-sequitur" statements. Some of us have made the
"mistake" of not thinking quite as literally as you, and have
incorrectly suggested that Hubbard claimed better grades than he
actually had. I can accept that this was incorrect, but at the same
time, you do not do your position any good by refusing to acknowledge
that fact that Hubbard went on to lie about higher academic
qualifications - an even worse lie to perpetrate.
> You prove to the world that *you* are the truly deluded, no matter
> what you gratuitously assert.
Yeah, well. We'll let Dejanews decide that, shall we?
Archangel
>
> On 19 Aug 1998 04:07:47 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
> > ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> >
> > >On 17 Aug 1998 01:09:26 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
> > >>
> > >> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> > >> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> > >> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> > >> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Liars.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> QED
> > >> >
> > >> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> > >> >
> > >> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> > >> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
> > >>
> > >> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
> > >> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> > >> studies, for example.
> > >
> > >OTOH, if you have utterly lousy grades, it is unlikely that you will
> > >make a big hit in the world of science:
> >
> > Unlikely, but doesn't prove that he lied repeatedly about his grades.
>
> I think we've established that "Hubbard didn't lie repeatedly about
> his grades". You win that one, Anonymous.
False. Hubbo lied about his grades.
A PhD MEANS something. It means you had sufficient grades to earn a
baccalaureate degree, and you had adequate grades during your graduate
program. by claiming a PhD, Hubbub was making false claims about his
grades. If someone claimed to be a millionaire, on the basis that he
wrote himself a check for $1M from an account with $100 in it, he would
be lying about having a million dollars. If a mother of two was asked
"have you had sex?" and answered "I am a virgin," she would be lying,
even though she did not explicitly say "I haven't had sex."
Archangel
Starshadow
> On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:07:30 -0000, stars...@mindless.com
> (Starshadow) wrote:
>
> >In article <1998081623...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
> >> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1998081522...@replay.com>, nob...@replay.com says...
> >>
> >> >> Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was
> >> >> "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A"
> >> >> where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just
> >> >> answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.
> >> >>
> >> >> Liars.
> >> >>
> >> >> QED
> >> >
> >> > Jaysus, what a maroon!
> >> >
> >> > If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is
> >> >tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high
> >> grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your
> >> studies, for example.
> >>
> >>
> > You can't get a degree when you flunk, you stupid sod. Word-clear
> >"straw man"...we aren't talking about your fool dead guru getting high
> >grades and no degree, we are talking about the *opposite*!!!
> >
> > Christ on a crutch, if you think what you are doing is thinking, then
> >you are to be pitied. And you might check out a book on elementary logic,
> >because if you think that you are being a real wit, then you are half
> >right.
>
> Tztztz.
>
> That is the best a bigot can do when he reaches the point of not being
> able to be understood.
>
> There's however much more about such bigots which can be read at
> http://www.dancris.com/~rshaw
>
>
> >--
> > Bright Blessings,
> > Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
>
Hiya, "Lee Chang", nice to seeya again. BTW, I'm not a "he" Big-OT, I'm
a "she" big-OT.
And I don't need a pointy hood, my head fits just fine in my sunflower
straw one.
clei...@bc.cc.ca.us
Anonymous wrote:
Plonked by an anon. Oh, the indignity of it all. Oh, the shame.
For the record, though, this entire thread speaks well of the need to
phrase things carefully, since $cientology will seize upon any inaccuracy,
misstatement or careless phrasing. Hubbard did misrepresent his academic
career, and allowed it to be misrepresented by others without correcting
it, but he probably did not lie specifically about his grades. Nor did he
inhale. At least not within the US. To his recollection.
an_occasional_lurker
More words of wisdom from one who claims he doesn't need to tell
the truth .... just allege anything you want to in your spin
factory.
You are a very, very weird person, Gerry.
In article <35d9d34d....@news.dowco.com>, arms...@dowco.com says...
>
>On 15 Aug 1998 02:40:23 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>>
>>>This has already been posted by at least two people; I was one of
>>>them. Go to DejaNews if you're actually interested in Hubbard's
>>>lies about his education. For more carefully documented lies, I
>>>recommend Russell Miller's _Bare-Faced Messiah_ (get it?)
>>
>>The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate
>>your claims right here, in public.
>>
>>The comment was:
>>
>>>>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about
>>>>them time after time.
>>
>>I observe that not a single one of you was able to answer the
>>question, which was:
>>
>>>Would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard
>>>where he lied "time after time" about his grades?
>>>
>>>Or even just one quote from him about his grades.
>>
>>Is it so difficult to post a couple of quotes? No need to refer people
>>to whole sites or whole books. You obviously can't come up with the
>>quote, because they simply don't exist. In other words: you guys are
>>liars.
>>
>>QED
>>
>
>Well now!
>
>It's possible someone else answered this challenge already. In any
>case, yes, Hubbard did lie about his colege grades over and over.
>Hubbard lied about his grades *and* his degrees.
>
>You will find in the $cientology literature on Hubbard a line which
>goes something like: "While excelling at his studies he detested the
>restraints of formal education..." It will take me some time to
>retrieve this publication, but it is a very well known statement.
>Excelling at his studies can only mean that Hubbard got great grades
>(unless of course what's true for Hubbard and his cultists is what's
>untrue for rational thinkers).
>
>Hubbard wrote that description of himself. I had proof of Hubbard's
>authorship of this lie while in possession of his papers. It was
>repeated over and over on Hubbard's orders. It is very possible this
>was admitted into evidence in CSC v. Armstrong, LASC No. C 420153,
>along with a great number of Hubbard's lies about his credentials.
>
>While Hubbard at times told the truth about his poor academic record,
>it is clear he did so to give plausible deniability or deniable
>plausibility to his many claims of academic excellence and
>professional status (nuclear physicist, civil engineer, mathematician
>and 26 other professions).
>
>His cultists also like to make the charge that the cult's public
>relations people, and not Hubbard, claimed that he was a nuclear
>physicist. Unfortunately for this shore story I had that claim by
>Hubbard in his own handwriting. When I showed this to Norman Starkey,
>at a time he was accusing me of saying that Hubbard rather than the
>PRs had made the false claim, Starkey blew a gasket, and I shortly
>thereafter, coming to grips with the madness of $cientology's top
>cultists, blew the org.
>
>The impression Hubbard sought to implant in the mind of anyone reading
>his statements promoting himself and his cult operation was that he
>was academically accomplished, scientifically sound, honest, credible,
>and properly degreed by the proper and usual academic institutions.
>What every person believing this guy and investing time and money in
>chasing his false promises must sooner or later come to grips with is
>that Hubbard was academically unaccomplished, scientifically unsound,
>dishonest, discredited, discreditable, and utterly undegreed by the
>proper and usual academic institutions.
>
>Gerry
>
>
>
Martin Hunt
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>>You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.
>>
>>You culties are just lousy at confronting facts, and liars too.
>
>Must make of you a cultie, then.
Scientology made you into a cultie, not I.
>And what lie did *I* make?
Lie by omission: you're white-washing Hubbard's failures in education.
That this man had the gall to go on and invent a "study tech" after
his dismal failures shows what an egomaniac he was. It tends to rub
off on his dupes, I see.
>You are full of shit.
No, I just took a crap; you're lying again. Is this TR-L?
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is evil to the core." - Jesse Prince, former core
Scientologist.
http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/prince/prince.htm
Martin Hunt
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>
>>Hubbard *did* lie repeatedly about his grades, when all is said
>>and done; he said he was a "CE" and a "Physicist", while, in reality,
>>he flunked out.
>
><sigh>
>
>To be a Physicist is not a grade, whatever "CE" means.
You need passing grades to become a physicist, eedjit. CE means
Civil Engineer; Hubbard was neither.
>Oh great! So grade=degree=education...
You're learning. Grades are needed to get a degree, and getting a
degree is a sign of a good education. You really are dense, aren't
you? Must be all that Study Tek[tm] bullshit.
>I see that you are totally unable to make appropriate distinctions.
...or evaluate differences and similarities? The fact that I do
not think in terms of the Hubbardian weltanschauung is a source
of comfort to me, let me assure you.
>You are a critic, right?
And you consider critics to be evil suppressives, right?
That's a hot button for you, right?
CRITICAL THOUGHT, 1. a symptom of an overt act having been
committed. (SH Spec 37, 6409C01) 2. a critical pc = a withhold
from the auditor. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
OK; what Hubby's saying is that critical thought is a bad thing.
It indicates a hidden criminal act. In reality, this redefinition
makes criticizing the cult or Hubby or anything Scientological
very hard for insiders, as it is reflected back on them as
something they did wrong. Critical thought is not the sort
of thing any good little Scientologist should be engaged in.
The train of thought in the brainwashed person's head might
go something like this: "I don't know about putting all these
people on rice and beans; that doesn't seem to meet adequate
nutritional standards. wait. I just had a critical thought;
what have I done? I must make it stop; I try and try, but
these critical thoughts keep coming back. There must really
be something wrong with me. I wish I had a million dollars
to go up the bridge and get this problem terminatedly handled."