TECH Ouside COS. OT 1 Success
basicbasic
> I ran the OT1 Expanded items and realized that I can
> know what is happening
> in the universes of people around me and how it is
> impacting me. Even more,
> that I can acknowledge it and change those
> conditions. It became real to me
> that I CAN read the meter and handle whatever comes
> up. I am chomping at
> the bit to bite off more bank and process it. Thank
> you, Maggie, Pat and
> Ron.
>
> By H.B.
For more info on services in the FZ Mail me,
Terril Park at bba...@hotmail.com
For more success stories or to join our discussion
list visit our website at:- http://www.fzaoint.org
John
"basicbasic" <basic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7acb5afd.02112...@posting.google.com...
> TECH Outside COS. OT 1 Success
>
>
> > I ran the OT1 Expanded items and realized that I can
> > know what is happening
> > in the universes of people around me and how it is
> > impacting me. Even more,
> > that I can acknowledge it and change those
> > conditions. It became real to me
> > that I CAN read the meter and handle whatever comes
> > up. I am chomping at
> > the bit to bite off more bank and process it. Thank
> > you, Maggie, Pat and
> > Ron.
> >
> > By H.B.
>
These "success" stories would seem to be hermetically sealed. "My success
with the tech is that I can now perform the tech better!". Effectively
meaningless.
roland.rashleigh-berry
riders and trainers and thereby pick the winners.
Go to the official Co$ if you want to "bite off more bank". They'll bite it
all away for you. In fact, you'll end up owing them.
"basicbasic" <basic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7acb5afd.02112...@posting.google.com...
basicbasic
I edit these stories very rarely, and then minimally
substituting initials for names for example.
The main success reads to me as along the lines of
understanding others.
Looks like he also had some meter instruction. He is in
touch with people very qualified to give that. It is a high skill.
Seems he improved a lot there also.
bb
Caroline Letkeman
wrote:
Without questioning whether this person's "win" could be proven
objectively, that someone would view such a state as desirable would
be by definition an aspiration along a Left Hand Path.
Scientology promotion for Hubbard's book "Science of Survival" also
mirrors the LHP motif:
"Your success tomorrow is as good as you can predict another's tone
level and human behavior today." (from SOS ad, International
Scientology News Issue 17 Š 2001 CSI)
Satanism is another identifiable left hand path. The criteria I use
for establishing such a path are given in Stephen E. Flowers' book,
Lords of the Left-Hand Path Š 1997. My notes are here:
http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/left-hand-path.html
A key difference between Scientology and "true" left hand paths,
however, is that Scientology fraudulently promotes itself as a right
hand path--for example, claiming to be compatible with Christianity.
Satanists are necessarily more honest than Scientologists.
Also, because the Scientologist customer is psychologically tricked
into buying Hubbard's pons asinorum, whether "freezone" or the higher
toll orthodox route, Scientology in any recognizable form is not a
true left hand path, except for those who are consciously doing the
psychological trickery and selling. Eventually, everyone who stays in
Scientology becomes a true left hand pathologist, because more and
more they participate consciously in the trickery, the sales and the
efforts to influence and change the conditions in and of others.
Trickery, fraudulent sales and domination become essential components
of what Scientologists come to see as spiritual betterment, as
progress on the "bridge to total freedom."
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
basicbasic
>
> Satanism is another identifiable left hand path. The criteria I use
> for establishing such a path are given in Stephen E. Flowers' book,
>
> http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/left-hand-path.html
I've read some of your pages and found them interesting. However
not a method of analysis I choose.
You talk of scn as being left hand path. I 'm not that familiar
in thinking in these terms. But a desire to be free and devine I
would say is part of what those who do scn want. Also a desire
for others to have that.
> A key difference between Scientology and "true" left hand paths,
> however, is that Scientology fraudulently promotes itself as a right
> hand path--for example, claiming to be compatible with Christianity.
> Satanists are necessarily more honest than Scientologists.
>
> Also, because the Scientologist customer is psychologically tricked
> into buying Hubbard's pons asinorum, whether "freezone" or the higher
> toll orthodox route,
"Psychologically tricked" is a generalisation. One that IMO is
mostly
untrue. A classic example is someone reads a book and wants to know
more.
Or something that used to be practiced, one gets auditing in Div 6 to
a win, at div 6 fixed fee. They may wish to continue.
Scientology in any recognizable form is not a
> true left hand path, except for those who are consciously doing the
> psychological trickery and selling. Eventually, everyone who stays in
> Scientology becomes a true left hand pathologist, because more and
> more they participate consciously in the trickery, the sales and the
> efforts to influence and change the conditions in and of others.
> Trickery, fraudulent sales and domination become essential components
> of what Scientologists come to see as spiritual betterment, as
> progress on the "bridge to total freedom."
COS is primarily managed as a business. It has hard sell
coupled with great pressure on stats, of the sort found in direct
financial sales for commission only, with the fervent conviction
one is doing the person a favour with this.
Perhaps this could be defended as standard business practice.
Not that I specially wish to. However there have been many examples,
of unethical practices. Long term this I'm sure has contributed to
the decline of COS.
You do not hear of these things at all on ARS and ACT with regard to
the freezone. On rare occasions on more esoteric forums one hear's
very occasionally of technical mistakes. Correctable of course.
Nothing though that compares to some of the stories I hear from
people new to our forum, and/or the freezone. Its quite common for ex
SO members for example to have had very little auditing. Even with
years of service. Some accounts of peoples experiences are hard
to believe.
Ralph Hilton spoke not so long ago about how he found people in
the FZ were easy and quick to audit. They are not bullied and
pressured
to have the tech. They are there because they want to be.
bb
Phil Scott
>Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Satanism is another identifiable left hand path. The criteria I use
>> for establishing such a path are given in Stephen E. Flowers' book,
>> Lords of the Left-Hand Path © 1997. My notes are here:
>>
>> http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/left-hand-path.html
>
> I've read some of your pages and found them interesting. However
>not a method of analysis I choose.
>
> You talk of scn as being left hand path. I 'm not that familiar
>in thinking in these terms. But a desire to be free and devine I
>would say is part of what those who do scn want. Also a desire
>for others to have that.
The fact that you are spiritually illiterate enough to fall for those slogans,
is of course your problem... once you get past the slogan stage and into
serious consideration of these issues, you begin to see the extreme error of the
left hand path Hubbub presented.
Lacking the will and intellectual capacity to do the study, research and
alignment...you will not ever get a clue...and you will be like a good majority
of mankind subject to being sucked in by the likes of L Rong Hubbard.
Phil Scott
Caroline Letkeman
wrote:
>Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Satanism is another identifiable left hand path. The criteria I use
>> for establishing such a path are given in Stephen E. Flowers' book,
>> Lords of the Left-Hand Path © 1997. My notes are here:
>>
>> http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/left-hand-path.html
>
> I've read some of your pages and found them interesting. However
>not a method of analysis I choose.
>
> You talk of scn as being left hand path. I 'm not that familiar
>in thinking in these terms.
The criteria that Stephen Flowers, who is an honest and confessing
follower of the left hand path, are not hard to understand or use.
They also obviate the need, for the sake of this argument, to
establish whether or not scn fits one or more of the many sets of
criteria for religion.
>But a desire to be free and devine I
>would say is part of what those who do scn want.
A desire to be free even criminals want. In fact, criminals want it
more than non-criminals. Especially criminals who are imprisoned
want to be free.
People on a right-hand path do not want to be free. In fact, they
submit to God as their Master.
From Lords of the Left-Hand Path:
<start fair use quote>
The universe is the totality of existence both known and unknown.
This is a complex model, divided into at least two components: 1) the
objective universe and 2) the subjective universe. The objective
universe is the natural cosmos--or world order. This is essentially
mechanical or organic, i.e. it is ruled by certain predictable laws
manifested in a time/space continuum. The objective universe,
including the laws governing it, can be equated with "nature" as well
as with "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
[...]
The ~subjective universe~ [~-~ = italicized] is the "world" of any
sentient entity within the universe. There are as many subjective
universes as there are sentient beings. The subjective universe is
the particularized manifestation of consciousness within the universe.
[...]
The Right-Hand Path and the Left-Hand Path © 1997 Stephen E. Flowers
The central question now becomes what is the way in which this
conscious, free soul is going to relate to, or seek to interact with,
the objective universe or the universe as a whole. The right-hand
path answers this question simply by saying that the subjective
universe must harmonize itself with the laws of the objective
universe--be that envisioned as God or nature. Humanity is to seek
knowledge of the law, and then apply itself to submitting to that law
in order to gain ultimate union with the objective universe, with God,
or nature. The right-hand path is the path of union with universal
reality (God or Nature). When this union is completed the individual
self will be annihilated, the individual will become one with the
divine or natural cosmic order. In this state the ego is destroyed as
"heaven" is entered or a nirvanic existence/non-existence is
"attained." This is clearly the goal of all orthodox
Judaic/Christian/Islamic or Buddhistic sects.
The left-hand path considers the position of humanity as it is; it
takes into account the manifest and deep-seated desire of each human
being to be a free, empowered, independent actor within his or her
world. The pleasure and pain made possible by independent existence
are seen as something to be embraced and as the most reasonable signs
of the highest, most noble destiny possible for humans to attain--a
kind of independent existence on a level usually thought of as
~divine~.
[...]
Essentially, the left-hand path is then the path of non-union with the
objective universe. It is the way of isolating consciousness within
the subjective universe and, in a state of self-imposed psychic
solitude, refining the soul or psyche to ever more perfect levels.
The objective universe is then made to harmonize itself with the will
of the individual psyche instead of the other way around. Where the
right-hand path is theo-centric (or certainly alleocentric--"other
centered"), the left-hand path is psychecentric, or
soul/self-centered. Those within the left-hand path may argue over
the nature of this self/ego/soul, but that the individual is the
epicenter of the path itself seems undisputed. An eternal separation
of the individual intelligence from the objective universe is sought
in the left-hand path. This amounts to an immortality of the
independent self consciousness moving within the objective universe
and interacting with it at will.
<end quote>
The desire to be divine, as in superhuman or godlike, is left-hand
path. It is the first of Stephen Flowers' criteria, which is
Self-Deification. Those who seek or follow right-hand paths do not
wish to be divine. They may or may not embrace the idea that they are
already, and have always been, in the depth of their being, *holy*, as
they were created by God. In a sense, understood with wisdom, this is
not very far removed from the idea that the heart of man is wicked. In
the right-hand path, all man's wickedness has not changed the Holiness
of God, nor the holiness of His creations, one bit.
Hubbard finally comes out and makes clear his left-hand path
philosophy on OT 3, where he states that the primary **error** is the
belief that we are one. After this point, there can be no further
treading on Hubbard's pons asinorum without acceptance of his "primary
error" and his BT vs. OT solution. That we are not ultimately a unity
is a left-hand path concept. The idea of "BTs and clusters" as the
source for degradation is a left-hand path concept. The end result of
"no more BTs" being "freedom from overwhelm" or later "cause over
life" is also a left-hand path concept.
Imo, the idea of "fair game" cannot exist legitimately in a right-
hand path. Only when the individual seeks self-divinity can attempts
to control, manipulate or destroy others be justified or, yes, even
mandated, by those who are more "divine" than thee.
> Also a desire
>for others to have that.
A desire for others to have freedom and/or divinity could be simply
naivete; it could also be the result of a good sales job similar to a
multi-level marketing scheme: "get others to want the soap," or
"create want;" or it could be the conscious effort to lure in warm
bodies to control and manipulate, or destroy in the event of
non-conformity to the Hubbardian pattern.
Scientology does not follow a true left-hand path, as the final result
for the treaders in the minds of the bridge operators is not "OT" or
any godlike state. The ideal for Scientologists is rather that they
become a "living embodiment of LRH technology." This is proven by
the fact that when people act outside of Scientology's self-serving
and self-perpetuating parameters, all the Scientologists' certificates
are canceled; they are no longer "OT" but are instead declared
"suppressive persons" and are subject to fair game. No, the
Scientology "OTs" are OT because they embody and conform to
*Hubbard's* ideals for them. Men are his slaves. And now, of course,
men are Miscavige's slaves. And they can become conscious slavers and
join Hubbard or Miscavige as "living embodiments" of slavers.
>> A key difference between Scientology and "true" left hand paths,
>> however, is that Scientology fraudulently promotes itself as a right
>> hand path--for example, claiming to be compatible with Christianity.
>> Satanists are necessarily more honest than Scientologists.
>>
>> Also, because the Scientologist customer is psychologically tricked
>> into buying Hubbard's pons asinorum, whether "freezone" or the higher
>> toll orthodox route,
>
> "Psychologically tricked" is a generalisation. One that IMO is
>mostly
> untrue.
No, it is true. And it is true for any number of reasons. 1.
Scientology simply cannot deliver on its promises. 2. Scientology is
not only not compatible with Christianity, it is violently
anti-Christian. 3. Scientology is not an ethical system, but
flagrantly unethical. 4. Scientology's "creeds" and "codes" with their
high human rights ideals are utter lies. 5. Scientology lies about its
being scientific, scientifically researched and subjected to rigorous
testing. Scientology and Hubbard lie about Hubbard. He was not a
nuclear physicist, a civil engineer, a war hero, a humanitarian, etc.
He didn't break up a black magic ring, but was into left-hand path sex
rituals. He wasn't honest; he was a pathological liar. The list of
Hubbard's and Scientology's lies and tricks goes on forever. Your
assertion that the psychological trickery is "mostly untrue," in the
face of overwhelming proof that it is true, demonstrates, perhaps even
scientifically, that you are either psychologically tricked yourself,
or you are consciously participating in the trickery to lure more
customers onto the left-hand bridge you're selling.
>A classic example is someone reads a book and wants to know
>more.
>Or something that used to be practiced, one gets auditing in Div 6 to
>a win, at div 6 fixed fee. They may wish to continue.
I disagree completely that what happens in scn dissemination, and/or
scn recruitment of any kind, is something other than psychological
trickery. Scientology's promises are false, and the enterprise
operates as a scam.
Even Hubbard stated that, at the entry level of Scientology, wogs
should have no rights--he characterizes these prospects, or marks, as
walking reactive minds.
From Hubbard Dissemination Course, Chapter 8C and Circuits ©1986 L.
Ron Hubbard Library
[8-C is a scn term that means control; used as a noun and a verb]
<start fair use quote>
If you have a hard time invading people's "privacy," you'll have a
hard time 8-Cing [controlling] them into a Book One co-audit or any
other Div 6 course, because you think the reactive mind has rights.
No! It does not have any rights. What has rights? That machinery?
Those dramatizations? Those computing circuits? Those things have
rights? The next thing you know we'll have laws out saying reactive
minds have a perfect right to kill everybody.
[...]
If you're going to have trouble 8-Cing this person, then you had
better go do some Upper Indoc [Scientology drills that train in
psychological and physical control of others] . There's no difficulty
in 8-Cing this person: circuits never talk back until you talk to
them; that's something to remember in handling people. If you were to
ignore the person and talk to the circuit, with the being sort of
sitting there as a spectator, more or less relaying what the circuit
said, that validated circuit would get stronger and bigger and more
powerful. The circuit would say more and more "won't" and "can't,"
until finally you'd hardly have anybody there at all. So when
somebody walked in, if you were to validate the circuits and
objections and get into it, you'd be talking to circuits, not people.
And the more you talked to those circuits, the more trouble you would
get into.
Instead, politely and courteously 8-C the situation straight through.
Never validate circuits.
<end quote>
According to Hubbard and Scientology disseminators, anything which
objects to being 8Ced onto their bridge is a component of a reactive
mind. (Or, if the disseminators are really in the know, a suppressive
person, or a suppressive BT.)
>
> Scientology in any recognizable form is not a
>> true left hand path, except for those who are consciously doing the
>> psychological trickery and selling. Eventually, everyone who stays in
>> Scientology becomes a true left hand pathologist, because more and
>> more they participate consciously in the trickery, the sales and the
>> efforts to influence and change the conditions in and of others.
>> Trickery, fraudulent sales and domination become essential components
>> of what Scientologists come to see as spiritual betterment, as
>> progress on the "bridge to total freedom."
>
> COS is primarily managed as a business. It has hard sell
>coupled with great pressure on stats, of the sort found in direct
>financial sales for commission only, with the fervent conviction
>one is doing the person a favour with this.
Yes it is managed as a business. Yes it uses hard sell
coupled with great pressure on stats. But no, the people running
Scientology are not fervently convinced they are doing people a favor
with this, any more than the mafia thinks they are doing their victims
a favor with their brand of racketeering. David Miscavige knows full
well that he and his thugs will use the secrets of every person
entering their doors to extort and destroy them. They will use their
customers' own money to ruin them utterly. Miscavige knows his
money-back guarantee is a complete lie. No, the people running
Scientology are criminals, as Vicki Aznaran said, day in and day out.
You are supporting criminals. You are supporting pc folder culling,
lies, theft, fraud and abuses so shocking the abusers should be locked
up.
>
> Perhaps this could be defended as standard business practice.
>Not that I specially wish to. However there have been many examples,
>of unethical practices. Long term this I'm sure has contributed to
>the decline of COS.
>
> You do not hear of these things at all on ARS and ACT with regard to
>the freezone. On rare occasions on more esoteric forums one hear's
>very occasionally of technical mistakes. Correctable of course.
The practice of Scientology in any recognizable form or with whatever
"cut-off" date of purity, is as dangerous and as harmful as the mind
that hatched it. To "obtain" the results promised by Hubbard a
Scientologist must be dishonest. Such pervasive dishonesty must
result in harm and subject anyone associated with the enterprise to
dangers. Hubbard's promises cannot be taken out of Scientology no
matter who practices it in what organization or zone.
> Nothing though that compares to some of the stories I hear from
>people new to our forum, and/or the freezone. Its quite common for ex
>SO members for example to have had very little auditing. Even with
>years of service. Some accounts of peoples experiences are hard
>to believe.
That's good.
>
> Ralph Hilton spoke not so long ago about how he found people in
>the FZ were easy and quick to audit. They are not bullied and
>pressured
>to have the tech. They are there because they want to be.
To prove that that is true, let's do an experiment. Let's take the
promises out of Scientology. Tell everyone the truth. Tell them that
Scientology doesn't work. Tell them that all the promises of
increased IQ, greater awareness and divinity are untrue. Then see
whether or not they still want to be there.
I am not there because I now know that the promises of Scientology are
untrue. And I have no desire to participate in defrauding people with
Scientology's promises that I know are untrue. Therefore, I must
conclude that people *are* there because they do not yet know that the
promises of Scientology are untrue; or they are consciously
participating in the fraud.
If it is stated organization-wide that the promises of Scientology are
untrue, this would necessarily bring those Scientologists who are
consciously participating in the fraud to not be there, because there
would be no more fraud in which to participate. Then we would be able
to see whether the rest of the Scientologists there still remained
there, and thus are there, not because they have been lured there with
false promises, but because they want to be there.
So will you participate in this scientific experiment with me? Just
admit to yourself that the promises of Scientology are not true (which
should not be hard, because they aren't) and see whether or not you're
still there.
>
> bb
ladayla
>
>On 22 Nov 2002 17:31:57 -0800, basic...@yahoo.com (basicbasic) wrote:
>
>>Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Satanism is another identifiable left hand path. The criteria I use
>>> for establishing such a path are given in Stephen E. Flowers' book,
>>> Lords of the Left-Hand Path © 1997. My notes are here:
>>>
>>> http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/left-hand-path.html
>>
>> I've read some of your pages and found them interesting. However
>>not a method of analysis I choose.
>>
>> You talk of scn as being left hand path. I 'm not that familiar
>>in thinking in these terms. But a desire to be free and devine I
>>would say is part of what those who do scn want. Also a desire
>>for others to have that.
I would say that if you can't properly spell a word, then you do not fully
understand it. DIVINE. Look it up.
Reminds me of a letter I got fairly recently from Flag. I had been asked to come
audit at Flag , and had responded with a query as to what the 'exchange' was.
The answer in a follow-up letter was the "prestidge" (sic) and "privilidge"
(sic) of being a Flag auditor.
Both words spelled wrongly, and obviously misunderstood.To say nothing of her
having sent it to the wrong person in the first place.
la
basicbasic
> On 22 Nov 2002 17:31:57 -0800, basic...@yahoo.com (basicbasic)
> wrote:
>
> >Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
Hi Caroline,
It would be most impolite to not answer such a lengthy
and detailed post. We have completely different viewpoints, and I'm
sure will never reconsile them. So just pleasant conversation.
> Hubbard finally comes out and makes clear his left-hand path
> philosophy on OT 3,
I would have thought Factors and axioms.
where he states that the primary **error** is the
> belief that we are one. After this point, there can be no further
> treading on Hubbard's pons asinorum without acceptance of his "primary
> error" and his BT vs. OT solution. That we are not ultimately a unity
> is a left-hand path concept. The idea of "BTs and clusters" as the
> source for degradation is a left-hand path concept. The end result of
> "no more BTs" being "freedom from overwhelm" or later "cause over
> life" is also a left-hand path concept.
The categorisations of LHP and RHP seem reasonable. Whats much more
important is if an idea is useful or workable.
> Imo, the idea of "fair game" cannot exist legitimately in a right-
> hand path. Only when the individual seeks self-divinity can attempts
> to control, manipulate or destroy others be justified or, yes, even
> mandated, by those who are more "divine" than thee.
The white house hawks probably as a class don't seek divinity.
They are happy to fairgame large parts of the globe.
> > Also a desire
> >for others to have that.
>
> A desire for others to have freedom and/or divinity could be simply
> naivete; it could also be the result of a good sales job similar to a
> multi-level marketing scheme: "get others to want the soap," or
> "create want;" or it could be the conscious effort to lure in warm
> bodies to control and manipulate, or destroy in the event of
> non-conformity to the Hubbardian pattern.
The american constitution, the brotherhood of man, and such concepts
are applicable.
> Scientology does not follow a true left-hand path, as the final result
> for the treaders in the minds of the bridge operators is not "OT" or
> any godlike state. The ideal for Scientologists is rather that they
> become a "living embodiment of LRH technology." This is proven by
> the fact that when people act outside of Scientology's self-serving
> and self-perpetuating parameters, all the Scientologists' certificates
> are canceled; they are no longer "OT" but are instead declared
> "suppressive persons" and are subject to fair game. No, the
> Scientology "OTs" are OT because they embody and conform to
> *Hubbard's* ideals for them. Men are his slaves. And now, of course,
> men are Miscavige's slaves. And they can become conscious slavers and
> join Hubbard or Miscavige as "living embodiments" of slavers.
Your sort of stating the common FZ concept that its not possible to be
OT in COS.
> > "Psychologically tricked" is a generalisation. One that IMO is
> >mostly
> > untrue.
>
> No, it is true. And it is true for any number of reasons. 1.
> Scientology simply cannot deliver on its promises.
2. Scientology is
> not only not compatible with Christianity, it is violently
> anti-Christian. 3. Scientology is not an ethical system, but
> flagrantly unethical. 4. Scientology's "creeds" and "codes" with their
> high human rights ideals are utter lies. 5. Scientology lies about its
> being scientific, scientifically researched and subjected to rigorous
> testing. Scientology and Hubbard lie about Hubbard. He was not a
> nuclear physicist, a civil engineer, a war hero, a humanitarian, etc.
> He didn't break up a black magic ring, but was into left-hand path sex
> rituals. He wasn't honest; he was a pathological liar. The list of
> Hubbard's and Scientology's lies and tricks goes on forever. Your
> assertion that the psychological trickery is "mostly untrue," in the
> face of overwhelming proof that it is true, demonstrates, perhaps even
> scientifically, that you are either psychologically tricked yourself,
> or you are consciously participating in the trickery to lure more
> customers onto the left-hand bridge you're selling.
Hubbard had flaws. COS has become an orwellian nightmare.
I and others find the tech works.
> > Scientology in any recognizable form is not a
> >> true left hand path, except for those who are consciously doing the
> >> psychological trickery and selling. Eventually, everyone who stays in
> >> Scientology becomes a true left hand pathologist, because more and
> >> more they participate consciously in the trickery, the sales and the
> >> efforts to influence and change the conditions in and of others.
> >> Trickery, fraudulent sales and domination become essential components
> >> of what Scientologists come to see as spiritual betterment, as
> >> progress on the "bridge to total freedom."
I post mostly spontaneously, unasked for success stories. People then
come to us.
This is not trickery, fraudulent, or domineering. Not even
hard sell. I make no money from this. In fact it costs me money and time.
> The practice of Scientology in any recognizable form or with whatever
> "cut-off" date of purity, is as dangerous and as harmful as the mind
> that hatched it. To "obtain" the results promised by Hubbard a
> Scientologist must be dishonest. Such pervasive dishonesty must
> result in harm and subject anyone associated with the enterprise to
> dangers. Hubbard's promises cannot be taken out of Scientology no
> matter who practices it in what organization or zone.
That is not what myself and others have found.
> So will you participate in this scientific experiment with me? Just
> admit to yourself that the promises of Scientology are not true (which
> should not be hard, because they aren't) and see whether or not you're
> still there.
A non starter I'm afraid. Our truths are different.
I am curious that you could change your viewpoint after so many
years and so much study. I mean about tech. We agree about COS.
> > bb
Caroline Letkeman
wrote:
>Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<igqutu4nvdomuume9...@4ax.com>...
>> On 22 Nov 2002 17:31:57 -0800, basic...@yahoo.com (basicbasic)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
>
>Hi Caroline,
Hi bb,
> It would be most impolite to not answer such a lengthy
> and detailed post. We have completely different viewpoints, and I'm
>sure will never reconsile them.
Never say never. oops.
It is impossible that we have completely different viewpoints. In
fact, if I agreed with you that we have completely different
viewpoints, we clearly would not. You and I both agree, don't we,
that Scientology is a left-hand path, as opposed to a right-hand path?
>So just pleasant conversation.
Make mine a double latte please, and you can sit by the door, in case
I bolt. <g> You were saying...
>
>> Hubbard finally comes out and makes clear his left-hand path
>> philosophy on OT 3,
>
> I would have thought Factors and axioms.
I haven't done much work on the axioms since leaving, but I analyzed
his "humbly tendered" Factors against Crowley's " Naples Arrangement."
A totally botched job of plagiarism--Hubbard's rework obscured what
philosophical integrity was there initially. I made some notes about
that some time ago, but it hasn't been webbed yet.
But yes, given the opportunity to analyze Scientology material against
the LHP/RHP criteria, I have come to know Hubbard did express his LHP
even in the basic books, though in hidden ways.
There are, for example, references in 8-8008 that a critically
thinking person could possibly distinguish as LHP concepts:
From 8-8008 © 1989 L. Ron Hubbard Library:
<start fair use quote>
The concept of infinite mind is not new, but it has always been
assigned to another beingness than self. The preclear will be found
to be intensely aberrated who has sworn allegiance to some infinite
beingness and has then agreed that all space belonged to that
beingess, and that the rights of creation and energy belonged to that
beingness and did not belong to self. This is a handy and, to the
very badly aberrated, acceptable method of denying any responsibility
for anything. It is also the shortest route toward I AM NOT.
Infinite mind is individualistic. All mankind does not depend upon or
share a portion of the infinite mind. On the contrary, the highest
individualism attainable is the individualism of the infinite mind.
It was beyond the power and grasp of the intellect applying itself to
the field of philosophy, to conceive a multiplicity of infinite minds,
and these commentators had agreed sufficiently with the MEST universe
to conceive that the only space was the MEST universe space and they
could not understand that this was an illusion, and that the existence
of space does not depend upon existing space.
<end quote>
The following is another example from the same book.
<start fair use quote>
There are gods above all other gods. Anything which has wide
acceptance and has been successful, wherever suns shine and planets
swing, is based upon some fundamental truth. There is no argument
here against the existence of a Supreme Being or any devaluation
intended. It is that amongst gods, there are many false gods elected
to power and position for the benefit and use of those who would
control and make into the basest slaves the most sublime beings. As
an ancient Greek said, when one has examined the descriptions of God
written by men, he finds in that Being at best a thirst for
self-aggrandizement and adulation which would be disgusting in any
man. Man has sought to make his God a god of mud because the early
Greek and even more distant peoples made idols in the form of men by
which they thought to entrap the beingness of some local divinity who
troubled them; more modern man has fallen into the error of making God
into the body of a ~Homo sapiens~ and posting him somewhere on high
with a craving for vengeance and a pettiness in punishment matched
only by the degradation of ~Homo sapiens~ himself. [~-~=italicized]
There are gods above all other gods, and gods beyond the gods of
universes, but it were better, far better, to be a raving madman in
his cell than to be a thing with the ego, cruelty and jealous lust
that base religions have set up to make men grovel down.
<end quote>
Even Keeping Scientology Working #1 gives a hint of Hubbard's LHP, in
that he asserts that the common denominator of mankind is the
"reactive mind."
From HCO PL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working Series 1 ©
1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library:
<start fair use quote>
The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans
without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in
common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person
the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are ~individual~ and
seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise
~above~ an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get
anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth
a hell--and if you were looking for hell and found Earth, it would
certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of
man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the
means of frying every man, woman and child on the planet. That is
bank. That is the result of Collective-Thought Agreement. The
decent, pleasant things on this planet come from ~individual~ actions
and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that
matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by "public opinion" media.
Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.
Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and
then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is
only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive.
<end quote>
Early in Scientology, the idea gets inculcated that homo sapiens are
too aberrated to fish themselves out of the trap they find themselves
in, the reactive mind. But, as you know, Hubbard claimed that he -- up
to that time presumably a homo sap himself -- was able to do it;
although exactly how was to be for us all a big juicy mystery dagwood.
Triple baloney. "We will not speculate here [...] how I came to rise
above the bank." (KSW #1)
bb, you snipped one such reference in your answer--here it is again:
From Hubbard Dissemination Course, Chapter 8C and Circuits ©1986 L.
Ron Hubbard Library
[8-C is a scn term that means control; used as a noun and a verb]
<start fair use quote>
If you have a hard time invading people's "privacy," you'll have a
hard time 8-Cing them into a Book One co-audit or any other Div 6
course, because you think the reactive mind has rights. No! It does
not have any rights. What has rights? That machinery? Those
dramatizations? Those computing circuits? Those things have rights?
The next thing you know we'll have laws out saying reactive minds have
a perfect right to kill everybody.
[...]
If you're going to have trouble 8-Cing this person, then you had
better go do some Upper Indoc [Scientology drills that train in
psychological and physical control of others] . There's no difficulty
in 8-Cing this person: circuits never talk back until you talk to
them; that's something to remember in handling people. If you were to
ignore the person and talk to the circuit, with the being sort of
sitting there as a spectator, more or less relaying what the circuit
said, that validated circuit would get stronger and bigger and more
powerful. The circuit would say more and more "won't" and "can't,"
until finally you'd hardly have anybody there at all. So when
somebody walked in, if you were to validate their circuits and
objections and get into it, you would be talking to circuits, not
people. And the more you talked to those circuits, the more trouble
you would get into.
Instead, politely and courteously 8-C the situation straight through.
Never validate circuits.
<end quote>
Part of the bait and switch in studying Hubbard's cryptic LHP
references in the materials available early in the indoctrination is
the idea that the fullest, deepest meaning of what Hubbard is talking
about is only realized later on in the "upper levels."
I did not join Scientology in 1975 because I thought, believed or was
told it was a religion. Probably like the majority of recruits, I had
no formal grounding in religious philosophy, and my lay education in
the faith of my family was not sufficient to alert me or protect me
from the Hubbardian scam. I got into Scientology via a ticket I was
handed on the street that promoted getting the "profession of [my]
choice," and offered "skill and knowledge." This was the context into
which I was lured, and was the context in which I took my basic
training and was indoctrinated.
Scientology was promoted to me as a scientifically researched
technology. I am fairly certain that you promote it as that too. As
you know, Scientology organization training does not include any
comparative study, or permit the critical thinking necessary to do
such a study, so when new Scientologists do Scientology in the context
of handling their "ruin," the bigger picture of what the subject is
all about doesn't really dawn on them. Scientology bait and switch is
a progression of things that get fed the person very "gradiently"
until they are completely on the hook. They are hooked when they say
"Scientology works."
In practise, it is possible to avoid Hubbard's underlying left-hand
path philosophy with Dianetics and Scientology auditing until OT 3,
because it really is not presented internally as a religious or
spiritual path, but as a scientific and technological study. This is
not to say that at every point on the "Bridge," Hubbard does not
berate and erode RHP philosophical concepts, while, asserting for PR
consumption for wogs that scn is compatible with, e.g., Christianity.
But all that, at least to me, was somehow a background process, not
anything that I was ever given the opportunity to bring into view and
analyze. It is, of course, absolutely impossible to honestly study or
criticize Scientology, down at the level necessary to determine that
it is Hubbard's left-hand path, while inside the organization.
What I was trying to get across in my earlier post, though, was that
you can audit engrams as psychological components and still maintain a
RHP philosophy of sorts, but at the point of indoctrination into the
OT vs. the Volcano scenario, there is no way to hold on to a RHP
philosophy while at the same time "consciously" exorcising live beings
in order to go "OT."
>
> where he states that the primary **error** is the
>> belief that we are one. After this point, there can be no further
>> treading on Hubbard's pons asinorum without acceptance of his "primary
>> error" and his BT vs. OT solution. That we are not ultimately a unity
>> is a left-hand path concept. The idea of "BTs and clusters" as the
>> source for degradation is a left-hand path concept. The end result of
>> "no more BTs" being "freedom from overwhelm" or later "cause over
>> life" is also a left-hand path concept.
>
> The categorisations of LHP and RHP seem reasonable. Whats much more
>important is if an idea is useful or workable.
In order to find the LHP/RHP criteria useful or workable, you must be
willing to examine and compare the Scientology philosophy with other
philosophies.
Scientologists simply have not even applied their own criteria. They
have never examined how useful or workable the idea is that
Scientology doesn't work. Try it. See if you can do it. I have found
that the most useful, workable Scientology idea is that it doesn't
work. Just think what a money and time saver that is.
>
>> Imo, the idea of "fair game" cannot exist legitimately in a right-
>> hand path. Only when the individual seeks self-divinity can attempts
>> to control, manipulate or destroy others be justified or, yes, even
>> mandated, by those who are more "divine" than thee.
>
> The white house hawks probably as a class don't seek divinity.
>They are happy to fairgame large parts of the globe.
Then you don't understand the left-hand path. Hubbard's "men are my
slaves," his classic LHP mantra, implies that men are also his cannon
fodder, his bombs' human targets, or his raw meat. Hubbard was a
predator, not unlike hawks everywhere. Individual "divinity" is
achieved, the insane LHPer thinks, by the enslaving or fair gaming or
quiet, sorrowless disposing of less divine saps.
>> > Also a desire
>> >for others to have that.
>>
>> A desire for others to have freedom and/or divinity could be simply
>> naivete; it could also be the result of a good sales job similar to a
>> multi-level marketing scheme: "get others to want the soap," or
>> "create want;" or it could be the conscious effort to lure in warm
>> bodies to control and manipulate, or destroy in the event of
>> non-conformity to the Hubbardian pattern.
>
> The american constitution, the brotherhood of man, and such concepts
>are applicable.
Whoa Nellie. The american constitution and the brotherhood of man
are applicable to what?
>
>> Scientology does not follow a true left-hand path, as the final result
>> for the treaders in the minds of the bridge operators is not "OT" or
>> any godlike state. The ideal for Scientologists is rather that they
>> become a "living embodiment of LRH technology." This is proven by
>> the fact that when people act outside of Scientology's self-serving
>> and self-perpetuating parameters, all the Scientologists' certificates
>> are canceled; they are no longer "OT" but are instead declared
>> "suppressive persons" and are subject to fair game. No, the
>> Scientology "OTs" are OT because they embody and conform to
>> *Hubbard's* ideals for them. Men are his slaves. And now, of course,
>> men are Miscavige's slaves. And they can become conscious slavers and
>> join Hubbard or Miscavige as "living embodiments" of slavers.
>
> Your sort of stating the common FZ concept that its not possible to be
>OT in COS.
Well what I mean to emphasize is that it is not possible to be OT with
any recognizable form of Scientology and/or Dianetics. I.e., there is
no such thing as "OT" and Scientology does not work.
>> > "Psychologically tricked" is a generalisation. One that IMO is
>> >mostly
>> > untrue.
>>
>> No, it is true. And it is true for any number of reasons. 1.
>> Scientology simply cannot deliver on its promises.
> 2. Scientology is
>> not only not compatible with Christianity, it is violently
>> anti-Christian. 3. Scientology is not an ethical system, but
>> flagrantly unethical. 4. Scientology's "creeds" and "codes" with their
>> high human rights ideals are utter lies. 5. Scientology lies about its
>> being scientific, scientifically researched and subjected to rigorous
>> testing. Scientology and Hubbard lie about Hubbard. He was not a
>> nuclear physicist, a civil engineer, a war hero, a humanitarian, etc.
>> He didn't break up a black magic ring, but was into left-hand path sex
>> rituals. He wasn't honest; he was a pathological liar. The list of
>> Hubbard's and Scientology's lies and tricks goes on forever. Your
>> assertion that the psychological trickery is "mostly untrue," in the
>> face of overwhelming proof that it is true, demonstrates, perhaps even
>> scientifically, that you are either psychologically tricked yourself,
>> or you are consciously participating in the trickery to lure more
>> customers onto the left-hand bridge you're selling.
>
> Hubbard had flaws. COS has become an orwellian nightmare.
>I and others find the tech works.
You have obviously never discovered how useful and workable the datum,
knowledge or truth is that Scientology does not work.
>> > Scientology in any recognizable form is not a
>> >> true left hand path, except for those who are consciously doing the
>> >> psychological trickery and selling. Eventually, everyone who stays in
>> >> Scientology becomes a true left hand pathologist, because more and
>> >> more they participate consciously in the trickery, the sales and the
>> >> efforts to influence and change the conditions in and of others.
>> >> Trickery, fraudulent sales and domination become essential components
>> >> of what Scientologists come to see as spiritual betterment, as
>> >> progress on the "bridge to total freedom."
>
> I post mostly spontaneously, unasked for success stories. People then
>come to us.
>
> This is not trickery, fraudulent, or domineering. Not even
>hard sell. I make no money from this. In fact it costs me money and time.
But you see, it does not make one bit of difference to the mind that
is being messed with whether the practitioner is getting paid $10/week
or $2000/hour. It doesn't make the mind any less messed with.
>
>> The practice of Scientology in any recognizable form or with whatever
>> "cut-off" date of purity, is as dangerous and as harmful as the mind
>> that hatched it. To "obtain" the results promised by Hubbard a
>> Scientologist must be dishonest. Such pervasive dishonesty must
>> result in harm and subject anyone associated with the enterprise to
>> dangers. Hubbard's promises cannot be taken out of Scientology no
>> matter who practices it in what organization or zone.
>
> That is not what myself and others have found.
>
>> So will you participate in this scientific experiment with me? Just
>> admit to yourself that the promises of Scientology are not true (which
>> should not be hard, because they aren't) and see whether or not you're
>> still there.
>
> A non starter I'm afraid. Our truths are different.
Too bad.
But you demonstrate here a left-hand path indoctrination. A follower
of the right-hand path knows that there is one truth. Hubbard's
implant in the Scientological mind that "what is true is what is true
for you" is a left-hand path aspiration. But in Scientology, which is
not an "honest" left-hand path, but a high-priced, dangerous fraud,
this implanted "truth" is only a placeholder that permits further
Hubbardian programming.
Otherwise, how could it also be true for you that you have a reactive
mind that needs erasing? That is, if what's true is what's true for
you, why on earth would you bother having a reactive mind? Why would
you bother spending years, or even hours, or even a minute, trying to
erase it? Why would you bother paying anything to do so? Why bother
becoming a living embodiment of LRH technology?
>
> I am curious that you could change your viewpoint after so many
>years and so much study. I mean about tech. We agree about COS.
I'm working on my story. My getting clear of Scientology brainwashing
has been a process, and every word I write here on a.r.s. moves that
process along.
But really, when you think about it, the change of viewpoint is very
simple and almost instantaneous. As a Scientologist I had the
viewpoint, which you still have, that Scientology works. To change
that viewpoint, it is simply necessary to recognize the truth that
underlies that viewpoint. It is simply necessary to recognize that
Scientology does not work. Again, I suggest you try it.
Since I recognized that Scientology does not work, even though
bombarded here with statements by indoctrinated people, such as
yourself, insisting that it does work, even though still receiving all
the propaganda the cult churns out filled with attestations of the
"tech's" workability and stunning results, and even though I still
must read Hubbard's "tech" in my research, I have never had a reason
to question my certainty that it does not work. My research, and every
word I have read here on a.r.s. or anywhere, has further convinced me
that not only does Scientology "tech" not work, but it cannot work. It
can never "as-is" the basic truth that it does not work.
I am convinced that the people running Scientology, and Hubbard
himself, knew, when they sucked me in, when they ripped me off of $61K
and 24 years of my life, and now when they have declared me fair game,
that Scientology does not work and that they're running a criminal
scam. When you say that Scientology works, without the integrity to
subject it to any proof, you are supporting a criminal enterprise. So
does every freezoner and every do-it-yourself or renegade
Scientologist.
Prove to me that the "tech" raises IQ a point per hour in anyone. Even
if it raised IQ only half a point per hour I'd have an IQ well over
1000.
Prove to me that "clear" has the attributes Hubbard promised in DMSMH.
Prove to me that an OT 7 is "cause over life."
You cannot. Scientology is a criminal fraud. Hubbard was a criminal.
David Miscavige is a criminal. And you are supporting them and their
criminality when you state that you "find the tech works."
basicbasic
Hi Caroline,
>
> Make mine a double latte please, and you can sit by the door, in case
> I bolt. <g> You were saying...
Well I wasn't going to ask you your crimes or reg you or anything.
:)
Feel free to sit by the door. And I'll have a dry
cappacino.
> I haven't done much work on the axioms since leaving, but I analyzed
> his "humbly tendered" Factors against Crowley's " Naples Arrangement."
Sounds interesting.
> In order to find the LHP/RHP criteria useful or workable, you must be
> willing to examine and compare the Scientology philosophy with other
> philosophies.
I wasn't sufficiently clear. I'll restate. Its
not important to me if an idea is categorised as LHP or RHP. The
importance is whether the idea is useful.
They
> have never examined how useful or workable the idea is that
> Scientology doesn't work. Try it. See if you can do it.
So OT 2, wilder than Alice's adventures. I examined
it by runnin it. Had no idea if it would work.
It did.
> >> Imo, the idea of "fair game" cannot exist legitimately in a right-
> >> hand path> >
> Then you don't understand the left-hand path.
Well, maybe not. Fundamentalists of all sorts
have been known to fairgame. They certainly include
RHP. Crusades, inquisition. Jihad.
Fair game is wrong, so is disconnection.
We can agree on that.
bb
Caroline Letkeman
wrote:
>Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message > >Hi Caroline,
>>
>> Hi bb,
>
>Hi Caroline,
>>
>> Make mine a double latte please, and you can sit by the door, in case
>> I bolt. <g> You were saying...
>
> Well I wasn't going to ask you your crimes or reg you or anything.
>:)
>Feel free to sit by the door. And I'll have a dry
>cappacino.
>
>> I haven't done much work on the axioms since leaving, but I analyzed
>> his "humbly tendered" Factors against Crowley's " Naples Arrangement."
>
> Sounds interesting.
>
>> In order to find the LHP/RHP criteria useful or workable, you must be
>> willing to examine and compare the Scientology philosophy with other
>> philosophies.
>
> I wasn't sufficiently clear. I'll restate. Its
>not important to me if an idea is categorised as LHP or RHP. The
>importance is whether the idea is useful.
And as I said, although this sounds nice, and is something every
Scientology mouths, it is not something any Scientologist can really
do.
Just look at the inanity my proposal produced in your "thinking."
>
>They
>> have never examined how useful or workable the idea is that
>> Scientology doesn't work. Try it. See if you can do it.
>
>So OT 2, wilder than Alice's adventures. I examined
>it by runnin it. Had no idea if it would work.
>It did.
It did what though? Produced a point per hour increase in your IQ?
Or "worked" because the needle moved and the tone arm went up and
down?
When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud.
That is what "Scientology working" means.
The material of OT2 consists of long lists of dichotomies (pairs of
opposing psychological concepts) that Hubbard says were implanted
into the person ages ago. But the "implant" is not addressed
directly--OT 2 auditing supposedly desensitizes the dichotomies by
repeating them over and over in session, to "flatten" them. In
reality, it causes psychological dissociation.
"dissociation: Psychiatry. A psychological defense mechanism in which
specific, anxiety-provoking thoughts, emotions, or physical sensations
are separated from the rest of the psyche." The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by
Houghton Mifflin Company.
In a confidential issue, Hubbard said that OT 2 is run to "separate
out the thetan" so that s/he can find and run BTs on the next level,
OT 3. Thus, Hubbard knew that the actual function of OT 2 is to
further fracture the psyche--it causes a schizoid condition such that
when the person gets to the next "OT level," his/her projections can
be viewed as separate entities, separate living beings. These "living
beings" then get blown off on OT 3.
"Wilder than Alice's adventures" is not unbelievable to me.
Brainwashing works.
>> >> Imo, the idea of "fair game" cannot exist legitimately in a right-
>> >> hand path> >
>> Then you don't understand the left-hand path.
>
> Well, maybe not. Fundamentalists of all sorts
>have been known to fairgame. They certainly include
>RHP. Crusades, inquisition. Jihad.
>
> Fair game is wrong, so is disconnection.
So is Scientology.
>We can agree on that.
>
> bb
-----------------------------
Fluffygirl
<snip>
BB,
And here you have it. It's not just a point on which two people can agree to
disagree. No, it's "criminal".
You, in following the dictates of your conscience and what you have
experienced, are, in Caroline's words, "criminal".
It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just buzzwords, used so often by
some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this context and in
similar contexts.
In of themselves, denotatively speaking, those words aren't innately
meaningless but in the past decade or two on forums like these, they've
become so.
You were clearly trying to establish some points of agreement and also
create a civilized agreement to disagree on other points,but Gerry-line,
oops, I mean Caroline, has, by her words, shown that this is not where her
preferences lie in this matter.
Anything other than "it's all crap" is pretty much going to be condemned by
this (these) individual(s).
But all the same, your posts to such people aren't a waste of time or
bandwidth being that they are examplars of tact, tolerance and what we
Scn'ists call "pan determinism".
You also aquit yourself quite well as a spokesperson for the Scn philosophy,
probably better than anyone in the church does these days. ;->
C
Warrior
>>
>> It did what though? Produced a point per hour increase in your IQ?
>> Or "worked" because the needle moved and the tone arm went up and
>> down?
>>
>> When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud.
>> That is what "Scientology working" means.
In article <3de3...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl" says...
>
>And here you have it. It's not just a point on which two people can
>agree to disagree. No, it's "criminal".
Keep in mind to which noun (fraud, meaning Scientology) the adjective
(criminal) applies.
>You, in following the dictates of your conscience and what you have
>experienced, are, in Caroline's words, "criminal".
Nope. You've attempted to twist Caroline's statement. You've just
incorrectly characterized Caroline's usage of the word "criminal" as
a noun, and you compounded your illogic further by incorrectly attrib-
uting her words as if they applied to bb. Caroline clearly said,
"When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud."
I too helped forward the criminal fraud of Scientology by making
"outstanding contributions" while I was a staff member.
(See http://warrior.offlines.org/19800313lrhrecognition.jpg
and http://warrior.offlines.org/19810618bdgame1stplace_sm.jpg )
True, some individuals who forward criminal fraud are themselves
criminals; but others are mere pawns or dupes who have been
unwittingly used (by means of deception) to forward criminal fraud.
>It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
I believe Caroline would herself admit that she too once forwarded
the Scientology fraud until she realized she was forwarding a fraud.
I once participated in money laundering (a crime) by Scientology
without realizing it. I had been told an "acceptable truth" (a lie)
as to why Scientology was transferring money into overseas bank
accounts in Luxembourg. I did not realize at the time that I was
participating in a criminal act (tax evasion). Nevertheless, I did
unknowingly help forward and carry out Hubbard's and Scientology's
"Command Intention" to commit fraud. My participation in the fraud
was obtained by telling me an "acceptable truth". I was told the
reason Scientology needed to transfer its reserves overseas was because
they had so much money in U.S. banks that they could no longer find
a bank into which to deposit their reserves *and* ensure they were
covered by the F.D.I.C. guarantee, since they had so much money in so
many banks that it was no longer possible to find a bank at which the
F.D.I.C. limit on the insuring of funds (at that time $50,000) had not
already reached the maximum. This was a lie. I didn't know it at the
time, and I had no reason to believe the Assistant Guardian Finance
would lie to me, so I did not question his "acceptable truth". Does
the fact of my ignorance mean I was not helping to forward a criminal
fraud? Clearly I did unknowingly participate in fraud.
>In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just buzzwords, used so
>often by some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this
>context and in similar contexts.
Caroline has more than adequately explained why she believes Scientology
is a criminal fraud (I agree with her), as well as how Scientology
engages in brainwashing (again, I agree with her). I have no trouble at
all understanding how *meaningful* Caroline's words are.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
Zinj
says...
Enter the 'tech' of victimology.
It requires a less than intellectually honest reading of Caroline's to
jump from 'forwarding a criminal fraud' to 'you are criminal'.
Since I know you're intelligent enough to see the difference, I'm left
with the assumption that the 'point' of this particular game is to
disingenuously recognize an 'insult' against BB, then quickly position
yourself as his 'friend and defender' against the 'enemy', in this case
Caroline (while at the *same* time, getting in a deliberate jab at Gerry,
and DA'ing Caroline as being merely a facet of the Gerry monolith,
unable to express an opinion of her own, so, a bit of backhanded ad-
hominem at that).
A hyperbolic bit of 'tech', Scn or political, at best.
But, let's look at Caroline's statement. Is claiming that 'Scientology
Works' actually forwarding a 'criminal fraud' at all? And in all cases?
At least on its face, Caroline seems to think so, although I doubt she'd
characterize it in itself as 'criminal', but rather, deluded or mistaken
or ill-advised.
Of course, the crux of the matter is 'what is the Scientology' in
Scientology Works?
Taken on the whole, it *could* possibly most accurately be presented as
'the sum total of the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard'. You have however made
practically a cottage industry out of 'redefining' *your* flavor of
Scientology to be 'the sum total of Hubbardian dogma, variously culled
for the most offensive, malignant, totalitarian and ridiculous aspects'.
Considering the effort you've expended in 'pointing out' repeatedly that
Scientology and the Church of Scientology are *not* one and the same, I
think it might be fair to those choosing to discuss Scientology, that you
label *your brand (and BB his) as Fluffian Scientology or BBian
Scientology, to recognize the defanged nature of the beast.
> It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
(She says, pointing at Caroline meaningfully)
>
> In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just buzzwords, used so often by
> some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this context and in
> similar contexts.
They're *real* words, although, criminal more so than brainwashing, which
I consider diluted to the point of worthlessness, much like 'religion'.
And of course, they're favorite *Scientology* words at that, used in
exactly the polemic method you object to elsewhere.
>
> In of themselves, denotatively speaking, those words aren't innately
> meaningless but in the past decade or two on forums like these, they've
> become so.
Brainwashing has been pretty meaningless in any forum since its
inception, as opposed to better terms, such as coercive mind control.
Criminal is one of those words that variously has a real 'meaning', and
otherwise is used merely as an expression of objection.
Note; this is true for many other forums than 'forums like this', which
is itself a bit of DA against this particular forum.
>
> You were clearly trying to establish some points of agreement and also
> create a civilized agreement to disagree on other points,but Gerry-line,
> oops, I mean Caroline, has, by her words, shown that this is not where her
> preferences lie in this matter.
I can only assume that this line, beyond attempting to further position
yourself on BB's side (and him on yours), you just want to make sure that
everyone gets your eye-rolling equation of Caroline and Gerry, since some
people may not be all that bright. Can't let a good DA/slur go to waste
now *can* we?
>
> Anything other than "it's all crap" is pretty much going to be condemned by
> this (these) individual(s).
Do you have a list? Or does this only apply to the Caroline/Gerry
monolith? Or is it 'forums like this' you are suppressively generalizing
as being so unfluffianly unreasonable?
>
> But all the same, your posts to such people aren't a waste of time or
> bandwidth being that they are examplars of tact, tolerance and what we
> Scn'ists call "pan determinism".
Thank god that I don't have a side to try to convince BB to join, so, I
can enjoy his posts; variously agree or disagree with him, and have no
necessity to engage in such luridly transparent flattery :)
>
> You also aquit yourself quite well as a spokesperson for the Scn philosophy,
> probably better than anyone in the church does these days. ;->
>
> C
Zinj
Fluffygirl
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.184d7b2dc...@news2.lightlink.com...
<snip>
>
> I can only assume that this line, beyond attempting to further position
> yourself on BB's side (and him on yours), you just want to make sure that
> everyone gets your eye-rolling equation of Caroline and Gerry, since some
> people may not be all that bright. Can't let a good DA/slur go to waste
> now *can* we?
Oooh, there goes that double standard again. Ooooh, do it again, Zinj,
harder, harder! Just makes me all hot when you do that
taking-sides-Buttersquash-conspiracy-one-standard-for-non
Scn'ists-and-another-for-Scn'ists thing you do....Ooooohhhhh...
An' you do it soooo well...
Wait, hold on a sec...
**brief pause**
Ok, took a cold shower, feeling better now...
My point is that you level no such accusations when the shoe is on the other
foot.
You continuously employ a double standard and it's quite transparent.
>
> >
> > Anything other than "it's all crap" is pretty much going to be condemned
by
> > this (these) individual(s).
>
> Do you have a list? Or does this only apply to the Caroline/Gerry
> monolith? Or is it 'forums like this' you are suppressively generalizing
> as being so unfluffianly unreasonable?
> >
> > But all the same, your posts to such people aren't a waste of time or
> > bandwidth being that they are examplars of tact, tolerance and what we
> > Scn'ists call "pan determinism".
>
> Thank god that I don't have a side to try to convince BB to join,
Me, neither. I criticize Scn'ists (church and FZ) and critics alike, and
when credit is due, I forward that as well.
I don't have to try to convince BB of anything, in any case, nor was that my
intention in writing that particular post. Never has been in the past, isn't
now.
> so, I
> can enjoy his posts; variously agree or disagree with him, and have no
> necessity to engage in such luridly transparent flattery :)
He is one of the better-natured more tolerant decent people on this forum,
Scn'ist or non Scn'ist.
He also is a better example of a Scn'ist than a number of people I've met
both on this forum and off it.
I call 'em as I see 'em.
C
Caroline Letkeman
CLaire's differentiation tech is showing. Make something not being
discussed different from something else not being discussed and then
proclaim it's not that. Sometimes more than others.
The false promises of Scientology make it a fraud. It defrauded me out
of 24 years and over $60,000 trying to get those promised results. The
Scientology cult, despite its promise of a money back guarantee,
refuses to refund the money it ripped off from me. Thus it is a
criminal fraud. The writings of Hubbard, what Claire calls the
"subject of Scientology," are part of the fraud. They contain the
false promises.
Scientology auditing does not raise IQ a point per hour, or even a
half point per hour. That is the proof for me of the fraud. This is
not my hidden standard. It is the standard Hubbard gave. I had more
than 2000 hours of auditing and my IQ did not go up one point.
Claire exhibits proof that Scientology does not work, because she does
not demonstrate having a superior IQ at all, but resorts in her
communications to inanities like her statement above.
Claire is supporting the Scientology fraud when she claims that
Scientology works.
I am saying that Scientology is a criminal fraud because its promises
are false; to say nothing of the organization's criminal fair gaming
of people and other unsavory practices. But Claire twists this into
"just a point on which two people can agree to disagree," and then
attacks me for the strawman she has mocked up.
>
>You, in following the dictates of your conscience and what you have
>experienced, are, in Caroline's words, "criminal".
Again Claire demonstrates, by seeming to exhibit a lack of
intelligence, that Scientology does not work. I am saying essentially
the opposite of what she's claiming I'm saying. Scientologists, Claire
included, do *not* follow the dictates of their conscience. If Claire
followed the dictates of her conscience she would cease lying about
Scientology working.
Does your conscience, Claire, tell you that Scientology processing
raises IQ in anyone a point per hour? Or do you have to play goofy
tricks with your conscience to get it to agree with Hubbard's and
Scientology's lies?
And where does the conscience enter into Scientology in any form
anyway? In Scientology, you follow the dictates of L. Ron Hubbard, or
the dictates of your seniors, or supervisor, or auditor or ethics
officer. Following the dictates of your conscience is another
practice.
I do not believe that a conscience, by definition, would support a
criminal fraud by forwarding the lie that the fraud works.
>
>It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
You are famous for your cheap thoughts, Claire. Why not address the
real subject of the fraud of Scientology. Prove to me that your IQ
went up a point per hour, or even half a point per hour, as a result
of your auditing. First off, please state how many hours of auditing
you've had.
>
>In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just buzzwords, used so often by
>some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this context and in
>similar contexts.
This is cheap, unintelligent obfuscation. All it does is demonstrate
that Claire is a liar. Her IQ is not superior because she doesn't
exhibit the smarts to discuss or even recognize what the issue is.
After a while, does "Scientology working" mean that you have become
unintelligent enough to no longer recognize that you're unintelligent?
Does attaining the necessary stupidity to believe that your IQ went up
a point per hour of your auditing demonstrate to yourself that it
really did? I am so glad I got out of Scientology before that happened
to me.
But Claire has the advantage of access to the Internet, real
discussion here on a.r.s. and real evidence, including sworn
testimony, that IQs do not go up a point per hour. What is her excuse
for continuing to support what is demonstrated, even by her own
behavior, to be a fraud?
>
>In of themselves, denotatively speaking, those words aren't innately
>meaningless but in the past decade or two on forums like these, they've
>become so.
Complete nonsense. Claire might like it if her silly postulate here is
true, but it's just silly.
What she's trying to do is redefine these words for her propaganda
efforts against people victimized by Scientology fraud and
criminality.
Here's the Hubbardian dictate to which Claire is complying:
From HCO PL 5 October 1971 Propaganda by Redefinition of Words
© 1974 L. Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
The trick is--WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST.<sic>
[...]
The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions
and symbols with the word than were intended.
[...]
The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as
often as possible.
Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology
downward and define Dianetics ® and Scientology ® upwards.
This, so far as words are concerned, is the public-opinion battle for
belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition.
A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this
technique of propaganda.
One must know how to do it.
<end quote>
>
>You were clearly trying to establish some points of agreement and also
>create a civilized agreement to disagree on other points,but Gerry-line,
>oops, I mean Caroline, has, by her words, shown that this is not where her
>preferences lie in this matter.
Gerry says that your stupidity is pretended. I disagree with him.
What you are not addressing, and what you are trying to babble
through, is the issue of the fraud you're supporting.
Scientology auditing does not raise IQ a point per hour. I am proof,
and you, Claire, are proof. You apparently do not even have the IQ
necessary to address the subject of Scientology's failure to raise
your IQ a point per hour. Instead you resort to unintelligent cheap
communication tricks.
But you can prove me wrong just by proving that Scientology auditing
did raise your IQ a point per hour.
Hubbard made the a.r.s discussion of Scientologists' intelligence
relevant with his claim that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Your
intelligence is relevant here, Claire, because you are claiming that
Scientology works, and attacking the victims of the fraud who have
realized it does not work. You are attacking these people, and
defending Scientology's fraud, in ways which do not demonstrate your
superior intelligence, or much intelligence at all. Your vilifying of
the victims is unintelligent. Your unintelligence is unintelligent.
But your unintelligence is relevant because it supports the truth that
Scientology is a criminal fraud.
Since I am a wog, my intelligence is not relevant on a.r.s., except as
it relates to my claim that Scientology does not work. I am
intelligent enough to recognize and state the truth that auditing did
not raise my IQ a point, or even half a point, or even a quarter of a
point, or even an eighth of a point per hour. Auditing and Scientology
simply do not work as promised.
>
>Anything other than "it's all crap" is pretty much going to be condemned by
>this (these) individual(s).
No, this is just another unintelligent lie by you to avoid the subject
of Scientology fraud.
What I am saying is *all crap* is the claim by Hubbard and Scientology
that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Now it is your turn to
demonstrate by your superior intellect, gained by your Scientology
auditing or not, that this claim is not *all crap.*
So far your defense of the fraud of Scientology has been *all crap.*
You can also demonstrate that your defense of Scientology fraud is not
*all crap* with evidence and arguments which are not *all crap.*
>
>But all the same, your posts to such people aren't a waste of time or
>bandwidth being that they are examplars of tact, tolerance and what we
>Scn'ists call "pan determinism".
There are no examplars extant of your tact, tolerance or pan
determinism in your post to which I am responding. Your post does
contain examples of unintelligence, obfuscation and cheap thought.
Your post supports my convictions that Scientology does not work and
that you are supporting a fraud.
>
>You also aquit yourself quite well as a spokesperson for the Scn philosophy,
>probably better than anyone in the church does these days. ;->
If that is in any sense true, then both of you support my convictions
that Scientology does not work and that both of you are supporting a
fraud.
Since you have no intelligent response to the charges that Scientology
promises are false, and that auditing does not raise IQ a point per
hour, or even half a point per hour, and since I have brought these
facts to your attention very clearly, it must be concluded that you
are knowingly supporting Scientology fraud.
>
>C
Zinj
caro...@gerryarmstrong.org says...
deliberately disingenuous attack on you (and Gerry) and you reply with
this 'Village of the Damned' style 'your IQ is not high enough'
silliness?
Fluffy may be dishonest and manipulative, but you need to go out and
watch a very silly movie.
Zinj
Rev Norle Enturbulata
CLaire never responds directly to anything. I imagine that she believes
she'll not have to take responsibility for what she says in the future, in
the event that what she says today is completely batshit wrong. As a result
of killfiling her some time ago, I only see her bizarre rebuttals from
replies to them.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
- LRH's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
Fluffygirl
Re the title of this post:
My first name has an e at the end and the L is not capitalized.
I am not CL, if that is what you're implying.
Your personal opinion of my IQ is both a non sequitur and also, more
specifically, an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with anything
else.
I wrote what I wrote because of the condemnatory and invalidative nature of
your response to BB.
Apparently, a civilized agreement to disagree is not part of your repetoire,
instead, you must cast personal slurs and allusions which lend nothing to
the discussion at hand.
C
Fluffygirl
Everything I wrote was honest, from the heart and, incidentally, correct.
But then again "disingenuous" has always been a buzzword here.
> attack on you (and Gerry) and you reply with
> this 'Village of the Damned' style 'your IQ is not high enough'
> silliness?
I really wasn't surprised.
>
> Fluffy may be dishonest and manipulative,
Oh, for god's sake, Zinj. I took exception with some views expressed in a
post and with a pattern of communication previously established by this
person and a comment I made to which you've referred harkens back to this
person's desperate forwarding of Gerry's posts after I'd k/f'd him, to the
point where it is obvious that nothing that comes out of this person's mouth
or keyboard can be said to not have been vetted and ok'd by Gerry.
There's nothing manipulative in making such an observation and, by the way,
I am far from the first to make it.
You are so caught up in your anti-Buttersquash-who's-in-which-camp thing
that every time I write anything you try to fit it in to that perspective.
And that's just not gonna work.
Everything I write is what I think. Just because it ain't what ~you~ think
doesn't make it dishonest or manipulative.
Else, everytime anyone here on this forum ever chimed in with anybody else,
expressing agreement or anything else, you'd be there calling them dishonest
and manipulative. But you don't do that. And the reason you don't is that
you know they are not. And I'm not,either.
> but you need to go out and
> watch a very silly movie.
Permit me a snide comment:
Perhaps she does not ~need~ to ~watch~ one...
Heh.
C
Zinj
says...
I found Caroline's most recent post almost disturbingly robotic.
Do you think you might have 'pulled it in'?
And if so... do you feel any responsibility for it?
Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
Zinj
Zinj
> Oh, for god's sake, Zinj. I took exception with some views expressed in a
> post and with a pattern of communication previously established by this
> person and a comment I made to which you've referred harkens back to this
> person's desperate forwarding of Gerry's posts after I'd k/f'd him, to the
> point where it is obvious that nothing that comes out of this person's mouth
> or keyboard can be said to not have been vetted and ok'd by Gerry.
> C
Oh for God's sake Claire. I originally posted to this thread because your
post was so obviously disingenuous as to catch my attention.
I really have no thing on Caroline, and certainly not on Gerry, whom I
have had the pleasure of sneering at months before his current erruption
of 'magnificence', and was roundly dogpiled for it :) Not that I mind
that much. After all... if you *know* something's supposed to hurt you...
you *can* be immune
But, your post that I replied to, and that you so further disingenuously
snipped into oblivion, apparently out of fear of context, was
disingenuous, was dishonest, was manipulative and was something that a
year ago would not have come from your keyboard.
Black helicopters be damned... I suspect the 'co-opt' is meme that has
attached itself to you... and you *were* trying to attach it to BB.
I get a very bad feeling from Caroline's post though. And I'm not
exaggerating about the feeling of 'Village of the Damned'.
Dealing with Scientologists, and even ex-scientologists is often like
that. You keep looking for the pod behind the water heater.
You however *have* obviously joined a 'side' (yes, yes, I know... you
think for yourself yadda yadda) and much like a critic talking to a
Scientologist, that 'comm' drives them *further* in.
I don't know any solution. I think you're lost to the middle ground, and
Caroline is too. Possibly.
Gerry is obviously not going to give up being god, and kady is obviously
not going to give up being Robespierre :)
Who are you?
Zinj
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
This is very high on OSA's buzzword list of hit words to negate
totally.... this is what the "religious Cloaking device" was designed
to hide.
scientology WAS and IS a complete fraud and L Rum Hubbard lied and
lied....
Take Fluffy, She no doubt agrees that L Ron Hubbard was not lying in
Dianetics.... where he said that that most mothers try to abort their
babies 5-7 times...
Fluffy must then agree that her own mother tired to do this to her.
I'll end now and let her think about that for a bit.
---------
There is another pattern at work here
There are some folks who are arguing from various positions on what
is now the the 9 steps out of scientology:
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/8steps.html
There are also, I believe actual operatives, osa actors, specifically
stationed at some of the different levels of this bridge of awareness
of leaving Scientology....
DM sucks but the Tech is good.....
Hubbard sucks but theres good stuff in the freezone.....
you see, ANYTHING that slows down the arrival of those running L Ron
Hubbard's mind control program from arriving at the FINAL Step of the
AWARENESS chart of the the bridge out of scientology:
"
8) my god, its a criminal organization... with criminal convictions
all over the world... and it was only about money "
Helps keep Scientology working!
You are dead on the money Caroline, Scientology is an artfully
contructed FRAUD from top to bottom......
Stick to your guns, and recognize that anyone who looks at it any
othger way, is
a) a fool -or-
b) fooled by hubbard's religious cloaking device
c) an operative / actor - paid or volunteer
d) or a person actually walking across the bridge out of scientology
Fluffy is so obviously suspect - because she is STUCK on a level out,
as if she had clay demo'd her 'Mission orders' to hold that position.
Scientology is a FRAUD, the awarness of that should be the intended
END PHENOMENA of involvlement on this newsgroup.
You just stick to your guns caroline and keep on keepin on...
if there were just ONE OT in Scientology, you wouldnt be reading this
line....
The ONLY thing Scientology makes is more scientologists
That happens to be the etioligy of the cancer cell.
and say HI to Gerry, and thank him for Keepin on keepin on!
Arnie Lerma
----------------------
8 Steps out of Scientology
preface: Try the following exercise - for current members of
Scientology:
this mental reboot' program is (c) Arnie Lerma
1) Consider that the 'mind' is programmable
2) Whose program are you running?
3) goto 1)
If Scientology is a bridge to OT levels of super dooper powers
why is this website here?
Title: 9 steps out of Scientology
Author: Arnie Lerma
Date: 31 Aug 1997 17:01:27 -0700
I was in the cult and on staff for 10 years... here are the stages I
have seen... as one exits the 'hubbardian' mind control program....
1) There is something wrong here, if this is so great, then
why is (______) going on?
[ insert whatever atrocity you have recently witnessed ]
2) The guys at the top must be crazy
3) Miscavige and crew are evil demons from another dimension
[ or something similar ]
4) Hubbard went crazy at the end .....
5) Hubbard went crazy in 1966
6) Hubbard was mad from the start.
7) This whole thing is a complete fraud
8) my god, its a criminal organization... with criminal convictions
all over the world... and it was only about money
9) realization that THERE ARE NO OT's THERE!
see http://www.lermanet.com
Arnie Lerma "Clear 3502"
Ex _ Sea Organization Staff
Crowley:
<start quote>
There are two main methods of acquiring the Magical Memory as defined
above. One is to train the normal memory to work backwards instead of
forwards, so that any past action is presented to the mind after the
manner of a cinematograph film set running in the reverse direction.
(I
never succeeded fully in acquiring the technique of this method.) The
other is to deduce from present circumstances those which gave rise to
them.
<end quote> --Crowley, Aleister, (John Symonds, Kenneth Grant,
editors)
the confessions of Aleister Crowley (page 463) © 1979 John Symonds and
Kenneth Grant
Hubbard:
<start quotes>
The auditor is so accustomed to projectionists reeling off movies and
TV
programs for him or her that the auditor tends to just sit while the
action rolls forward, acting like a spectator, not the projectionist.
[...]
Take a pocket movie projector and any bit of a reel of film and wind
it ack and forth for awhile and you'll see you are moving it. [...]
If motion picture film were 3D, had 52 perceptions and could fully
react pon the observer, the time track could be called a motion
picture film. end quotes> --Hubbard. L. Ron HCOB 15 May 1963 The Time
Track and
Engram Running by Chains Bulletin 1 © 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library
Both Hubbard and Crowley drew upon the work of Ananda Metteyya for
their agical memory technique. Crowley did credit Metteyya. Hubbard
*became* Metteyya, and rolled his own credits.
antivirus
"The Fifth Horseman" by Richard Sherbaniuk, published in New York by
Tom Doherty Associates earlier this year, has a $cio reference. On
page 190, Zammit, the hero is saying "Did Smegyev make all this up?
Like L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology?"
This is a novel about biological terrorism and contains derogatory
references to several cults as well as cults in general.
Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
Frog
>Fluffy may be dishonest and manipulative, but you need to go out and
>watch a very silly movie.
Why would she need to do that when she can watch the silly rantings of
a drunken pedophile?
Fluffygirl
No more than I pulled in the last ones she wrote directed to yours truly.
But then again, as we Scn'ists say, my crime was that I was there and
communicated.
Heh.
>
> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
It won't be me.
And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in making anyone cry,either.
C
Fluffygirl
> In article <3de4...@news2.lightlink.com>, amaflu...@yahoo.com
> says...
>
> > Oh, for god's sake, Zinj. I took exception with some views expressed
in a
> > post and with a pattern of communication previously established by this
> > person and a comment I made to which you've referred harkens back to
this
> > person's desperate forwarding of Gerry's posts after I'd k/f'd him, to
the
> > point where it is obvious that nothing that comes out of this person's
mouth
> > or keyboard can be said to not have been vetted and ok'd by Gerry.
>
> > C
>
> Oh for God's sake Claire. I originally posted to this thread because your
> post was so obviously disingenuous as to catch my attention.
Well, no, it wasn't. It was just what I thought and still think.
Now, what I thought and still think may be unacceptable to you and to
whomever else, but that does not make it disingenous.
But then again, as I've so aptly pointed out, that's a bit of a buzzword
here.
And elsewhere...my first meeting with the DSA and my (former) exec friend,
she described me as disingenuous. I remember thinking, what is this,
everybody's favorite word?
But...you know...scratch an OSA rep and they're not too different from the
more rabid buzzword using critics, and the inverse is true as well. Heh.
>
> I really have no thing on Caroline, and certainly not on Gerry, whom I
> have had the pleasure of sneering at months before his current erruption
> of 'magnificence', and was roundly dogpiled for it :) Not that I mind
> that much. After all... if you *know* something's supposed to hurt you...
> you *can* be immune
>
> But, your post that I replied to, and that you so further disingenuously
> snipped into oblivion,
Like many people on this forum, I respond to the parts of posts to which I
feel I actually have something to say. If I don't have anything to say, I
don't comment.
This is a time honored usenet method.
And, I'll point out again: over the years there's been the occasional plaint
that I do not snip enough. Apparently you disagree but hey, feel free to be
my press secretary when this plaint inevitably resurfaces.
>apparently out of fear of context, was
> disingenuous, was dishonest, was manipulative and was something that a
> year ago would not have come from your keyboard.
>
> Black helicopters be damned... I suspect the 'co-opt' is meme that has
> attached itself to you... and you *were* trying to attach it to BB.
Uhhh...no, dear.
As he has pointed out on this forum before, he and I are friends and have
been for a while.
We agree on a number of things -although not on everything.
And, even were that not the case, I felt like making some observations on
Caroline's rather snide, contemptuous and condescending treatment of BB.
BB, the eternal peacemaker and all 'round nice guy was not treated by
Caroline as he treats her.
>
> I get a very bad feeling from Caroline's post though. And I'm not
> exaggerating about the feeling of 'Village of the Damned'.
> Dealing with Scientologists, and even ex-scientologists is often like
> that. You keep looking for the pod behind the water heater.
I've known some incredible raving dipshits who'd never darkened the door of
any Scn installation or cracked so much as one LRH book, actually.
But you apparently want it to be an LRH thang, so, for you- it is.
>
> You however *have* obviously joined a 'side'
I'm on the side of good sex and good shopping. Those are pretty much what
I'm mainly interested in, actually.
>(yes, yes, I know... you
> think for yourself yadda yadda) and much like a critic talking to a
> Scientologist, that 'comm' drives them *further* in.
I have my own opinions, same as anyone else here.
There are other Scn'ists posting here who are pretty dissimilar from one
another and from me. Some of them are similar to some critics and vice
versa.
~Your~ nose has been out of joint ever since ptsc defended me to Magoo, who
was not even condemning me for actual events, but only ones that were in her
imagination.
I know that's what it is because that's when your comments about sides and
stuff like that started. That's also, for another example, when Arnie
started slandering me. Before that it was "oh you poor kid" blah blah in
private email.
It's a whole Mintonista/anti Mintonista thing and the only one who's doing
the "if you're their friend you can't be my friend- fifth grade thing" are
the Mintonistas. Apparently this inability to agree to disagree runs rampant
here, but then that was always a given along with ~rampant~ ~hypocrisy~.
>
> I don't know any solution. I think you're lost to the middle ground, and
> Caroline is too.
I don't think you are in a position to judge anyone, actually, Zinj.
And as far as middle ground goes, well, I have the most balanced perspective
of anyone on this or any other Scn forum in that I criticize Hubbard, the
church, the philosophy itself and also recognize any plus points. Nobody
does this to the extent that I do it. Seems pretty dang middle to ~me~.
> Possibly.
> Gerry is obviously not going to give up being god, and kady is obviously
> not going to give up being Robespierre :)
I thought Kady was Kady.
And, perforce, wouldn't that mean that Gerry was Gerry and Caroline was
Caroline?
>
> Who are you?
Claire M. Swazey aka Fluffygirl.
If you're gonna pigeonhole and label people, perhaps you should do it
according to factual data. As in name, rank, serial number, that sort of
thing.
And one thing I'm not is CL, regardless of the implication in the name of
this post and in Caroline's original reply, although that is a rather
interesting comparison.
Some moron on askme.com who also reads this forum implied I was Cerridwen
and that I/we were a professional writer and/or OSA operative.
Apparently when one has an unusual point of view and posts using one's real
name (Well Fluffygirl's a nick, but everyone knows my real name and
location- at least one of the locations) then one couldn't possibly be whom
one claims to be and plots abound.
Perhaps you should remove your tinfoil hat? I think it's getting a bit
tattered.
C
Fluffygirl
"arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com" <ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in
message news:3de4e802....@news.verizon.net...
Well, no. I disagree with all kinds of things Hubbard said and I say so here
all the time.
What part of that do you not understand?
>
> Fluffy must then agree that her own mother tired to do this to her.
>
Well, no, given the fact that I don't agree with everything Hubbard ever
said and given the fact that even if I did agree with the above referenced
(incredibly out of date) statement, factoring in the whole track, that
wouldn't mean that every mother in all the echoing corridors of time
attempted an abortion.
And keep your filthy fucking mouth off my dear deceased evoutly Catholic
decent mother, date of death 4/20/02.
Thought you were gonna end there?
I am still a Scn'ist. Arnie, you know plenty of people who are Scn'ists
who've left the church. BB is one. Cerridwen is apparently another as I've
seen her describe herself as a Scn'ist. C of A is another. Ralph Hilton is
another.
They all post or have posted here.
So, it's not a phenom that's unique to me myself alone. And even if 'twere,
so what?
>
> Scientology is a FRAUD, the awarness of that should be the intended
> END PHENOMENA of involvlement on this newsgroup.
Tell that to BB, Cerridwen, C of A, Ralph Hilton (who's posted here, on and
off for years)
>
> You just stick to your guns caroline and keep on keepin on...
I concur. I think that everyone should be and is free to express their
opinions regardless of any disagreement they may encounter. That's what
makes America and usenet as well, great.
I think we should all post what we think.
I myself have had much change in my opinions of Scn and CofS and Hubbard
over the years, as you well know. And I post what I think. The fact it ain't
what you think doesn't mean anything because there is not one single
solitary soul on this ng who completely agrees with everyone else on this ng
about everything, world without end forever and ever, amen.
So yes, by all means, keep on keepin' on to Caroline, to Gerry, to you, to
Zinj , and to ME.
>
> if there were just ONE OT in Scientology, you wouldnt be reading this
> line....
Logically speaking, that does not follow.
Surely one is free to read an ng regardless of how many boddhisattvas,
swamis, saints, angels, holy men, OTs, psychics, whatever...
By all means, let's all write according to our consciences. Unless you mean
that only those with whom you agree should keep on keepin' on...
In which case, that would make you someone of highly totalitarian
inclination.
And such people are abhorrent, of course.
C
ptsc
www.lermanet.com) wrote:
> Take Fluffy, She no doubt agrees that L Ron Hubbard was not lying in
>Dianetics.... where he said that that most mothers try to abort their
>babies 5-7 times...
> Fluffy must then agree that her own mother tired to do this to her.
> I'll end now and let her think about that for a bit.
What was that about not attacking ex-members? I guess that was just another
load of bullshit from Electric Lermaland.
You meant the ex-members who slavisly agree with everything you say, not just
any other run-of-the-mill ex-members.
ptsc
Allen Stanfield
> And keep your filthy fucking mouth off my dear deceased evoutly Catholic
> decent mother, date of death 4/20/02.
I understand this.
Allen
Caroline Letkeman
That's because you obviously didn't understand it. Your
interpretation was similar to Claire's; i.e., no interpretation at
all, but a response to something which wasn't there.
My post was about the irrebuttable proof that Scientology is a fraud.
It does not raise IQ a point per hour. Claire claims that Scientology
works. And Claire opted into the discussion. Claire has claimed for
years that she is here to defend Scientology. Therefore it is
incumbent upon her to demonstrate that it raises IQ a point per hour.
You also for some "reason" don't seem to be able to confront that
simplicity. I know Claire has a terrible problem confronting the fact
that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts over some time.
That is why it is necessary to repeat and repeat the point I am making
to her. Sure she will snip it all. Sure she will avoid the point and
the issue completely. I can only assume that she is doing it because
she supports Scientology fraud and criminality. But what reason do you
have?
>> Do you think you might have 'pulled it in'?
>> And if so... do you feel any responsibility for it?
>
>No more than I pulled in the last ones she wrote directed to yours truly.
>
>But then again, as we Scn'ists say, my crime was that I was there and
>communicated.
>
>Heh.
No, Claire, your "crime" is really your refusal to communicate. You
are promoting that Scientology works. That would necessitate its
raising IQ a point per hour. That's Hubbard's standard. You refuse to
address this fact, this promise and this fraud. You refuse to
demonsrate a high IQ, even the ability of Hubbard's grade 0 release --
the ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject -- or
even the ability to communicate at a level 90 percent of wogs
communicate at. You are thus supporting a criminal fraud. Your typical
avoidance of communicating about your support for this fraud by
claiming that your "crime" is that you did communicate -- should we
check google? -- further demonstrates that you are knowingly
supporting this fraud.
>
>>
>> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
>
>It won't be me.
I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24 years of my life,
ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my daughter, and you,
Claire, stoop to this? You pretend to be persecuted, and you support
the persecution of the people who really are being persecuted. Have
you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel Scientologists are, how
cruel Scientology is? No, you're too busy being cute. Too busy
throwing out inanities to deflect attention from your own and
Scientology's cruelty.
>
>And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in making anyone cry,either.
>
>C
>
>
>
-----------------------------
Fluffygirl
I have never claimed that it was everything represented by LRH, in fact,
I've made statements to the contrary.
> And Claire opted into the discussion.
Yah, that tends to happen on public forums. (forae?)
> Claire has claimed for
> years that she is here to defend Scientology.
No, actually, I have not made such a claim.
For years, months, days, or seconds.
> Therefore it is
> incumbent upon her to demonstrate that it raises IQ a point per hour.
Well, no, it's not, since the IQ thing is not my claim and since I have
stated many times in the past that there's a distinct YMMV aspect to Scn and
some exaggerations by Hubbard.
Apparently you've got this idea that anyone who thinks it works thinks
everything Hubbard said did and thought about it was exactly as written,
IOW, the idea is any Scn'ist- even a free form one like me- is a
fundamentalist, taking it all quite literally, no evaluation, no grains of
salt, nuttin'.
Now, I could understand your making that mistake (happily assuming away as
is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting here or whom you
met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here that I don't
automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word, literally, then
your attempted railroading and summation of my position makes absolutely no
sense.
>
> You also for some "reason" don't seem to be able to confront that
> simplicity. I know Claire has a terrible problem
I have no problems, dollink.
>confronting the fact
> that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts over some time.
This is what I meant about agreement to disagree and your inability to do
that.
If you meet someone with whom you disagree, instead of saying you disagree
and have an entirely different take on the subject you have to say that that
person can't do this or that.
You sound just like those Bible-totin' fundies who claim that not only do
they have the way to get into Heaven but that other religions don't, not
even other Christian denominations such as Catholics.
Instead of saying "Well this is what we (I) believe, and here's where it
differs from your ideas..." people like that,(of which you are one) will say
"you're wrong. You're deluded. You can't do this. You can't do that."
People like that are no different from the hysterical idiots who screamed
"there's no God but God!" and rioted about a beauty pageant, instead of just
politely offering their perspective about why Miss World should ~not~ be in
Nigeria.
This is exactly what you sound like and you should know that this kind of
fundamentalism never did go over very well in most places, including this
ng.
>
<snip bullshit> >
> >>
> >> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
> >
> >It won't be me.
>
> I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24 years of my life,
> ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my daughter, and you,
> Claire, stoop to this?
Stoop to what, exactly? I'm not a member of CofS. I criticize 'em all the
time. I criticize them for things as you've described in the above
referenced paragraph, so tell me, what stoopage do you imagine here?
> You pretend to be persecuted,
Well, actually, I just figure I'm a girl posting to a newsgroup.
But if I'm attacked with something, I'll take that something and jam it up
the person's ass.
And I'll point out their hypocrisy.
I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to which everyone
can relate, now is it? ;->
>and you support
> the persecution of the people who really are being persecuted.
No, I don't, and there is nothing in my posts to support such a ridiculous
hypothesis.
> Have
> you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel Scientologists are, how
> cruel Scientology is?
~Now~ who's actin' persecuted?
My Scn'ist friends- the church and non church ones- are decent good people.
I've met some Scn'ists who weren't, but then again, the proportion is
certainly not out of balance with the proportion of cruel non Scn'ists I've
met over the years. Stereotyping just doesn't work.
>No, you're too busy being cute.
I write what I write from the heart. If it's not something with which you
agree, well, I can't help that. You know the old saying about not being able
to please all the people all the time.
>Too busy
> throwing out inanities to deflect attention from your own and
> Scientology's cruelty.
My thing is that I like to post on to this ng. Period. I've no interest in
personalities and so forth, except for the occasional lighthearted or
warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to anyone else is
if they initiated rude communication and really, all anyone has to do to
avoid this, is to keep it civil.
Every single person with whom I've exchanged harsh words initiated the
rudeness.
Now, I did have other choices, I suppose. I could have ignored them- but
frankly, I've no interest in playing doormat, any more than anyone else
would.
And the other choice would be to say "oh, everything you say is right and
I'm a terrible person."
Oddly enough, this isn't a perspective to which I can lay claim. I know
that's rilly rilly weird, but well, you know, it must be the fluff.
>
> >
> >And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in making anyone cry,either.
Leaving that in as it was not commented upon although there was plenty of
commentary re imagined cruely from yours truly. This statement- both the
making of it and the fact it preceded yours- puts the lie to that particular
claim.
C
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
They were Hubbard's words, not mine.
If id known her mom passed away recently I wouldn't
have mentioned those particular words by L Ron Hubbard
in DIANETICS....
Arnie Lerma
ladayla
Can't you see that Claire is trolling? She's been back a few days and has
already started up her usual disruption here. I wish you guys wouldn't fall for
it.
la
Fluffygirl
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 03:42:30 GMT, "Allen Stanfield"
> <allenspambu...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> And keep your filthy fucking mouth off my dear deceased evoutly
Catholic
> >> decent mother, date of death 4/20/02.
> >
> >I understand this.
> >
> >Allen
> >
> >
>
> They were Hubbard's words, not mine.
>
> If id known her mom passed away recently I wouldn't
> have mentioned those particular words by L Ron Hubbard
> in DIANETICS....
I appeciate the fact you've said that, Arnie,dear, but I will take the time
to point out that I wrote several posts about my mother and her death, in
March (re her illness) in May and again in October. In a couple posts I made
this month I also briefly referred to it.
But even were that not the case- all that aside- people's mamas and their
gynecological history especially re the DN AA thing tend to be rather hot
topics and even when one's mama's still alive and kickin', it's probably
best to not speculate on Fluffy or anyone else believing that their mom
inserted a fucking knitting needle in their goddamn vagina to try and kill
incipient Fluffies or any other individual to whom the post was directed.
To quote a comedian on my favorite comedy show (Mad TV) "C'mon Shelly!"
C
Caroline Letkeman
Yes, you most certainly did. Check Google. Since you did make the
claim, you are now lying.
And if you want to find stacks of your lies, check Google for them
too.
>
>For years, months, days, or seconds.
Not only did you claim it, but you have in virtually every post tried
to do that. Though your efforts might be pathetic, you do try to
defend Scientology. Surely you are not claiming that your insistence
that only 1% of Scientology is problematic is not defending
Scientology?
>
>
>> Therefore it is
>> incumbent upon her to demonstrate that it raises IQ a point per hour.
>
>Well, no, it's not, since the IQ thing is not my claim
It's Hubbard's claim. It's part of Scientology "scriptures." It
is,as far as I am concerned, the perfect standard to evaluate
Scientology's unworkability. Everything you say supports my
conviction that Scientology does not work, that it is a criminal
fraud, and that for whatever reason you are defending and promoting
that criminal fraud.
> and since I have
>stated many times in the past that there's a distinct YMMV aspect to Scn and
>some exaggerations by Hubbard.
A total copout by you. And a further support of my certainly that
Scientology is a criminal fraud.
Deal with this then. Okay, your mileage may vary. Okay, only a
certain percentage of Scientologists will attain the point per hour.
But since Hubbard claims that the point per hour is an average, it
would be clear that in the YMMV sort of Scientology some people would
get increases of 2 points per hour and some would only get a half
point per hour increase. And this would all average out to one point
per hour for the 8 million.
So, okay, the point per hour didn't work for me, which I confirm with
well over 2000 hours of auditing. And, it is clear you're now
admiting that the point per hour promise wasn't true for you. Fine.
Will you please then point out one person, just one person, for whom
it did work, one person who had let's say, only a thousand hours of
auditing, and whose IQ went up a point or more per hour.
>
>Apparently you've got this idea that anyone who thinks it works thinks
>everything Hubbard said did and thought about it was exactly as written,
>IOW, the idea is any Scn'ist- even a free form one like me- is a
>fundamentalist, taking it all quite literally, no evaluation, no grains of
>salt, nuttin'.
No, you are lying. You are deliberately and idiotically
misinterpreting my words. That too convinces me that you are willfully
supporting what you know to be fraud.
Address the single issue of IQ being raised in you, or anyone else, a
point per hour of your auditing. Or unequivocally admit that that
promise by Hubbard is completely untrue, and a fraudulent
representation.
>
>Now, I could understand your making that mistake (happily assuming away as
>is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting here or whom you
>met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here that I don't
>automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word, literally, then
>your attempted railroading and summation of my position makes absolutely no
>sense.
Of course you would say that. Because you are trying with all the
abusive Scientology communication tech you throw at me to defend and
divert attention away from the criminal fraud of Scientology. You
must attack and invalidate me because that's all you've got. You
simply cannot address even one false promise of Scientology. You do
anything *but* address it.
>
>>
>> You also for some "reason" don't seem to be able to confront that
>> simplicity. I know Claire has a terrible problem
>
>I have no problems, dollink.
Good. Then you have plenty of time to address the criminal fraud
you're promoting. Address the fraud of the representation of Hubbard
and Scientology that auditing raises IQ a point per hour.
>
>>confronting the fact
>> that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts over some time.
>
>This is what I meant about agreement to disagree and your inability to do
>that.
This comes out of Scientology bag of "handling suppression" tricks
for shuddering someone into silence. "Can we ever be friends?" What
a load. "While we fair game you, can't we just agree to disagree?"
I have demonstrated beyond argument that Scientology is a criminal
fraud. I have also demonstrated that you support that criminal fraud.
All you can say in response that I have the inability to agree to
disagree. I have demonstrated, also beyond argument, that indeed I do
agree that we disagree. You agree with, support and promote the fraud
of Scientology, and I disagree with it. I agree that we disagree.
Again you prove that Hubbard's promise of an increase in IQ of a point
per hour is a lie, making Scientology a criminal fraud.
>
>If you meet someone with whom you disagree, instead of saying you disagree
>and have an entirely different take on the subject you have to say that that
>person can't do this or that.
Oh, yes, and some more than others.
>
>You sound just like those Bible-totin' fundies who claim that not only do
>they have the way to get into Heaven but that other religions don't, not
>even other Christian denominations such as Catholics.
Oh, yes, get in a little black PR while you're at it. Again and again
you prove that Scientology is a criminal fraud, and that you support
that criminal fraud, knowing full well it is a criminal fraud. You
cannot address the issue of the promise of a raise in IQ of one point
per hour, and instead, when asked about that vulnerable point you try
to find or manufacture enough threat against me to cause me to sue for
peace.
>
>Instead of saying "Well this is what we (I) believe, and here's where it
>differs from your ideas..." people like that,(of which you are one) will say
>"you're wrong. You're deluded. You can't do this. You can't do that."
False. Every lie from you is more evidence that you know that the
promise of an increase in IQ of a point per hour is a total falsehood,
and that you know that Scientology is a fraud.
>
>People like that are no different from the hysterical idiots
Wait, let me check the sampler. Oh here we are: " That is because you
do not know the meaning of differentiation."
> who screamed
>"there's no God but God!" and rioted about a beauty pageant, instead of just
>politely offering their perspective about why Miss World should ~not~ be in
>Nigeria.
>
>This is exactly what you sound like
"Exactly?" Where'd I put that sampler? Oh here: "Such as the
difference between an indoc'd critic who refuses to differentiate and
one who isn't that way."
This one works too: "I'm totally against all or nothing black and
white package deal mentality."
>and you should know that this kind of
>fundamentalism never did go over very well in most places, including this
>ng.
Strawmen flourish and prosper, however, in a house of cards.
>>
>
><snip bullshit> >
>> >>
>> >> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
>> >
>> >It won't be me.
>>
>> I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24 years of my life,
>> ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my daughter, and you,
>> Claire, stoop to this?
>
>Stoop to what, exactly? I'm not a member of CofS. I criticize 'em all the
>time. I criticize them for things as you've described in the above
>referenced paragraph, so tell me, what stoopage do you imagine here?
Stoop to your attacks on Scientology's victims. You know , as I have
demonstrated, that Hubbard's promise of raising IQ a point per hour of
auditing is a complete lie. You therefore know that Scientology is a
fraud. Instead of addressing even this very specific lie, and this
very specific fraud, you attack the people defrauded. That is
stooping. It's very cruel. Your dishonesty is stooping, and it is
very cruel.
Maybe you have been so dishonest for so long, been defending the
Scientology fraud for so long, and been attacking Scientology's fraud
victims for so long that you don't see it as stooping, because that's
the only posture you know. But I believe that I have carefully
pointed out to you, in very simple language, what you're doing, and
that you do recognize that in differentiating your behavior from the
behavior of ordinary, honest wogs, you are knowingly stooping.
>
>
>> You pretend to be persecuted,
>
>Well, actually, I just figure I'm a girl posting to a newsgroup.
Isn't that sweet. Then you've got no reason to continue to be cruel,
to continue to lie, to continue to defend the Scientology fraud.
Since you are so cruel, do lie so pervasively, and do continue to
defend the fraud, mainly by attacking its victims, it is reasonable to
conclude that you are not just a girl posting to a newsgroup.
>
>But if I'm attacked with something, I'll take that something and jam it up
>the person's ass.
Especially if it's the truth. I know that.
>
>And I'll point out their hypocrisy.
No, you won't. You'll lie. And you'll point out as hypocrisy
something which is not hypocrisy at all.
>
>I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to which everyone
>can relate, now is it? ;->
That's nice. You're not persecuted. But you do support the
persecution of others by the fraud which is Scientology.
>
>
>>and you support
>> the persecution of the people who really are being persecuted.
>
>No, I don't, and there is nothing in my posts to support such a ridiculous
>hypothesis.
Yes there is years of it. Check Google.
And, Claire, I have demonstrated in this post and in this thread that
this is exactly what you're doing. You are doing it every time you
deny doing it. Some times more than others.
>
>
>> Have
>> you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel Scientologists are, how
>> cruel Scientology is?
>
>~Now~ who's actin' persecuted?
Yes, the fraud you support ripped me off for 24 years, more than $60K
and my daughter. Now the fraud you support has declared me fair game.
You support the SP doctrine and what results from it when you support
Scientology fraud. You willfully support my persecution. In fact you
personally add to it.
>
>My Scn'ist friends- the church and non church ones- are decent good people.
>I've met some Scn'ists who weren't, but then again, the proportion is
>certainly not out of balance with the proportion of cruel non Scn'ists I've
>met over the years. Stereotyping just doesn't work.
Then don't do it. It is what you're doing with your black PRing me
with your black hysterical idiots brush above.
You are cruel. You are doing the Scientology organization's dirty
work. You support its fraud. That is not stereotyping. You can
address those precise charges logically if you want.
>
>
>>No, you're too busy being cute.
>
>I write what I write from the heart. If it's not something with which you
>agree, well, I can't help that. You know the old saying about not being able
>to please all the people all the time.
This is the sort of silliness which only convinces me that Scientology
is a fraud, and you support that fraud. Your reasons for doing so,
since I have proved, and you prove, beyond argument, that Scientology
does not raise IQ a point per hour, or even half a point, are immoral.
You, Claire, are terribly unethical, because you refuse to reason, but
resort only to shoddy, baseless, unintelligent attacks. Even in your
low ethical standards demonstrated in your histroy here on a.r.s., you
prove that Scientology does not work. Your lack of ethics
demonstrates that you knowingly support the criminal fraud of
Scientology.
>
>
>>Too busy
>> throwing out inanities to deflect attention from your own and
>> Scientology's cruelty.
>
>My thing is that I like to post on to this ng. Period. I've no interest in
>personalities and so forth, except for the occasional lighthearted or
>warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to anyone else is
>if they initiated rude communication and really, all anyone has to do to
>avoid this, is to keep it civil.
This is another cruel lie. You demonstrate that cruel behavior --
black PR, invalidation, arrogant evaluation, obfuscation, sniptech,
etc. -- when you are confronted with the truth. This is often the
truth that you are knowingly defending and promoting Scientology
fraud, and attacking its victims. That truth is what you then try to,
as you say, "jam it up the person's ass."
>
>Every single person with whom I've exchanged harsh words initiated the
>rudeness.
What a lie. Check Google. It's bulging with your rudeness, what you
call "jamming it up the person's ass," initiated *after* you were
confronted with the truth.
>
>Now, I did have other choices, I suppose. I could have ignored them- but
>frankly, I've no interest in playing doormat, any more than anyone else
>would.
How does this work: "Don't give me that sententious bullshit, Ed."
Your omission of your real choices further supports my conviction that
you are knowingly supporting Scientology fraud. Your other real
choices include being honest, confronting the truth, and acknowledging
the fraud you've been supporting. You avoid these choices by calling
them "playing doormat." That way you can be so right, so justified,
when confronted with the truth, in "jamming it up the person's ass."
>
>And the other choice would be to say "oh, everything you say is right and
>I'm a terrible person."
>
>Oddly enough, this isn't a perspective to which I can lay claim.
Well yes, you can. Your reason for not doing so, when the person is
right, and when you are supporting a criminal fraud as you've been, is
not because you are incapable of saying the person is right, but
because for clear immoral reasons you choose to be cruel, to take
their truth and their rightness and "jam it up the person's ass."
This is what Hubbard said to do. If attacked on some vulnerable point
(like the truth) find and manufacture something and "jam it up the
person's ass." That is what Scientology teaches. That's what
Scientologists mean by "Scientology works."
But again, your actions only convince me more, if that's possible,
that Scientology does not work. You are still faced with sooner or
later having to confront the truth that all this time you have been
supporting a criminal fraud. You are still faced with sooner or later
having to confront the truth that when you took all those truths over
all those years being stated by all those people and "jammed them up
the person's ass" you were not only being cruel and not only
supporting a criminal fraud, but you were proving each time that
Scientology doesn't work. All those truths you thought you were
"jamming up the person's ass" weren't "jammed up the person's ass" at
all, but sat unmoved in perfect clarity, just waiting for you to
acknowledge them.
> I know
>that's rilly rilly weird, but well, you know, it must be the fluff.
No, it's cruelty. But then that's Scientology. Scientology equals
cruelty. Differentiate that.
>
>>
>> >
>> >And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in making anyone cry,either.
>
>Leaving that in as it was not commented upon although there was plenty of
>commentary re imagined cruely from yours truly. This statement- both the
>making of it and the fact it preceded yours- puts the lie to that particular
>claim.
Untrue. Your lies do not put the lie to the truth. Your cruelty is
actually augumented by each lie you tell, Claire, each time you take
the truth someone is saying and "jam it up the person's ass."
You've tried Scientology's "jam it up the person's ass" tech for at
least four years on a.r.s., Claire. Why don't you try some decent,
honest, caring wog tech?
Zinj
caro...@gerryarmstrong.org says...
<snip>
Sigh
Caroline, whether you notice it or not, what you're posting does more to
marginalize both you and Gerry than anything your 'critics' could say.
You have asked me what *my* crimes are, and, while you should ask
yourself why you consider that a 'powerful' question, I can only answer
that to the best of my knowledge, my only crime in *this* context is
finding Gerry's naive belief that Scientology 'cruelty' validates his own
position to be at best silly, and at worst insane.
Your current posts are approaching laserclamism in their smug certainty.
You can do better, as can Gerry.
Zinj
Fluffygirl
No, I did not use those words.
I have said, on different occasions, different things- all of which were
true, re my participation here.
Mainly, I'm a girl posting to a public forum. John and I discovered this
forum by sheer accident and now, well, you're stuck with me. Heh.
One lady, Barbara (posting under Ceon Ramon) said something to me way back
when about me "witnessing for (my) religion". I didn't like the sound of
that and told her that wasn't it. Later on, I reconsidered the matter and
said that it was true, that I did want to kind of witness for it, in a
manner of speaking.
I've also said my main thing is rebutting and debunking stereotypes.
These are the things I've said about my reasons for participation here. The
phrase you've attributed to me has not been written by me.
Now, if you can actually find a post where I said that, please feel free to
pull it up and paste it in somewhere in a reply. I'd be more than happy to
take a look at whatever you find.~If~ you find anything.
>
> And if you want to find stacks of your lies, check Google for them
> too.
I've not lied to this ng.
And you are not even giving examples of things I'm supposed to have lied
about. You've not made any specific statements, pasted in anything from the
google archives, nothing.
What actually is the case is that you and I have different perspectives and
your way of discussing my writings is to hysterically accuse me of mendacity
rather than saying "clearly we disagree and here's why I disagree with you
and these are the points of disagreement." Not only that, but all you did
was make a vague,unsubstantiated accusation with absolutely no specifics
given.
This does not constitute good debate or discussion.
> >
> >For years, months, days, or seconds.
>
> Not only did you claim it, but you have in virtually every post tried
> to do that. Though your efforts might be pathetic, you do try to
> defend Scientology.
I've not said I don't try to "defend Scn". However, I did point out that
your claim that I ~said~ I was HERE to defend Scn was untrue.
That does not mean I don't defend Scn.
I've never claimed to NOT defend Scn or to NOT want to do that. I merely
said that I've not said that I was here to defend Scn.
I am here and I am defending Scn but I am not HERE to DEFEND Scn.
I'm here because I like discussion.
Once here discussing the topic at hand, I write what I think. It doesn't
happen to be what you think and you seem to have trouble dealing with that.
But that's really not my problem.
>
> > and since I have
> >stated many times in the past that there's a distinct YMMV aspect to Scn
and
> >some exaggerations by Hubbard.
>
> A total copout by you. And a further support of my certainly that
> Scientology is a criminal fraud.
No, it's not a copout. I'm a renegade Scn'ist. I'm not a churchie, and I
agree with whatever I agree with and disagree with whatever I disagree with.
I walked away from a church in which I'd been a member 2 lifetimes and
counting. I stood up to OSA and told 'em to basically fuck off.
So obviously cop outs are not my specialty and your accusation is
unsubstantiated.
>
> Deal with this then. Okay, your mileage may vary. Okay, only a
> certain percentage of Scientologists will attain the point per hour.
> But since Hubbard claims that the point per hour is an average, it
> would be clear that in the YMMV sort of Scientology some people would
> get increases of 2 points per hour and some would only get a half
> point per hour increase. And this would all average out to one point
> per hour for the 8 million.
I don't really care.
Hubbard's processes are helpful and efficacious to some degree or extent or
other for various people and, occasionally, not so much.
That's really all I'm interested in.
> >
> >Apparently you've got this idea that anyone who thinks it works thinks
> >everything Hubbard said did and thought about it was exactly as written,
> >IOW, the idea is any Scn'ist- even a free form one like me- is a
> >fundamentalist, taking it all quite literally, no evaluation, no grains
of
> >salt, nuttin'.
>
> No, you are lying. You are deliberately and idiotically
> misinterpreting my words.
Hence my use of the word "apparently" as a qualifier.
> That too convinces me that you are willfully
> supporting what you know to be fraud.
Well, no, all that would mean was that I had a certain opinion about you and
your communication with me. It wouldn't reflect on anything else.
Your point is illogical.
>
> Address the single issue of IQ being raised in you, or anyone else, a
> point per hour of your auditing. Or unequivocally admit that that
> promise by Hubbard is completely untrue, and a fraudulent
> representation.
I don't like those choices, so I'll just make a third one...see above...
> >
> >Now, I could understand your making that mistake (happily assuming away
as
> >is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting here or whom
you
> >met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here that I don't
> >automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word, literally,
then
> >your attempted railroading and summation of my position makes absolutely
no
> >sense.
>
> Of course you would say that.
Yes, I always say what I think. I say it 'cuz it's my stance and my opinion.
Small wonder, then, that I would express it and represent it as being my
stance and opinion.
> Because you are trying with all the
> abusive Scientology communication tech you throw at me to defend and
> divert attention away from the criminal fraud of Scientology.
This comment makes no sense and is, perforce, illogical.
I'm just posting what I think and am just replying to a post.
There've been some harsh words and recriminations, sure, but they are coming
from you to me, not the other way around.
> You
Well, you've seen me say that I can't please all the people all the time.
You've seen me say that I've no interest in making anybody cry. And we've
seen you go on and on about lies and "it's all you've got", so it's pretty
obvious who's behaving more on the offensive in this series of exchanges.
> must attack and invalidate me because that's all you've got.
I've not attacked you. I've stated some points of disagreement and I've
rebutted some things you've said.
If this seems like attacking to you, then you might want to find some forum
where everyone thinks exactly as you do so that you won't feel attacked
every time someone expresses disagreement with you.
There's been some real lashing out here, but it's been done by you, not by
me. I won't call it "attacking" because it's rather like being lashed with a
large damp pasta noodle, so I'll call it lashing out. Your various
accusations and indignant communication. Your incivility.
This is a discussion group. This is not some Roman arena with gladiators in
it. You should get comfortable with the fact that not everybody's gonna have
the same perspective as you and that they, on usenet and in other public
venues, are gonna feel free to express their perspective(s).
If that doesn't seem all right to you for any reason , then I would guess
that (if that ~were~ the case) that participation on such a forum isn't
really the best thing for you.
Every time I express any disagreement with you, you go off into some measure
of hysteria, flinging accusations around. That just doesn't make sense on a
forum like this.
This isn't life and death and nobody's out to get you. ~I'm~ certainly not.
(I don't actually care about you one way or the other at all, you see.)
We're just talkin' to ya. If this is hard for you to handle, you might want
to take another sabbatical from a.r.s.
>You
> simply cannot address even one false promise of Scientology. You do
> anything *but* address it.
I've addressed them just fine. I just haven't done it as you'd have
preferred.
> >>confronting the fact
> >> that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts over some time.
> >
> >This is what I meant about agreement to disagree and your inability to do
> >that.
>
> This comes out of Scientology bag of "handling suppression" tricks
> for shuddering someone into silence. "Can we ever be friends?" What
> a load. "While we fair game you, can't we just agree to disagree?"
I never studied that kind of stuff when I was in the church. Ever.
So I really wouldn't know.
If a non Scn'ist were to write the same sorts of things I wrote in the
preceding paragraph, you'd make an entirely different attribution. And that
indicates bias, intolerance, a tendency to stereotype and poor control and
understanding of logic.
>
> I have demonstrated beyond argument that Scientology is a criminal
> fraud.
What can I say? For you, it's a fraud. For many of us non CofS Scn'ists as
well as CofS members, it's not.
It ain't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's all bad. That would be a silly
and illogical supposition.
Just as to say that one thing worked meant that everything in it didn't
work.
That's package deal mentality and I don't do package deals.
But you do.
> >
> >You sound just like those Bible-totin' fundies who claim that not only do
> >they have the way to get into Heaven but that other religions don't, not
> >even other Christian denominations such as Catholics.
>
> Oh, yes, get in a little black PR while you're at it. Again and again
> you prove that Scientology is a criminal fraud, and that you support
> that criminal fraud, knowing full well it is a criminal fraud. You
> cannot address the issue of the promise of a raise in IQ of one point
> per hour, and instead, when asked about that vulnerable point you try
> to find or manufacture enough threat against me to cause me to sue for
> peace.
I'm not trying to find or manufacture any threat against you. I'm posting on
a public forum. If you don't want people to respond to you in a public forum
then don't post anything there.
I've neither expressed or implied any threat against you.
You are conjuring this up out of your imagination and there's nothing to
indicate any threat.
How silly!
>
> >
> >Instead of saying "Well this is what we (I) believe, and here's where it
> >differs from your ideas..." people like that,(of which you are one) will
say
> >"you're wrong. You're deluded. You can't do this. You can't do that."
>
> False. Every lie from you is more evidence that you know that the
> promise of an increase in IQ of a point per hour is a total falsehood,
> and that you know that Scientology is a fraud.
Well,no, since the above paragraph discusses your tendency to make
accusations rather than to express disagreement in a logical, civil, point
by point basis.
The two things are entirely different and therefore separate.
And you've, in entering into more accusations, proved my point.
> >and you should know that this kind of
> >fundamentalism never did go over very well in most places, including this
> >ng.
>
> Strawmen flourish and prosper, however, in a house of cards.
Yeah, and a wet bird seldom flies at night. And the stars do not have to
wait til the king's birthday to shine. A white cake may have chocolate
frosting...
>
> >>
> >
> ><snip bullshit> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
> >> >
> >> >It won't be me.
> >>
> >> I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24 years of my life,
> >> ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my daughter, and you,
> >> Claire, stoop to this?
> >
> >Stoop to what, exactly? I'm not a member of CofS. I criticize 'em all the
> >time. I criticize them for things as you've described in the above
> >referenced paragraph, so tell me, what stoopage do you imagine here?
>
> Stoop to your attacks on Scientology's victims.
I've not attacked anyone.
And, again, you've made an accusation with no specifics. What attacks? what
victims? When?
Considering I've commiserated with many people here who've run afoul of the
church (and I myself have run afoul of the same church) considering that
when Peter Alexander, I think it was, talked about someone screeching the
contents of his pc folder at him when picketing and I said that was wrong
and disgusting - thereby obtaining even more unwelcome attention from the
likes of OSA boding not much good Fluffy-ward- well, your comment, again,
makes no sense.
> You know , as I have
> demonstrated, that Hubbard's promise of raising IQ a point per hour of
> auditing is a complete lie. You therefore know that Scientology is a
> fraud. Instead of addressing even this very specific lie, and this
> very specific fraud, you attack the people defrauded. That is
> stooping. It's very cruel. Your dishonesty is stooping, and it is
> very cruel.
I just write what I think.
The cruelty is in your imagination.
If you're going to take it personally every time someone disagrees with you,
again, I suggest you rethink your participation on a forum like this which
gets a broad assortment of people on it.
There are NO two people here who agree with each other about everything.
So disagreement's part of the deal here on a.r.s. and mature responsible
adults know that and can handle it.
>
> Maybe you have been so dishonest for so long, been defending the
> Scientology fraud for so long, and been attacking Scientology's fraud
> victims for so long that you don't see it as stooping, because that's
> the only posture you know. But I believe that I have carefully
> pointed out to you, in very simple language, what you're doing, and
> that you do recognize that in differentiating your behavior from the
> behavior of ordinary, honest wogs, you are knowingly stooping.
If I were to say the sorts of things you say about Scn,I'd be dishonest as
it's not what I think and it doesn't correlate to any of my experiences.
> >
> >
> >> You pretend to be persecuted,
> >
> >Well, actually, I just figure I'm a girl posting to a newsgroup.
>
> Isn't that sweet. Then you've got no reason to continue to be cruel,
> to continue to lie, to continue to defend the Scientology fraud.
> Since you are so cruel, do lie so pervasively, and do continue to
> defend the fraud, mainly by attacking its victims, it is reasonable to
> conclude that you are not just a girl posting to a newsgroup.
Let me check.
(un) z-i-i-i-i-i-i-p!
Let's see. Still have vagina. Tits.
Still posting here.
Yep. That's settled. Am a girl posting to a newsgroup.
Ok, now let's look in papers, databases, let's check memory- hmmm...did
anybody send me here or do I have some interest in getting anybody for
anything re this ng?
Nope. Just postin' here 'cuz I like to.
Ok, have now established that I am ~just~ a girl posting to a newsgroup.
Fluffily.
> >I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to which
everyone
> >can relate, now is it? ;->
>
> That's nice. You're not persecuted. But you do support the
> persecution of others by the fraud which is Scientology.
Nope. I decry any and all abusive behavior by CofS or by anybody else.
> >
> >
> >>and you support
> >> the persecution of the people who really are being persecuted.
> >
> >No, I don't, and there is nothing in my posts to support such a
ridiculous
> >hypothesis.
>
> Yes there is years of it. Check Google.
Nope, there's not.
> >> Have
> >> you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel Scientologists are, how
> >> cruel Scientology is?
> >
> >~Now~ who's actin' persecuted?
>
> Yes, the fraud you support ripped me off for 24 years, more than $60K
> and my daughter. Now the fraud you support has declared me fair game.
> You support the SP doctrine and what results from it when you support
> Scientology fraud. You willfully support my persecution. In fact you
> personally add to it.
Nope.
I don't support CofS' actions in things like that and I'm no longer a member
of CofS. And since I often criticize exactly that type of behavior it's
obvious to one and all that I do not perpetrate or support "Scn fraud".
<snip whining>
> >My thing is that I like to post on to this ng. Period. I've no interest
in
> >personalities and so forth, except for the occasional lighthearted or
> >warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to anyone else
is
> >if they initiated rude communication and really, all anyone has to do to
> >avoid this, is to keep it civil.
>
> This is another cruel lie. You demonstrate that cruel behavior --
> black PR, invalidation, arrogant evaluation, obfuscation, sniptech,
> etc. -- when you are confronted with the truth. This is often the
> truth that you are knowingly defending and promoting Scientology
> fraud, and attacking its victims. That truth is what you then try to,
> as you say, "jam it up the person's ass."
> >
> >Every single person with whom I've exchanged harsh words initiated the
> >rudeness.
>
> What a lie. Check Google. It's bulging with your rudeness, what you
> call "jamming it up the person's ass," initiated *after* you were
> confronted with the truth.
Nope. People who are civil to me, even when making it clear they totally
disagree with me, are, in turn treated with civility.
There've been many discussions between myself and people who flat out told
me they didn't agree with me. I was civil to them and they were civil to me.
Because I don't perceive disagreement with my views as attacking, unlike
you.
> >
> >Now, I did have other choices, I suppose. I could have ignored them- but
> >frankly, I've no interest in playing doormat, any more than anyone else
> >would.
>
> How does this work: "Don't give me that sententious bullshit, Ed."
Right. His post was rude and "make wrong" ish. He took me to task, so I
told him what I thought.
I bet if someone else wrote that, you'd have no trouble with it.
Hypocrite.
<snip various exemplars of hysteria and circular logic>
> But again, your actions only convince me more, if that's possible,
> that Scientology does not work.
I doubt very much that you'd needed any persuasion...
;->
<snip comment of Caroline's to the effect that anyone disagreeing with her
re Scn is cruel>
> >> >And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in making anyone
cry,either.
> >
> >Leaving that in as it was not commented upon although there was plenty of
> >commentary re imagined cruely from yours truly. This statement- both the
> >making of it and the fact it preceded yours- puts the lie to that
particular
> >claim.
>
> Untrue. Your lies do not put the lie to the truth. Your cruelty is
> actually augumented by each lie you tell, Claire, each time you take
> the truth someone is saying and "jam it up the person's ass."
Oh, like when I was called a cocksucking whore and a liar and a cunt?
Well, baby, if it's true for you it's true for you.
But, oddly enough, it ain't true for me.
>
> You've tried Scientology's "jam it up the person's ass" tech for at
> least four years on a.r.s., Claire. Why don't you try some decent,
> honest, caring wog tech?
My posts, in the main, are civil. People play nice with me, and I play nice
with them.
If they're rude they can get fucked.
Fortunately, the majority of exchanges here betwixt me and others have been
just fine. Lots of disagreement expressed, but little or no incivility.
And when incivility and rudeness and crudeness rears their ugly heads, I'm
never the one to initiate such. But I'm more than happy to respond in kind!
I've also never been hatted to talk to critics/detractors/ whatever of Scn
nor have I taken any dissem courses or can we ever be friends type crap. I
had to listen to that tape for a course and thought it was the corniest shit
I'd ever heard. But then again, I don't like Jeff Pomerantz and never have.
If a non Scn'ist wrote some of the things I've written, you'd not be
imagining it as "snip tech" or any other kind of "tech".
Ah me, so many biases and stereotypes to deal with and soooo little time.
C
Fluffygirl
"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
news:as0k4...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >"Caroline Letkeman" <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
> ><news:ald6uugiahopffp7p...@4ax.com>:
> >>
> >> It did what though? Produced a point per hour increase in your IQ?
> >> Or "worked" because the needle moved and the tone arm went up and
> >> down?
> >>
> >> When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud.
> >> That is what "Scientology working" means.
>
> In article <3de3...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl" says...
> >
> >And here you have it. It's not just a point on which two people can
> >agree to disagree. No, it's "criminal".
>
> Keep in mind to which noun (fraud, meaning Scientology) the adjective
> (criminal) applies.
Nope.
Fraud is intent to deceive. I write what I write from the heart. I have my
experiences with Scn, good ones, and I discuss such, and those of others
who've also had good ones. I also discuss the problematic and abusive ones
experienced by myself and by others, as well.
I work in the legal field and I happen to know a great deal about what does
and what does not constitute fraud.
<snip-done here>
C
ptsc
wrote:
>Nope.
>Fraud is intent to deceive. I write what I write from the heart. I have my
>experiences with Scn, good ones, and I discuss such, and those of others
>who've also had good ones. I also discuss the problematic and abusive ones
>experienced by myself and by others, as well.
Fraud is more than intent to deceive and does not of necessity require it.
The most critical element of fraud is not merely deception but reliance upon
a material misrepresentation of fact to the detriment of the party deceived.
Additionally, the intent need not be by the individual performing the fraud.
If there is an overarching corporate intend to defraud, as there is in how
"Churches" of Scientology often operate, and which Scientology's own
written policies display clearly, then the intent to defraud is something for
which it is entirely possible that the individual making the claims could be
held not to be liable while the corporation for which the person is working
could at the same time be found liable.
There are also times in which there is a rebuttable presumption of intent to
defraud. In that case, the burden of proof would fall on the defendant, and
indeed actual intent to defraud could be absent while legally, it is presumed.
So while intent may be necessary for a fraud charge, the intent may not be
present in an individual who is merely relaying the statements of the prime
actor in the fraud, which in this case would be the corporate entity for which
the individual is working.
This does not necessarily mean that any human be found guilty of fraud in
order for a corporation to be criminal in intent and activity, albeit on the
abstract level that a corporation can (legally) "intend" a result, in this case
the defrauding of Scientologists.
(I happen to think there are individuals in management who are, in fact,
guilty of criminal fraud, but it would not be indispensible to prove this to
prove that corporate Scientology is itself criminal.)
>I work in the legal field and I happen to know a great deal about what does
>and what does not constitute fraud.
><snip-done here>
ptsc
Warrior
>> ><news:ald6uugiahopffp7p...@4ax.com>:
>> >>
>> >> It did what though? Produced a point per hour increase in your IQ?
>> >> Or "worked" because the needle moved and the tone arm went up and
>> >> down?
>> >>
>> >> When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud.
>> >> That is what "Scientology working" means.
>> In article <3de3...@news2.lightlink.com>, Claire "Fluffygirl" Swazey
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >And here you have it. It's not just a point on which two people can
>> >agree to disagree. No, it's "criminal".
>"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
>news:as0k4...@drn.newsguy.com:
>>
>> Keep in mind to which noun (fraud, meaning Scientology) the adjective
>> (criminal) applies.
In article <3de8...@news2.lightlink.com>, Claire "Fluffygirl" Swazey wrote:
>
>Nope.
>
>Fraud is intent to deceive. I write what I write from the heart. I have my
>experiences with Scn, good ones, and I discuss such, and those of others
>who've also had good ones. I also discuss the problematic and abusive ones
>experienced by myself and by others, as well.
>
>I work in the legal field and I happen to know a great deal about what does
>and what does not constitute fraud.
I'll repeat ptsc's words here since he said it so well:
"Fraud is more than intent to deceive and does not of necessity require it.
The most critical element of fraud is not merely deception but reliance upon
a material misrepresentation of fact to the detriment of the party deceived.
"Additionally, the intent need not be by the individual performing the fraud.
If there is an overarching corporate intent to defraud, as there is in how
"Churches" of Scientology often operate, and which Scientology's own
written policies display clearly, then the intent to defraud is something for
which it is entirely possible that the individual making the claims could be
held not to be liable while the corporation for which the person is working
could at the same time be found liable.
"There are also times in which there is a rebuttable presumption of intent to
defraud. In that case, the burden of proof would fall on the defendant, and
indeed actual intent to defraud could be absent while legally, it is presumed.
"So while intent may be necessary for a fraud charge, the intent may not be
present in an individual who is merely relaying the statements of the prime
actor in the fraud, which in this case would be the corporate entity for which
the individual is working.
"This does not necessarily mean that any human be found guilty of fraud in
order for a corporation to be criminal in intent and activity, albeit on the
abstract level that a corporation can (legally) "intend" a result, in this case
the defrauding of Scientologists.
"(I happen to think there are individuals in management who are, in fact,
guilty of criminal fraud, but it would not be indispensible to prove this to
prove that corporate Scientology is itself criminal.)"
I believe there are individuals in Scientology management who are guilty
of criminal fraud.
>"Caroline Letkeman" <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
><news:ald6uugiahopffp7p...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud.
>> That is what "Scientology working" means.
In article <3de3...@news2.lightlink.com>, Claire "Fluffygirl" Swazey
wrote:
>
>You, in following the dictates of your conscience and what you have
>experienced, are, in Caroline's words, "criminal".
Nope. You've attempted to twist Caroline's statement. You've just
incorrectly characterized Caroline's usage of the word "criminal" as
a noun, and you compounded your illogic further by incorrectly attrib-
uting her words as if they applied to bb. Caroline clearly said,
"When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud."
I too helped forward the criminal fraud of Scientology by making
"outstanding contributions" while I was a staff member.
(See http://warrior.offlines.org/19800313lrhrecognition.jpg
and http://warrior.offlines.org/19810618bdgame1stplace_sm.jpg )
True, some individuals who forward criminal fraud are themselves
criminals; but others are mere pawns or dupes who have been
unwittingly used (by means of deception) to forward criminal fraud.
>It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
I believe Caroline would herself admit that she too once forwarded
the Scientology fraud until she realized she was forwarding a fraud.
I once participated in money laundering (a crime) by Scientology
without realizing it. I had been told an "acceptable truth" (a lie)
as to why Scientology was transferring money into overseas bank
accounts in Luxembourg. I did not realize at the time that I was
participating in a criminal act (tax evasion). Nevertheless, I did
unknowingly help forward and carry out Hubbard's and Scientology's
"Command Intention" to commit fraud. My participation in the fraud
was obtained by telling me an "acceptable truth". I was told the
reason Scientology needed to transfer its reserves overseas was because
they had so much money in U.S. banks that they could no longer find
a bank into which to deposit their reserves *and* ensure they were
covered by the F.D.I.C. guarantee, since they had so much money in so
many banks that it was no longer possible to find a bank at which the
F.D.I.C. limit on the insuring of funds (at that time $50,000) had not
already reached the maximum. This was a lie. I didn't know it at the
time, and I had no reason to believe the Assistant Guardian Finance
would lie to me, so I did not question his "acceptable truth". Does
the fact of my ignorance mean I was not helping to forward a criminal
fraud? Clearly I did unknowingly participate in fraud.
>In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just buzzwords, used so
>often by some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this
>context and in similar contexts.
Caroline has more than adequately explained why she believes Scientology
is a criminal fraud (I agree with her), as well as how Scientology
engages in brainwashing (again, I agree with her). I have no trouble at
all understanding how *meaningful* Caroline's words are.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
Allen Stanfield
life, and then publishing those lies in your books - and re-publishing these
lies for over thirty years - constitute fraud?
What if you sold these books in every franchise you opened over those thirty
years? And then you wrote policies that mandated the selling of these books
(containing these lies) to recruit new people?
What if these books (that contained these lies) were used to recruit members
into paying tens of thousands of dollars for courses to be OT like Ron said
he was - but actually wasn't?
Would this constitute fraud?
Allen
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:564guuok7haoa3lod...@4ax.com...
ptsc
>>Fraud is intent to deceive. I write what I write from the heart. I have my
>>experiences with Scn, good ones, and I discuss such, and those of others
>>who've also had good ones. I also discuss the problematic and abusive ones
>>experienced by myself and by others, as well.
>>I work in the legal field and I happen to know a great deal about what does
>>and what does not constitute fraud.
>I'll repeat ptsc's words here since he said it so well:
>"Fraud is more than intent to deceive and does not of necessity require it.
While I think I cleared this up fairly well, this might be deceptive, since
fraud does require at least "intent" as legally defined, although this might
not necessarily be the same as the normal English language definition
of the word. More specifically, that line clumsily attempts to say that fraud
can be committed while the individual actually presenting the "sales pitch"
is personally innocent of fraud, but there must actually be "intent" for fraud.
>The most critical element of fraud is not merely deception but reliance upon
>a material misrepresentation of fact to the detriment of the party deceived.
>"Additionally, the intent need not be by the individual performing the fraud.
>If there is an overarching corporate intent to defraud, as there is in how
>"Churches" of Scientology often operate, and which Scientology's own
>written policies display clearly, then the intent to defraud is something for
>which it is entirely possible that the individual making the claims could be
>held not to be liable while the corporation for which the person is working
>could at the same time be found liable.
>"There are also times in which there is a rebuttable presumption of intent to
>defraud. In that case, the burden of proof would fall on the defendant, and
>indeed actual intent to defraud could be absent while legally, it is presumed.
>"So while intent may be necessary for a fraud charge, the intent may not be
>present in an individual who is merely relaying the statements of the prime
>actor in the fraud, which in this case would be the corporate entity for which
>the individual is working.
>"This does not necessarily mean that any human be found guilty of fraud in
>order for a corporation to be criminal in intent and activity, albeit on the
>abstract level that a corporation can (legally) "intend" a result, in this case
>the defrauding of Scientologists.
>"(I happen to think there are individuals in management who are, in fact,
>guilty of criminal fraud, but it would not be indispensible to prove this to
>prove that corporate Scientology is itself criminal.)"
ptsc
Caroline Letkeman
<amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Through all this, Claire has simply shown again that she is dishonest
and knowingly supporting the criminal fraud which is Scientology. As
such, she is a very well trained representative of Scientology, and
actually helpful in the effort to have the fraud recognized for the
fraud it is.
Sooner or later there will be a high level analysis of Scientology's
actions and intentions, just as there have been analyses of the
minutiae of Nazi actions and intentions. Claire's actions and
intentions, as a defender and promoter of the Scientology fraud on
this newsgroup, will be a small part of the analysis.
I have proven, beyond logical argument, that Scientology does not
raise IQ a point per hour as Hubbard promises. This is a single point
in the overall fraud, but the one point I am addressing here, and
which I have communicated many times to Claire, and anyone else who is
reading these posts.
Claire's response is to snip, avoid and, as Hubbard directed, attack,
and attack, to deny her attacks, and then attack some more.
I have been very specific about addressing one specific fraudulent
representation, that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Claire's
responses demonstrate the fraud. They are dishonest and inane.
Scientology is an extant criminal fraud, and every person who says
Scientology works promotes that criminal fraud. Some more knowingly
than others.
Caroline Letkeman
>In article <5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oq...@4ax.com>,
>caro...@gerryarmstrong.org says...
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:41:49 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
>> <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Sigh
>
>Caroline, whether you notice it or not, what you're posting does more to
>marginalize both you and Gerry than anything your 'critics' could say.
You snipped it all, so I put it all back below. Would you please point
out what you're talking about.
>
>You have asked me what *my* crimes are, and, while you should ask
>yourself why you consider that a 'powerful' question, I can only answer
>that to the best of my knowledge, my only crime in *this* context is
>finding Gerry's naive belief that Scientology 'cruelty' validates his own
>position to be at best silly, and at worst insane.
I had thought by reading your comments for some time that you hated
Gerry, and sniped at him and perverted what he said because you
thought he was marginalized, and that you were attacking his position.
But perhaps I was wrong. What do you believe his position is?
<unsnip previous post>
Path: news.online.de!not-for-mail
From: Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT
1 Success)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:57:58 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Lines: 445
Message-ID: <5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oq...@4ax.com>
References: <7acb5afd.02112...@posting.google.com>
<f112uuoqo6fohhg43...@4ax.com>
<7acb5afd.02112...@posting.google.com>
<ald6uugiahopffp7p...@4ax.com>
<3de3...@news2.lightlink.com>
<g979uugsf9sn4rfmm...@4ax.com>
<3de4...@news2.lightlink.com>
<MPG.184e73ba5...@news2.lightlink.com>
<3de5...@news2.lightlink.com>
<tqebuuk91kd1772rv...@4ax.com>
<3de6...@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e15344.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.online.de 1038574545 23290 217.225.83.68 (29 Nov 2002
12:55:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@online.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2002 12:55:45 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: news.online.de alt.religion.scientology:689145
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:41:49 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
</unsnip>
Starshadow
(snip for brevity)
>>
>
> Through all this, Claire has simply shown again that she is dishonest
> and knowingly supporting the criminal fraud which is Scientology. As
> such, she is a very well trained representative of Scientology, and
> actually helpful in the effort to have the fraud recognized for the
> fraud it is.
You know, you're the one being dishonest here. Claire has been declared
(no pun intended) and is no longer a member of the CofS, as she has
pointed out time and again, and she has asked you to provide SPECIFICS
of lies and you've failed time and again, only mindlessly repeating that
she is "dishonest", which just doesn't cut it in this forum or anywhere
else.
Put up or shut up, Caroline. Either show specific "dishonesties" or
admit you are lying and stereotyping simply because Claire styles
herself as a Scn'ist and you don't happen to like Scn'y.
> Sooner or later there will be a high level analysis of Scientology's
> actions and intentions, just as there have been analyses of the
> minutiae of Nazi actions and intentions. Claire's actions and
> intentions, as a defender and promoter of the Scientology fraud on
> this newsgroup, will be a small part of the analysis.
If you're thinking that the CofS is condoning Claire's being here and
defending Scn'y (not,--I add once again, since you have a problem
comprehending the difference--the "Church" of Scientology) then you are
wrong, wrong, wrong. I've been friends with Claire for a long time and I
assure you that the "Church" has been trying to dissuade her --first by
actual advice and later by demanding that she leave the ng--from being
here and publishing her views. If you've actually READ the google
archives you know this to be a fact and are simply lying about it.
> I have proven, beyond logical argument, that Scientology does not
> raise IQ a point per hour as Hubbard promises. This is a single point
> in the overall fraud, but the one point I am addressing here, and
> which I have communicated many times to Claire, and anyone else who is
> reading these posts.
Not going to address this as I don't in fact believe that Scn'y does
raise IQs, but I will say that all you've proven in "logical argument"
is that you don't know a logical argument from your nether exterior.
All you've communicated is that you hate Scn'y and you hate the CofS and
that anyone who represents that they like either is going to be
stereotyped as a liar and a hypocrite without actually providing any
proof of this statement other than that you believe it to be so.
> Claire's response is to snip, avoid and, as Hubbard directed, attack,
> and attack, to deny her attacks, and then attack some more.
> I have been very specific about addressing one specific fraudulent
> representation, that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Claire's
> responses demonstrate the fraud. They are dishonest and inane.
Claire addressed EACH and every "point" you made about her so-called
"dishonesty" and her "fraud" which addressing you completely blew off by
simply repeating your accusations of fraud without in fact addressing
any actual fraud Claire committed. Nice job of black PR. You seem to
have learned well from your years in the cult. Guess you can take the
woman out of the cult but not the cult out of the woman, in your case.
In fact, I think you are the one being dishonest. There certainly are
ways to disprove what you maintain, but you aren't doing it. All you
are doing is screeching about Claire's supposed dishonesty while
ignoring your own.
> Scientology is an extant criminal fraud, and every person who says
> Scientology works promotes that criminal fraud. Some more knowingly
> than others.
I'd say that the "Church" of Scientology certainly does promote criminal
fraud, but that individuals may or may not, knowingly or otherwise. Like
it or not, what Hubbard invented (in my belief simply to become rich)
has evolved (or devolved, depending on how one looks at it) to go beyond
what Hubbard intended, and there are plenty of practicing Scn'ists just
as there are plenty of non official LDS mormons, a cult with similar
roots, which believe in its best tenets --and yes, it does have some, if
you read the spew Hubbard put out--and disregard what they don't like.
This is no different from any of the religions of the Book, which, if
you read their sacred texts, especially the Bible, have bits which
indicate their diety is a spoiled four year old on a power trip who
exhorts his followers to go out and kill the heathen down to "babies in
arms", and has for thousands of years--but have followers who sidestep
those parts of that book they don't like in these kinder (hah!) gentler
times. Claire likes some of what Hubbard wrote. So what? The man wrote a
great deal of stuff to cover just about everything. Some of it stole
from the best homilies, and that is what the "Church" uses to perpetuate
their fraud on an unknowing public, some of whom become the public
Scn'ists such as Claire used to be before she was Declared.
What you are basically saying boils down to "It's fraud because I
believe it's fraud, and all Scn'ists promote that fraud and are lying,
and though I can't find out any actual posts in google to support my
saying so I will continue repeating that you are promoting fraud and
dishonesty and that the posts are there to prove it. But I'm not going
to dig up any actual posts. I will just go on asserting that I'm right
and you aren't, and then call you a dishonest person for telling me I
should dig them up since I'm claiming they are there."
That isn't logical argument. That is dishonesty incarnate. Again, I
repeat, you can take yourself out of the cult, but you haven't managed
to take the cult out of yourself.
---
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
"Scientology in 1986, after fraud judgement in favor
of ex-member Lawrence Wollersheim --'Not one thin dime for
Wollersheim'
Scientology May 9, 2002 before final appeal--
86,746,430 Thin Dimes for Wollersheim." www.factnet.org
www.xenu.net --what the Church of Scientology doesn't want
you to see
grouchomatic
I don't know who most of the people in this thread are. For example, I
don't know much about Caroline who has been going back and forth with
you repeatedly. So, setting aside personality conflicts, past insults,
and all the rest. I am interested in your reply to one question that
has been raised.
LRH *did* say, on many occasions, that auditing raised IQ. Setting
aside the fact that he did very this claim from time to time, the fact
is he made the claim, never withdrew the claim, and the claim remains
today in the material sold to publics and staff alike.
Question: Do you believe auditing raises IQ?
Grouch
Fluffygirl
"Allen Stanfield" <allenspambu...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:7EYF9.2738$ic6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Would lying about your war record and almost everything you did in your
> life, and then publishing those lies in your books - and re-publishing
these
> lies for over thirty years - constitute fraud?
>
> What if you sold these books in every franchise you opened over those
thirty
> years? And then you wrote policies that mandated the selling of these
books
> (containing these lies) to recruit new people?
>
> What if these books (that contained these lies) were used to recruit
members
> into paying tens of thousands of dollars for courses to be OT like Ron
said
> he was - but actually wasn't?
>
> Would this constitute fraud?
>
I really don't care whether it is or is not. It is your issue but it is not
mine.
I don't give a flying fuck about L Ron Hubbard. I only am interested in
ideas. So urging me forward down a certain line of discussion to Elron
doesn't cut any ice with me.
The only people who care about L Ron the man are gullible fools. In the
church and in the critic scene.
Founders, cult leaders, clergy, prophets- those do not matter.
Ideas and methods do.
C
Fluffygirl
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
> On 29 Nov 2002 21:48:05 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Fraud is intent to deceive. I write what I write from the heart. I have
my
> >>experiences with Scn, good ones, and I discuss such, and those of others
> >>who've also had good ones. I also discuss the problematic and abusive
ones
> >>experienced by myself and by others, as well.
>
> >>I work in the legal field and I happen to know a great deal about what
does
> >>and what does not constitute fraud.
>
> >I'll repeat ptsc's words here since he said it so well:
>
> >"Fraud is more than intent to deceive and does not of necessity require
it.
>
> While I think I cleared this up fairly well, this might be deceptive,
since
> fraud does require at least "intent" as legally defined, although this
might
> not necessarily be the same as the normal English language definition
> of the word. More specifically, that line clumsily attempts to say that
fraud
> can be committed while the individual actually presenting the "sales
pitch"
> is personally innocent of fraud, but there must actually be "intent" for
fraud.
>
Fact remains, person who gets results from Scn, who enjoys it, who
criticizes certain elements of Scn, who posts what she thinks regarding the
positives and the negatives with utter sincerity is not perpetrating fraud.
Every now and again someone accuses me of such.
But there's no court in the land that would convict me of such.
C
ptsc
wrote:
Perhaps not perpetrating, but participating in, knowingly or not, as Warrior
stated concerning his activities at ASHO. He was participating in fraud,
although I do not believe he had any intent to defraud.
>Every now and again someone accuses me of such.
>But there's no court in the land that would convict me of such.
You're not selling anything. There could be no "detrimental reliance"
as the term is defined.
ptsc
Fluffygirl
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
Could someone be convicted of fraud under those circumstances?
>
> >Every now and again someone accuses me of such.
>
> >But there's no court in the land that would convict me of such.
>
> You're not selling anything. There could be no "detrimental reliance"
> as the term is defined.
Plus, I'm fluffy.
You keep leaving that out and I think it would have been a brilliant
argument. I guess you were leaving that one for me, huh?
;->
C
ptsc
wrote:
>> Perhaps not perpetrating, but participating in, knowingly or not, as
>> Warrior stated concerning his activities at ASHO. He was participating in fraud,
>> although I do not believe he had any intent to defraud.
>Could someone be convicted of fraud under those circumstances?
Possibly, if a trier of fact were to have found it incredible that he could keep
meticulous financial records at ASHO without knowing what was going on.
While I believe that in fact he didn't deliberately participate in anything
illegal, it's possible that someone else might not find the same thing.
I do not think he could *correctly* have been convicted of fraud under those
circumstances, but he would be more likely to be found liable for fraud in a
civil setting. I'm less certain whether such a finding would be incorrect. I'm
sure you know that while they're the same word, they're two diffferent beasts.
The criminal act requires a mens rea, intent to defraud, while the civil appears
only to require that the person have failed in some duty which they owed the
plaintiff and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result.
I think even in the criminal scenario, hypothesizing that Warrior's descriptions
of what he did are complete and accurate (a fairly safe assumption), and adding
that ASHO were suddenly raided and a prosecutor were cooking up a fraud
case, he would prove to be far too useful a fact witness to prosecute,
especially absent any malice on his part. I also don't think that even at that
time he would have accepted orders to lie to the authorities.
So to answer your question, maybe. But it would be wrong. IMO.
>> >Every now and again someone accuses me of such.
>> >But there's no court in the land that would convict me of such.
>> You're not selling anything. There could be no "detrimental reliance"
>> as the term is defined.
>Plus, I'm fluffy.
>You keep leaving that out and I think it would have been a brilliant
>argument. I guess you were leaving that one for me, huh?
>;->
I don't recognize that as an affirmative defense ;-)
ptsc
hartley patterson
> Founders, cult leaders, clergy, prophets- those do not matter.
>
> Ideas and methods do.
Not to the majority of humanity, who would rather others did the
thinking for them.
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and
how to outrun Thread.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Warrior
>(amaflu...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>>
>>Fact remains, person who gets results from Scn, who enjoys it,
>>who criticizes certain elements of Scn, who posts what she thinks
>>regarding the positives and the negatives with utter sincerity is
>>not perpetrating fraud.
In article <10diuuspmfv7soego...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
>
>Perhaps not perpetrating, but participating in, knowingly or not,
>as Warrior stated concerning his activities at ASHO. He was par-
>ticipating in fraud, although I do not believe he had any intent
>to defraud.
You are correct. At the time I was unknowingly participating in the
money laundering, I had no idea I was doing so. My particular part
in the fraud was that I prepared the checks for signatory under the
orders from the Assistant Guardian Finance ASHO (Gerald Wayne McNeely).
He would had to have been acting under orders from the Second Deputy
Guardian for Finance World Wide, Herbie Parkhouse, since the transfer
checks were sent to his office at Saint Hill England. In fact, the
mere existence of the overseas account (called the Church of Scien-
tology of California American Saint Hill Organization Reserve Account
Number Two) at the Kreditenbank in Luxembourg would had to have been
approved by persons senior to Herbie[*], since the existence of this
particular account was in violation of Scientology International
Management's Board Policy Letters known as "The Financial Management
Standardization Series".
[Note: At that time, the only persons senior in authority to Herbie
Parkhouse were Jane Kember, Guardian WW; Mary Sue Hubbard, Controller;
and L. Ron Hubbard, Chief Fraudster In Charge.]
Kate the Wondercat
I almost didn't see this. When you retitle these posts I tend to miss them
as I'm still a wee bit klutzy with OE.
<snip interesting text>
Thanks for the information, W. As always, very interesting.
C
Fluffygirl
"Kate the Wondercat" <amafu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3de9...@news2.lightlink.com...
Ooops, I'd forgotten. Kate was using the computer again and I didn't notice
in time to change over to the other lightlink server.
I think I'd better get Kate her own computer.
But then again, Kate would have responded anyway as she's always liked
Warrior.
C
(not K the WC)
Dave Bird
<amaflu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Perhaps not perpetrating, but participating in, knowingly or not, as
>Warrior
>> stated concerning his activities at ASHO. He was participating in fraud,
>> although I do not believe he had any intent to defraud.
>
>Could someone be convicted of fraud under those circumstances?
Fraud is committed by a person who makes a gain of money or valuable
materials in return for an untruth: a material misrepresentation
of fact. The public is absolutely entitled to be protected against
someone getting them to pay money for worthless crap based on
misrepresentations about its nature. The offence is committed by
the person who originates the untruth and gets the money, so THEY
would be the one convicted of fraud.
If they used an innocent dupe who did not know it was untrue to
convey their message, then in most cases the dupe would not
be liable for participation in the fraud: the dupe acted honestly
and reasonably, and was as much taken in as the paying customer.
This might not be so if the dupe were put on notice -- just one buyer
came back and said "I went to Brooklyn but the tollkeeper wouldn't
hand over the keys to the bridge" -- or were deluding themselves
(where any reasonable person would have taken steps to find out whether
the goods were OK before going round selling them).
In article<95hiuuor704s3qnc0...@4ax.com>, ptsc writes:
>On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:40:12 -0600, "Fluffygirl" wrote:
>>quote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps not perpetrating, but participating in, knowingly or not, as
>>> Warrior stated concerning his activities at ASHO. He was participating in
>>> fraud, although I do not believe he had any intent to defraud.
>
>>Could someone be convicted of fraud under those circumstances?
>
>Possibly, if a trier of fact were to have found it incredible that he could keep
>meticulous financial records at ASHO without knowing what was going on.
>While I believe that in fact he didn't deliberately participate in anything
>illegal, it's possible that someone else might not find the same thing.
>I do not think he could *correctly* have been convicted of fraud under those
>circumstances, but he would be more likely to be found liable for fraud in a
>civil setting. I'm less certain whether such a finding would be incorrect. I'm
>sure you know that while they're the same word, they're two diffferent beasts.
>The criminal act requires a mens rea, intent to defraud, while the civil appears
>only to require that the person have failed in some duty which they owed the
>plaintiff and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result.
OK, that makes more sense. Nearly all crimes are based on intent.
You have to make a choice that you intend harm to result, or that you
simply don't care whether harm results. It follows that you escape
conviction that you GENUINELY believed you were acting properly.
This has resulted in people getting off if they can convincingly show
they genuinely believed something they now realise is preposterous
("I thought she always screamed like that") so in rape it has been
changed to the defendant REASONABLY believed he was acting properly.
\
One might argue that, where there is a lot of fraud through in UK.
intermediaries being got away with, the same should apply.
Civil law is mostly about business, and has different standards.
If you sell goods or services, you have a positive DUTY OF CARE
to ensure that they are safe and effective. If you sell cakes which
give people food poisoning or build walls which fall on them,
then "I didn't intend any harm to occur" does not excuse you
from liability to compensate for harm in fact done: it was your fault,
even if it not your deliberate intent.
--
<__"-$ <__" <__" <__"
:_ : : :_
''''''''._____'-_....'"...-------''''''_ <__'
'. $CIENTOLOGY-- ..''--- :.
; _ . . . - '''
. . ' ': ': ':
: .' the wheatstone bridge .~~>~~>:~~>:
:.' to total madness ~~> ~~>
grouchomatic
There is a concept in the law sometimes called "willful indifference" or
"willful neglect." The concept denotes the fact that an individual can
have all the necessary information necessary to "know as a fact" that
something being done by himself and, or, others, is unlawful or likely
to cause injury to another. In the world of Scientology, protecting
Scientology is the highest purpose of a Scientologist and LRH explicitly
stated that a violation of the law, civil or criminal, should be
committed by a Scientologist in defense of Scientology. From the very
outset of one's training in Scientology, the individual is indoctrinated
with the belief that everything you do must forward the purpose of
Scientology. Personally, I agree with you that an indoctrinated
individual, bereft of his or her ability to reason correctly, would not
be prosecuted. Having said this, at what point do we permit lower
ranking members to escape punishment when they have all the information
necessary to see the false purposes of Scientology? Take for example
some of the people who post to ARS that they know everything the critics
know and still wish to forward the interests of Scientology, are they
"willfully ignorant" and therefore liable for their conduct? IOW, how
much does one have to know before they become liable for their conduct?
Without making direct analogies, the Nuremberg Trials convicted hundreds
of low ranking officers and government functionaries because they failed
to act or because the continued to act despite their knowledge of actual
practices. The court said they "willfully ignored" facts which should
have caused them to act differently.
Something to think about if the Justice Department ever gets off it's
ass and does something.
Grouch
Caroline Letkeman
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
Mike Rinder as a reformer.
I have never laughed so much on a.r.s. when someone is trying so hard
to be so vicious. I am really brightly blessed indeed to be handled
so hatefully by the Starshadow Unit.
This has to be proof of those gnarly mensa powerzz? We've given
Starshadow's post, because it's so wonderfully representative of her
menseless contributions on a.r.s., its own url.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-starshadow-2002-11-30.html
Here's the relevant "tech" Claire is applying:
from BTB 10 December 1969 CONFIDENTIAL REPORTER TRs, © 1969, 1975 L.
Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
[...]
2. No Answer
Purpose:
To train a PRO to give a 'no answer' to questions he has
no wish to answer directly.
Method: To begin with the reporter reading the questions
asked LRH by 'The Sun' reporter Victor Chapple -- and the PRO reads
LRH's answers. This is just to accustom him to the idea of 'no
answer'.
Then using different questions, the PRO gives 'no answers'.
The trick is to appear to answer the question by giving generalized
statements in simple terms so that the reporter doesn't realize his
question hasn't been answered.
The PRO should be completely causative over the communication
and end it with certainty, so that the reporter gets this and goes on
to the next question.
[...]
Handling an SP
[...]
b) By being knowingly covertly hostile
Purpose: To train the PRO to handle an SP reporter by word
alone without the use of force as in (a). He uses the word as a
rapier and plunges it at the reporter, so that the reporter introverts
and drops the question.
Method: The PRO and reporter sit across a table and the
reporter asks SP type questions.
The PRO observes what would be a button in relation to the
question asked and throws this back with good TR 1 so that it reaches
home. If the reporter is introverted the PRO is successful. If the
reporter persists with the same question, the PRO should not re-press
the same button - it obviously didn't work. He should drop it and use
another one. If the PRO cannot think of a snide reply the reporter
should just say "flunk, you haven't handled me. Start -" or some such
remark - but should not tell the PRO what to say. When the confusion
has come off the PRO will be able to handle and have a big win.
The drill is completed when the PRO is willing to create a
cave in with an accurate snide remark, question or statement.
<end quote>
(See the whole BTB here:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/trs/reporter.htm )
I'm happy to report that the "tech" does not work. Neither Claire nor
Starshadow has created a cave in, and, although Claire has
successfully given hundreds of lines of no answers, I realize it and
haven't gone on to the next question.
So I'll unsnip <for bandwidth> the relevant posts containing the
relevant questions that Claire has no answered, but snipped, and I'll
again try to coach her through to a loss. Start.
<start quote>
From: Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT 1
Success)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:12:06 +0100
Message-ID: <g979uugsf9sn4rfmm...@4ax.com>
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:52 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Caroline Letkeman" <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
>news:ald6uugiahopffp7p...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Nov 2002 12:05:54 -0800, basic...@yahoo.com (basicbasic)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message > >Hi
>Caroline,
>> >>
>> >> Hi bb,
>> >
>> >Hi Caroline,
>> >>
>> >> Make mine a double latte please, and you can sit by the door, in case
>> >> I bolt. <g> You were saying...
>> >
>> > Well I wasn't going to ask you your crimes or reg you or anything.
>> >:)
>> >Feel free to sit by the door. And I'll have a dry
>> >cappacino.
>> >
>> >> I haven't done much work on the axioms since leaving, but I analyzed
>> >> his "humbly tendered" Factors against Crowley's " Naples Arrangement."
>> >
>> > Sounds interesting.
>> >
>> >> In order to find the LHP/RHP criteria useful or workable, you must be
>> >> willing to examine and compare the Scientology philosophy with other
>> >> philosophies.
>> >
>> > I wasn't sufficiently clear. I'll restate. Its
>> >not important to me if an idea is categorised as LHP or RHP. The
>> >importance is whether the idea is useful.
>>
>> And as I said, although this sounds nice, and is something every
>> Scientology mouths, it is not something any Scientologist can really
>> do.
>>
>> Just look at the inanity my proposal produced in your "thinking."
>>
>> >
>> >They
>> >> have never examined how useful or workable the idea is that
>> >> Scientology doesn't work. Try it. See if you can do it.
>> >
>> >So OT 2, wilder than Alice's adventures. I examined
>> >it by runnin it. Had no idea if it would work.
>> >It did.
>>
>> It did what though? Produced a point per hour increase in your IQ?
>> Or "worked" because the needle moved and the tone arm went up and
>> down?
>>
>> When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal fraud.
>> That is what "Scientology working" means.
>
><snip>
>
>BB,
>
>And here you have it. It's not just a point on which two people can agree to
>disagree. No, it's "criminal".
CLaire's differentiation tech is showing. Make something not being
discussed different from something else not being discussed and then
proclaim it's not that. Sometimes more than others.
The false promises of Scientology make it a fraud. It defrauded me out
of 24 years and over $60,000 trying to get those promised results. The
Scientology cult, despite its promise of a money back guarantee,
refuses to refund the money it ripped off from me. Thus it is a
criminal fraud. The writings of Hubbard, what Claire calls the
"subject of Scientology," are part of the fraud. They contain the
false promises.
Scientology auditing does not raise IQ a point per hour, or even a
half point per hour. That is the proof for me of the fraud. This is
not my hidden standard. It is the standard Hubbard gave. I had more
than 2000 hours of auditing and my IQ did not go up one point.
Claire exhibits proof that Scientology does not work, because she does
not demonstrate having a superior IQ at all, but resorts in her
communications to inanities like her statement above.
Claire is supporting the Scientology fraud when she claims that
Scientology works.
I am saying that Scientology is a criminal fraud because its promises
are false; to say nothing of the organization's criminal fair gaming
of people and other unsavory practices. But Claire twists this into
"just a point on which two people can agree to disagree," and then
attacks me for the strawman she has mocked up.
>
>You, in following the dictates of your conscience and what you have
>experienced, are, in Caroline's words, "criminal".
Again Claire demonstrates, by seeming to exhibit a lack of
intelligence, that Scientology does not work. I am saying essentially
the opposite of what she's claiming I'm saying. Scientologists, Claire
included, do *not* follow the dictates of their conscience. If Claire
followed the dictates of her conscience she would cease lying about
Scientology working.
Does your conscience, Claire, tell you that Scientology processing
raises IQ in anyone a point per hour? Or do you have to play goofy
tricks with your conscience to get it to agree with Hubbard's and
Scientology's lies?
And where does the conscience enter into Scientology in any form
anyway? In Scientology, you follow the dictates of L. Ron Hubbard, or
the dictates of your seniors, or supervisor, or auditor or ethics
officer. Following the dictates of your conscience is another
practice.
I do not believe that a conscience, by definition, would support a
criminal fraud by forwarding the lie that the fraud works.
>
>It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
You are famous for your cheap thoughts, Claire. Why not address the
real subject of the fraud of Scientology. Prove to me that your IQ
went up a point per hour, or even half a point per hour, as a result
of your auditing. First off, please state how many hours of auditing
you've had.
>
>In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just buzzwords, used so often by
>some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this context and in
>similar contexts.
This is cheap, unintelligent obfuscation. All it does is demonstrate
that Claire is a liar. Her IQ is not superior because she doesn't
exhibit the smarts to discuss or even recognize what the issue is.
After a while, does "Scientology working" mean that you have become
unintelligent enough to no longer recognize that you're unintelligent?
Does attaining the necessary stupidity to believe that your IQ went up
a point per hour of your auditing demonstrate to yourself that it
really did? I am so glad I got out of Scientology before that happened
to me.
But Claire has the advantage of access to the Internet, real
discussion here on a.r.s. and real evidence, including sworn
testimony, that IQs do not go up a point per hour. What is her excuse
for continuing to support what is demonstrated, even by her own
behavior, to be a fraud?
>
>In of themselves, denotatively speaking, those words aren't innately
>meaningless but in the past decade or two on forums like these, they've
>become so.
Complete nonsense. Claire might like it if her silly postulate here is
true, but it's just silly.
What she's trying to do is redefine these words for her propaganda
efforts against people victimized by Scientology fraud and
criminality.
Here's the Hubbardian dictate to which Claire is complying:
From HCO PL 5 October 1971 Propaganda by Redefinition of Words
© 1974 L. Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
The trick is--WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST.<sic>
[...]
The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions
and symbols with the word than were intended.
[...]
The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as
often as possible.
Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology
downward and define Dianetics ® and Scientology ® upwards.
This, so far as words are concerned, is the public-opinion battle for
belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition.
A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this
technique of propaganda.
One must know how to do it.
<end quote>
>
>You were clearly trying to establish some points of agreement and also
>create a civilized agreement to disagree on other points,but Gerry-line,
>oops, I mean Caroline, has, by her words, shown that this is not where her
>preferences lie in this matter.
Gerry says that your stupidity is pretended. I disagree with him.
What you are not addressing, and what you are trying to babble
through, is the issue of the fraud you're supporting.
Scientology auditing does not raise IQ a point per hour. I am proof,
and you, Claire, are proof. You apparently do not even have the IQ
necessary to address the subject of Scientology's failure to raise
your IQ a point per hour. Instead you resort to unintelligent cheap
communication tricks.
But you can prove me wrong just by proving that Scientology auditing
did raise your IQ a point per hour.
Hubbard made the a.r.s discussion of Scientologists' intelligence
relevant with his claim that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Your
intelligence is relevant here, Claire, because you are claiming that
Scientology works, and attacking the victims of the fraud who have
realized it does not work. You are attacking these people, and
defending Scientology's fraud, in ways which do not demonstrate your
superior intelligence, or much intelligence at all. Your vilifying of
the victims is unintelligent. Your unintelligence is unintelligent.
But your unintelligence is relevant because it supports the truth that
Scientology is a criminal fraud.
Since I am a wog, my intelligence is not relevant on a.r.s., except as
it relates to my claim that Scientology does not work. I am
intelligent enough to recognize and state the truth that auditing did
not raise my IQ a point, or even half a point, or even a quarter of a
point, or even an eighth of a point per hour. Auditing and Scientology
simply do not work as promised.
>
>Anything other than "it's all crap" is pretty much going to be condemned by
>this (these) individual(s).
No, this is just another unintelligent lie by you to avoid the subject
of Scientology fraud.
What I am saying is *all crap* is the claim by Hubbard and Scientology
that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Now it is your turn to
demonstrate by your superior intellect, gained by your Scientology
auditing or not, that this claim is not *all crap.*
So far your defense of the fraud of Scientology has been *all crap.*
You can also demonstrate that your defense of Scientology fraud is not
*all crap* with evidence and arguments which are not *all crap.*
>
>But all the same, your posts to such people aren't a waste of time or
>bandwidth being that they are examplars of tact, tolerance and what we
>Scn'ists call "pan determinism".
There are no examplars extant of your tact, tolerance or pan
determinism in your post to which I am responding. Your post does
contain examples of unintelligence, obfuscation and cheap thought.
Your post supports my convictions that Scientology does not work and
that you are supporting a fraud.
>
>You also aquit yourself quite well as a spokesperson for the Scn philosophy,
>probably better than anyone in the church does these days. ;->
If that is in any sense true, then both of you support my convictions
that Scientology does not work and that both of you are supporting a
fraud.
Since you have no intelligent response to the charges that Scientology
promises are false, and that auditing does not raise IQ a point per
hour, or even half a point per hour, and since I have brought these
facts to your attention very clearly, it must be concluded that you
are knowingly supporting Scientology fraud.
>
>C
>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
<end quote>
<start quote>
From: Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT
1 Success)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:57:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oq...@4ax.com>
And if you want to find stacks of your lies, check Google for them
too.
>
>For years, months, days, or seconds.
Not only did you claim it, but you have in virtually every post tried
to do that. Though your efforts might be pathetic, you do try to
defend Scientology. Surely you are not claiming that your insistence
that only 1% of Scientology is problematic is not defending
Scientology?
>
>
>> Therefore it is
>> incumbent upon her to demonstrate that it raises IQ a point per hour.
>
>Well, no, it's not, since the IQ thing is not my claim
It's Hubbard's claim. It's part of Scientology "scriptures." It
is,as far as I am concerned, the perfect standard to evaluate
Scientology's unworkability. Everything you say supports my
conviction that Scientology does not work, that it is a criminal
fraud, and that for whatever reason you are defending and promoting
that criminal fraud.
> and since I have
>stated many times in the past that there's a distinct YMMV aspect to Scn and
>some exaggerations by Hubbard.
A total copout by you. And a further support of my certainly that
Scientology is a criminal fraud.
Deal with this then. Okay, your mileage may vary. Okay, only a
certain percentage of Scientologists will attain the point per hour.
But since Hubbard claims that the point per hour is an average, it
would be clear that in the YMMV sort of Scientology some people would
get increases of 2 points per hour and some would only get a half
point per hour increase. And this would all average out to one point
per hour for the 8 million.
So, okay, the point per hour didn't work for me, which I confirm with
well over 2000 hours of auditing. And, it is clear you're now
admiting that the point per hour promise wasn't true for you. Fine.
Will you please then point out one person, just one person, for whom
it did work, one person who had let's say, only a thousand hours of
auditing, and whose IQ went up a point or more per hour.
>
>Apparently you've got this idea that anyone who thinks it works thinks
>everything Hubbard said did and thought about it was exactly as written,
>IOW, the idea is any Scn'ist- even a free form one like me- is a
>fundamentalist, taking it all quite literally, no evaluation, no grains of
>salt, nuttin'.
No, you are lying. You are deliberately and idiotically
misinterpreting my words. That too convinces me that you are willfully
supporting what you know to be fraud.
Address the single issue of IQ being raised in you, or anyone else, a
point per hour of your auditing. Or unequivocally admit that that
promise by Hubbard is completely untrue, and a fraudulent
representation.
>
>Now, I could understand your making that mistake (happily assuming away as
>is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting here or whom you
>met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here that I don't
>automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word, literally, then
>your attempted railroading and summation of my position makes absolutely no
>sense.
Of course you would say that. Because you are trying with all the
abusive Scientology communication tech you throw at me to defend and
divert attention away from the criminal fraud of Scientology. You
must attack and invalidate me because that's all you've got. You
simply cannot address even one false promise of Scientology. You do
anything *but* address it.
>
>>
>> You also for some "reason" don't seem to be able to confront that
>> simplicity. I know Claire has a terrible problem
>
>I have no problems, dollink.
Good. Then you have plenty of time to address the criminal fraud
you're promoting. Address the fraud of the representation of Hubbard
and Scientology that auditing raises IQ a point per hour.
>
>>confronting the fact
>> that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts over some time.
>
>This is what I meant about agreement to disagree and your inability to do
>that.
This comes out of Scientology bag of "handling suppression" tricks
for shuddering someone into silence. "Can we ever be friends?" What
a load. "While we fair game you, can't we just agree to disagree?"
I have demonstrated beyond argument that Scientology is a criminal
fraud. I have also demonstrated that you support that criminal fraud.
All you can say in response that I have the inability to agree to
disagree. I have demonstrated, also beyond argument, that indeed I do
agree that we disagree. You agree with, support and promote the fraud
of Scientology, and I disagree with it. I agree that we disagree.
Again you prove that Hubbard's promise of an increase in IQ of a point
per hour is a lie, making Scientology a criminal fraud.
>
>If you meet someone with whom you disagree, instead of saying you disagree
>and have an entirely different take on the subject you have to say that that
>person can't do this or that.
Oh, yes, and some more than others.
>
>You sound just like those Bible-totin' fundies who claim that not only do
>they have the way to get into Heaven but that other religions don't, not
>even other Christian denominations such as Catholics.
Oh, yes, get in a little black PR while you're at it. Again and again
you prove that Scientology is a criminal fraud, and that you support
that criminal fraud, knowing full well it is a criminal fraud. You
cannot address the issue of the promise of a raise in IQ of one point
per hour, and instead, when asked about that vulnerable point you try
to find or manufacture enough threat against me to cause me to sue for
peace.
>
>Instead of saying "Well this is what we (I) believe, and here's where it
>differs from your ideas..." people like that,(of which you are one) will say
>"you're wrong. You're deluded. You can't do this. You can't do that."
False. Every lie from you is more evidence that you know that the
promise of an increase in IQ of a point per hour is a total falsehood,
and that you know that Scientology is a fraud.
>
>People like that are no different from the hysterical idiots
Wait, let me check the sampler. Oh here we are: " That is because you
do not know the meaning of differentiation."
> who screamed
>"there's no God but God!" and rioted about a beauty pageant, instead of just
>politely offering their perspective about why Miss World should ~not~ be in
>Nigeria.
>
>This is exactly what you sound like
"Exactly?" Where'd I put that sampler? Oh here: "Such as the
difference between an indoc'd critic who refuses to differentiate and
one who isn't that way."
This one works too: "I'm totally against all or nothing black and
white package deal mentality."
>and you should know that this kind of
>fundamentalism never did go over very well in most places, including this
>ng.
Strawmen flourish and prosper, however, in a house of cards.
>>
>
><snip bullshit> >
>> >>
>> >> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
>> >
>> >It won't be me.
>>
>> I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24 years of my life,
>> ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my daughter, and you,
>> Claire, stoop to this?
>
>Stoop to what, exactly? I'm not a member of CofS. I criticize 'em all the
>time. I criticize them for things as you've described in the above
>referenced paragraph, so tell me, what stoopage do you imagine here?
Stoop to your attacks on Scientology's victims. You know , as I have
demonstrated, that Hubbard's promise of raising IQ a point per hour of
auditing is a complete lie. You therefore know that Scientology is a
fraud. Instead of addressing even this very specific lie, and this
very specific fraud, you attack the people defrauded. That is
stooping. It's very cruel. Your dishonesty is stooping, and it is
very cruel.
Maybe you have been so dishonest for so long, been defending the
Scientology fraud for so long, and been attacking Scientology's fraud
victims for so long that you don't see it as stooping, because that's
the only posture you know. But I believe that I have carefully
pointed out to you, in very simple language, what you're doing, and
that you do recognize that in differentiating your behavior from the
behavior of ordinary, honest wogs, you are knowingly stooping.
>
>
>> You pretend to be persecuted,
>
>Well, actually, I just figure I'm a girl posting to a newsgroup.
Isn't that sweet. Then you've got no reason to continue to be cruel,
to continue to lie, to continue to defend the Scientology fraud.
Since you are so cruel, do lie so pervasively, and do continue to
defend the fraud, mainly by attacking its victims, it is reasonable to
conclude that you are not just a girl posting to a newsgroup.
>
>But if I'm attacked with something, I'll take that something and jam it up
>the person's ass.
Especially if it's the truth. I know that.
>
>And I'll point out their hypocrisy.
No, you won't. You'll lie. And you'll point out as hypocrisy
something which is not hypocrisy at all.
>
>I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to which everyone
>can relate, now is it? ;->
That's nice. You're not persecuted. But you do support the
persecution of others by the fraud which is Scientology.
>
>
>>and you support
>> the persecution of the people who really are being persecuted.
>
>No, I don't, and there is nothing in my posts to support such a ridiculous
>hypothesis.
Yes there is years of it. Check Google.
And, Claire, I have demonstrated in this post and in this thread that
this is exactly what you're doing. You are doing it every time you
deny doing it. Some times more than others.
>
>
>> Have
>> you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel Scientologists are, how
>> cruel Scientology is?
>
>~Now~ who's actin' persecuted?
Yes, the fraud you support ripped me off for 24 years, more than $60K
and my daughter. Now the fraud you support has declared me fair game.
You support the SP doctrine and what results from it when you support
Scientology fraud. You willfully support my persecution. In fact you
personally add to it.
>
>My Scn'ist friends- the church and non church ones- are decent good people.
>I've met some Scn'ists who weren't, but then again, the proportion is
>certainly not out of balance with the proportion of cruel non Scn'ists I've
>met over the years. Stereotyping just doesn't work.
Then don't do it. It is what you're doing with your black PRing me
with your black hysterical idiots brush above.
You are cruel. You are doing the Scientology organization's dirty
work. You support its fraud. That is not stereotyping. You can
address those precise charges logically if you want.
>
>
>>No, you're too busy being cute.
>
>I write what I write from the heart. If it's not something with which you
>agree, well, I can't help that. You know the old saying about not being able
>to please all the people all the time.
This is the sort of silliness which only convinces me that Scientology
is a fraud, and you support that fraud. Your reasons for doing so,
since I have proved, and you prove, beyond argument, that Scientology
does not raise IQ a point per hour, or even half a point, are immoral.
You, Claire, are terribly unethical, because you refuse to reason, but
resort only to shoddy, baseless, unintelligent attacks. Even in your
low ethical standards demonstrated in your history here on a.r.s., you
prove that Scientology does not work. Your lack of ethics
demonstrates that you knowingly support the criminal fraud of
Scientology.
>
>
>>Too busy
>> throwing out inanities to deflect attention from your own and
>> Scientology's cruelty.
>
>My thing is that I like to post on to this ng. Period. I've no interest in
>personalities and so forth, except for the occasional lighthearted or
>warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to anyone else is
>if they initiated rude communication and really, all anyone has to do to
>avoid this, is to keep it civil.
This is another cruel lie. You demonstrate that cruel behavior --
black PR, invalidation, arrogant evaluation, obfuscation, sniptech,
etc. -- when you are confronted with the truth. This is often the
truth that you are knowingly defending and promoting Scientology
fraud, and attacking its victims. That truth is what you then try to,
as you say, "jam it up the person's ass."
>
>Every single person with whom I've exchanged harsh words initiated the
>rudeness.
What a lie. Check Google. It's bulging with your rudeness, what you
call "jamming it up the person's ass," initiated *after* you were
confronted with the truth.
>
>Now, I did have other choices, I suppose. I could have ignored them- but
>frankly, I've no interest in playing doormat, any more than anyone else
>would.
How does this work: "Don't give me that sententious bullshit, Ed."
Your omission of your real choices further supports my conviction that
you are knowingly supporting Scientology fraud. Your other real
choices include being honest, confronting the truth, and acknowledging
the fraud you've been supporting. You avoid these choices by calling
them "playing doormat." That way you can be so right, so justified,
when confronted with the truth, in "jamming it up the person's ass."
>
>And the other choice would be to say "oh, everything you say is right and
>I'm a terrible person."
>
>Oddly enough, this isn't a perspective to which I can lay claim.
Well yes, you can. Your reason for not doing so, when the person is
right, and when you are supporting a criminal fraud as you've been, is
not because you are incapable of saying the person is right, but
because for clear immoral reasons you choose to be cruel, to take
their truth and their rightness and "jam it up the person's ass."
This is what Hubbard said to do. If attacked on some vulnerable point
(like the truth) find and manufacture something and "jam it up the
person's ass." That is what Scientology teaches. That's what
Scientologists mean by "Scientology works."
But again, your actions only convince me more, if that's possible,
that Scientology does not work. You are still faced with sooner or
later having to confront the truth that all this time you have been
supporting a criminal fraud. You are still faced with sooner or later
having to confront the truth that when you took all those truths over
all those years being stated by all those people and "jammed them up
the person's ass" you were not only being cruel and not only
supporting a criminal fraud, but you were proving each time that
Scientology doesn't work. All those truths you thought you were
"jamming up the person's ass" weren't "jammed up the person's ass" at
all, but sat unmoved in perfect clarity, just waiting for you to
acknowledge them.
> I know
>that's rilly rilly weird, but well, you know, it must be the fluff.
No, it's cruelty. But then that's Scientology. Scientology equals
cruelty. Differentiate that.
>
>>
>> >
>> >And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in making anyone cry,either.
>
>Leaving that in as it was not commented upon although there was plenty of
>commentary re imagined cruely from yours truly. This statement- both the
>making of it and the fact it preceded yours- puts the lie to that particular
>claim.
Untrue. Your lies do not put the lie to the truth. Your cruelty is
actually augumented by each lie you tell, Claire, each time you take
the truth someone is saying and "jam it up the person's ass."
You've tried Scientology's "jam it up the person's ass" tech for at
least four years on a.r.s., Claire. Why don't you try some decent,
honest, caring wog tech?
>
>C
>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
<end quote>
<start quote>
From: Caroline Letkeman <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT
1 Success)
Through all this, Claire has simply shown again that she is dishonest
and knowingly supporting the criminal fraud which is Scientology. As
such, she is a very well trained representative of Scientology, and
actually helpful in the effort to have the fraud recognized for the
fraud it is.
Sooner or later there will be a high level analysis of Scientology's
actions and intentions, just as there have been analyses of the
minutiae of Nazi actions and intentions. Claire's actions and
intentions, as a defender and promoter of the Scientology fraud on
this newsgroup, will be a small part of the analysis.
I have proven, beyond logical argument, that Scientology does not
raise IQ a point per hour as Hubbard promises. This is a single point
in the overall fraud, but the one point I am addressing here, and
which I have communicated many times to Claire, and anyone else who is
reading these posts.
Claire's response is to snip, avoid and, as Hubbard directed, attack,
and attack, to deny her attacks, and then attack some more.
I have been very specific about addressing one specific fraudulent
representation, that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Claire's
responses demonstrate the fraud. They are dishonest and inane.
Scientology is an extant criminal fraud, and every person who says
Scientology works promotes that criminal fraud. Some more knowingly
than others.
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
<end quote>
There. And, as Claire says, when incivility and rudeness and crudeness
rears their ugly heads, I'm never the one to initiate such. Sometimes
more than others.
ptsc
<caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>Ha ha ha ha ha.
>That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
>priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
>Mike Rinder as a reformer.
That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
Diana Ross.
ptsc
Fluffygirl
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
I resent that. As a devoted Rondroid, member of the CofFS (wdne) - Church of
Fluffy Scientologists- I happen to know that Diana got great gains from her
auditing and that everything every Scn'ist does is right.
Oh, wait. That was some other universe.
Never mind.
C
Fluffygirl
<snip>
(Cerri says I don't snip enough.)
> Claire's response is to snip, avoid and, as Hubbard directed, attack,
> and attack, to deny her attacks, and then attack some more.
> I have been very specific about addressing one specific fraudulent
> representation, that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Claire's
> responses demonstrate the fraud. They are dishonest and inane.
>
> Scientology is an extant criminal fraud, and every person who says
> Scientology works promotes that criminal fraud. Some more knowingly
> than others.
I've no interest in whether or not Scn raises IQ points per hour or on any
basis, and I've said so. Most non CofS Scn'ists don't worry about that sort
of thing. In fact, Hubbard never said it was to be taken as being that way
100% of the time, in any case, so churchies don't really worry about that
either.
It's an issue for you, but it's not an issue for me.
You've tried to make it one, in effect, attempting to cram it down my
throat, but I'm just not having any.
C
Caroline Letkeman
Flunk. You dubbed in, ptsc.
From Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
© 1983 L. Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
DUB-IN, 1. any unknowingly created mental picture that appears to
have been a record of the physical universe but is in fact only an
altered copy of the time track. (HCOB 15 May 63) 2. the phrase out of
the motion picture industry of putting a sound track on top of
something that isn't there. (SH Spec 78, 6608C25) 3. a recording
which is being manufactured by a recording. (5811C07) 4. imaginary
recall -- there is no pain dub-in. (DASF)
DUB-IN CASE, this guy is manufacturing incidents and saying they're
real. (5206CM24F)
<end quote>
If you are not a clam, why on the shores of Teegeeac are you dubbing
in?
Please return to study.
<unsnip for ptsc's benefit>
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
Mike Rinder as a reformer.
I have never laughed so much on a.r.s. when someone is trying so hard
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-starshadow-2002-11-30.html
<start quote>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
<end quote>
<start quote>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
<end quote>
<start quote>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
<end quote>
</unsnip>
Fluffygirl
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:28:53 -0800, Starshadow
> <stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>
> >Caroline Letkeman wrote:
> >
>
> >That isn't logical argument. That is dishonesty incarnate. Again, I
> >repeat, you can take yourself out of the cult, but you haven't managed
> >to take the cult out of yourself.
> >
> >
> >---
> >
> >
> >Bright Blessings,
> >
> >Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
> >"Scientology in 1986, after fraud judgement in favor
> >of ex-member Lawrence Wollersheim --'Not one thin dime for
> >Wollersheim'
> >Scientology May 9, 2002 before final appeal--
> >86,746,430 Thin Dimes for Wollersheim." www.factnet.org
> >www.xenu.net --what the Church of Scientology doesn't want
> >you to see
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
> priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
> Mike Rinder as a reformer.
>
> I have never laughed so much on a.r.s. when someone is trying so hard
> to be so vicious. I am really brightly blessed indeed to be handled
> so hatefully by the Starshadow Unit.
She wasn't hateful and she's a person, not a unit.
Perhaps you should come to Seattle and meet us in person. What an
entertainment for all 3 of us that would be.
>
> This has to be proof of those gnarly mensa powerzz? We've given
> Starshadow's post, because it's so wonderfully representative of her
> menseless contributions on a.r.s., its own url.
>
>
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-starshadow-2002-11-30.
html
>
> Here's the relevant "tech" Claire is applying:
Actually, I've never had any training re the handling of critics or dissem.
I always stayed away from those sorts of courses and I was a tech terminal,
not an OSA rep.
I think you need to talk to Cerri about snipping.
<snip>
You've also failed to address my answer to your implication that I am CL or
have anything to do with CL.
In these posts, you are and do everything of which you accuse others.
C
Starshadow
So, you think I'm also paid by the CofS or somehow connected to OSA or
something equally ludicrous like that? Pretty neat trick since I never,
in fact, fell for Scn'y, unlike you and the increasingly lunatic Gerry
Armstrong. What the hell ARE you smoking anyway, Caroline? Must be some
powerful shit.
My advice is to get off it, at least for a few hours before you post
your phantasies.
> I have never laughed so much on a.r.s. when someone is trying so hard
> to be so vicious. I am really brightly blessed indeed to be handled
> so hatefully by the Starshadow Unit.
Caroline, you ain't even SEEN vicious yet. I can BE vicious. I was in
fact being quite cordial. Since you are such a lunatic that you can't
tell the difference between a real person and a unit or OSA and never
been sucked into this cult or cordial or vicious, that is the last I'll
try. I notice you can't even address the points I made in a reasonably
honest way, but instead ignore them and just go for the gratuitous
insults. But ya know what? Insults would only have an impact if I gave a
damn about your opinion. And you've descended to rock bottom with this
lunacy.
>
> This has to be proof of those gnarly mensa powerzz? We've given
> Starshadow's post, because it's so wonderfully representative of her
> menseless contributions on a.r.s., its own url.
Is this some kind of insult? Are you somehow feeling inadequate in the
I.Q. department? That's the only reason I can think of for you bringing
up Mensa as some kind of big deal. Mensa isn't a cult, just an
organization for people with high I.Q.s. I don't actually belong, though
I've passed Mensa tests in the past. Why this is of interest to you I am
not certain, though, since this is a newsgroup for discussing CofS and
Sc'y. But let me know if I'm supposed to feel insulted by your low
opinion of Mensa. That way I can tell you how much I care. (Hint--I don't.)
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-starshadow-2002-11-30.html
>
> Here's the relevant "tech" Claire is applying:
>
(snip so called "relevent tech" about which I could not care less, since
I have in fact zero interest in Ron's so called "tech" and have never
trained in it, unlike you and your insane boyfriend)
> (See the whole BTB here:
> http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/trs/reporter.htm )
>
> I'm happy to report that the "tech" does not work. Neither Claire nor
> Starshadow has created a cave in, and, although Claire has
> successfully given hundreds of lines of no answers, I realize it and
> haven't gone on to the next question.
You haven't even addressed any of the points which I did in fact
address. Is this some kind of insane "tech" of yours and Armstrong's?
Cos I can tell you, it doesn't work--unless its end product is complete
insanity, the kind of insanity you and your boyfriend are exhibiting
more and more on this ng.
I've gone and snipped all the stuff in which you are arguing with Claire
since you totally ignored my previous addressing of it--which I've left
intact, in case you want to actually make some points here.
I'm not holding my breath.
Starshadow
I'm not sure I'd want to meet this person. Not until she gets
medication for this insanity she's exhibiting. She might be dangerous.
ptsc
<caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:05:22 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT
>cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:33:40 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
>><caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>>Ha ha ha ha ha.
>>>That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
>>>priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
>>>Mike Rinder as a reformer.
>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>Diana Ross.
>Flunk. You dubbed in, ptsc.
Take your Scientology gibberish somewhere else. Have you considered
that maybe you should actually quit practicing Scientology now that you're
pretending to be a critic of it?
*plonk*
ptsc
Zinj
nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> says...
Allow me to translate for you ptsc, since you prefer to support
Starshadow's victimology by calling her 'OSA' or claiming that anyone who
objects to her does. That's what 'dubbed in' means in this context.
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
Warrior
>
>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>Diana Ross.
>
>ptsc
Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Zinj
Nor can I think of one, although, Caroline and Gerry's do tend to push
the envelope of the 'you're doing OSA's Work'.
But... that particular piece of mindcrap is rampant, including from
Strarshadow and friends.
I suspect it has more to do with cultivating a strawman
Starshadow
> In article <ckqnuus5ape8if1mt...@4ax.com>, ptsc <ptsc AT
> nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> says...
>
>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:46:50 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
>><caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:05:22 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT
>>>cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:33:40 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
>>>><caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Ha ha ha ha ha.
>>>>
>>>>>That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
>>>>>priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
>>>>>Mike Rinder as a reformer.
>>>>
>>>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>>>Diana Ross.
>>>
>>>Flunk. You dubbed in, ptsc.
>>
>>Take your Scientology gibberish somewhere else. Have you considered
>>that maybe you should actually quit practicing Scientology now that you're
>>pretending to be a critic of it?
>>
>>*plonk*
>>
>>ptsc
>
>
> Allow me to translate for you ptsc, since you prefer to support
> Starshadow's victimology by calling her 'OSA' or claiming that anyone who
> objects to her does. That's what 'dubbed in' means in this context.
>
>
Allow me to request that you FOAD. I am not a victim, and I have no
"victimology".
Zinj
stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
> Zinj wrote:
<snip>
>
> Allow me to request that you FOAD. I am not a victim, and I have no
> "victimology".
>
You're welcome to :)
I think I'll pass.
You may or may *not* be a victim... but, I doubt there's any question
that you want to garb yourself as one.
Starshadow
> In article <okbnuuso4q5of6nsf...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
>
>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>Diana Ross.
>>
>>ptsc
>
>
> Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
>
> I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
You mean that you need her using the word "OSA", Warrior? (Well, to be
pedantic, the acronym, not the word)
In any case stating that my "authentication of Claire as a declared SP"
being like "Dave Kluge authenticating Mike Rinder as a reformer" is at
the very least an accusation that I'm lying, and that my lies are
somehow akin to the lie of Rinder being a reformer, and she goes on to
say that my post to her was "hateful" SIMPLY AND SOLELY because I
disagreed with her, not because of any actual "hate" in that post, which
in any case is EXACTLY like the cult representatives screaming about
hate when all one does is disagree with them.
Armstrong has also in the past as much as accused me of running some
kind of Scn'y ops on him by disagreeing with him, as well.
If you don't think that insinuating that I'm somehow in the same league
as Rinder and Co. isn't an accusation of being OSA, that seems to me to
be a personal problem. I think it's quite clear (no pun intended) her
intent especially since she's featured my posts on her DA page.
Starshadow
> In article <asgpl...@drn.newsguy.com>, war...@xenu.ca says...
>
>>In article <okbnuuso4q5of6nsf...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
>>
>>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>>Diana Ross.
>>>
>>>ptsc
>>
>>Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
>>
>>I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
>>
>>Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
>> http://warrior.xenu.ca
>
>
> Nor can I think of one, although, Caroline and Gerry's do tend to push
> the envelope of the 'you're doing OSA's Work'.
>
> But... that particular piece of mindcrap is rampant, including from
> Strarshadow and friends.
I wouldn't normally respond to your idiocy regarding me but I'm going to
correct your outright lie. I don't tend to accuse people of being OSA
who aren't; I have, in fact, pointed out many times the idiocy of
accusing critics of being OSA-like when they are simply disagreeing with
other critics.
So you can take your lies and speculations about me and FOAD.
I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
either.
Starshadow
archive my ng postings. I demand you remove them.
Zinj
stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
> Zinj wrote:
> > In article <asgpl...@drn.newsguy.com>, war...@xenu.ca says...
> >
> >>In article <okbnuuso4q5of6nsf...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
> >>
> >>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
> >>>Diana Ross.
> >>>
> >>>ptsc
> >>
> >>Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
> >>
> >>I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
> >>
> >>Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> >> http://warrior.xenu.ca
> >
> >
> > Nor can I think of one, although, Caroline and Gerry's do tend to push
> > the envelope of the 'you're doing OSA's Work'.
> >
> > But... that particular piece of mindcrap is rampant, including from
> > Strarshadow and friends.
>
> I wouldn't normally respond to your idiocy regarding me but I'm going to
> correct your outright lie. I don't tend to accuse people of being OSA
> who aren't; I have, in fact, pointed out many times the idiocy of
> accusing critics of being OSA-like when they are simply disagreeing with
> other critics.
>
> So you can take your lies and speculations about me and FOAD.
>
> I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
> either.
>
Oh for christ sake Starshadow, you pitiful imitation of a vicious victim.
One of the advantaqes of such a cute 'lil DogPile Sisterhood is being
able to achieve 'plausible deniability', and having the *one* accuse of
'doing OSA's Work' while the other concentrates on personal attacks and
vitriol :)
Your belief that your readers are blind to the shenannigans is touching.
(point: I have *never* felt it necessary to attack you for anything
beyond your posts. For good reason; your posts say it all)
Starshadow
> In article <3DEBFC64...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>,
> stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
>
>>Zinj wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Allow me to request that you FOAD. I am not a victim, and I have no
>>"victimology".
>>
>>Starshadow
>
>
> You're welcome to :)
>
> I think I'll pass.
>
> You may or may *not* be a victim... but, I doubt there's any question
> that you want to garb yourself as one.
Quit projecting your delusions on to me.
Starshadow
Again, quit lying. You've made your conspiracy delusions public
knowlege since you decided I was working in collusion with someone else;
you've done it again here. You're either totally delusional, a
pathological liar, or both.
---
Zinj
> Zinj wrote:
> > In article <3DEBFC64...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>,
> > stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
> >
> >>Zinj wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Allow me to request that you FOAD. I am not a victim, and I have no
> >>"victimology".
> >>
> >>Starshadow
> >
> >
> > You're welcome to :)
> >
> > I think I'll pass.
> >
> > You may or may *not* be a victim... but, I doubt there's any question
> > that you want to garb yourself as one.
>
>
> Quit projecting your delusions on to me.
<snip excessive space and superfluous blessings>
> Starshadow
Snip snip, eh brave vicious victim?
______________
Oh for christ sake Starshadow, you pitiful imitation of a vicious victim.
One of the advantaqes of such a cute 'lil DogPile Sisterhood is being
able to achieve 'plausible deniability', and having the *one* accuse of
'doing OSA's Work' while the other concentrates on personal attacks and
vitriol :)
Your belief that your readers are blind to the shenannigans is touching.
(point: I have *never* felt it necessary to attack you for anything
beyond your posts. For good reason; your posts say it all)
Warrior
>> >
>> >That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>> >Diana Ross.
>> >
>> >ptsc
>In article <asgpl...@drn.newsguy.com>, war...@xenu.ca wrote:
>>
>> Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
>>
>> I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
In article <MPG.18559c39c...@news2.lightlink.com>, Zinj says...
>
>Nor can I think of one, although, Caroline and Gerry's do tend to push
>the envelope of the 'you're doing OSA's Work'.
Sure. And stating an opinion or observation that some are forwarding
OSA's _agenda_ is not the same as saying someone _is_ OSA.
Zinj
stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
> Zinj wrote:
> > In article <3DEBFF50...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>,
> > stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
<snip>
> Again, quit lying. You've made your conspiracy delusions public
> knowlege since you decided I was working in collusion with someone else;
> you've done it again here. You're either totally delusional, a
> pathological liar, or both.
> Starshadow
That's right Starshadow, there never was a 'Bad Bob Bunch'(under any name
or none) or a Buttersquash Conspiracy (despite your thank you for
exposing it as documented)
And there is no DogPile Sisterhood desperate to 'support' each other with
attacks that allow each to deny specific faults..
That's right Starshadow. You're just plain too smart for us :)
Starshadow
However, even stating that she has the opinion that I'm forwarding OSA's
agenda by defending Claire's posting, is lunatic at the very least. It
suggests that Claire is somehow an OSA op or that she is forwarding
OSA's party line, and neither is true.
Warrior
>>
>> Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
>>
>> I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
In article <3DEBFE5...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>
>You mean that you need her using the word "OSA", Warrior? (Well, to be
>pedantic, the acronym, not the word)
No, I don't mean that.
What I mean is exactly what I asked, except for the fact that I mistakenly
left out the word "she" after the word "which" in my original posting.
Can ptsc cite a message ID for a post in which Caroline called you OSA?
ptsc
>In article <okbnuuso4q5of6nsf...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>Diana Ross.
>Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
>I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
It was the post to which I was directly responding. And no, she didn't directly
say it, but said it in the usual Gerroline kind of way of saying something in
such a way as to be able to slither out of it later by pretending not to have
said it, as Gerry did with his bullshit goOnSquAd page, which we are
supposed to believe just has "OSA" in huge letters on it for no reason at
all.
Now Gerry likes to play coy about that, but from the code of the page:
<title>Gerry Armstrong--Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops</title>
I don't see how much more explicit it can be.
Starshadow isn't OSA, Diane isn't OSA, Cerridwen isn't OSA, I'm not OSA,
every single person who disagrees with Gerry Armstrong isn't OSA, and
only a lunatic would even be making these accusations in the first place.
ptsc
Zinj
stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
> Warrior wrote:
> >>>In article <okbnuuso4q5of6nsf...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
> >>>
> >>>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
> >>>>Diana Ross.
> >>>>
> >>>>ptsc
> >>>
> >
> >>In article <asgpl...@drn.newsguy.com>, war...@xenu.ca wrote:
> >>
> >>>Can you cite a message ID for a post in which called Starshadow OSA?
> >>>
> >>>I've never seen any post by Caroline calling Starshadow OSA.
> >>
> >
> > In article <MPG.18559c39c...@news2.lightlink.com>, Zinj says...
> >
> >>Nor can I think of one, although, Caroline and Gerry's do tend to push
> >>the envelope of the 'you're doing OSA's Work'.
> >
> >
> > Sure. And stating an opinion or observation that some are forwarding
> > OSA's _agenda_ is not the same as saying someone _is_ OSA.
>
>
> However, even stating that she has the opinion that I'm forwarding OSA's
> agenda by defending Claire's posting, is lunatic at the very least. It
> suggests that Claire is somehow an OSA op or that she is forwarding
> OSA's party line, and neither is true.
>
> ---
>
> Bright Blessings,
>
> Starshadow
Funny Starshadow... I don't remember you squeaking when 'Cerri' told me I
was doing OSA's work by speculating on Claire's 'case level', which
*they* have specific information on..
Could it be hypocricy?
ptsc
>Sure. And stating an opinion or observation that some are forwarding
>OSA's _agenda_ is not the same as saying someone _is_ OSA.
How about archiving their posts on a page entitled:
"Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops?"
ptsc
Zinj
Strawman in pursuit of victim status.
You at least *do* use OSA sites for your personal DA
Warrior
>
> I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
>either.
You characterize his pages as "DA webpages".
Since "DA" by definition consists of obtaining documentary proof that
what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content of your posts
that you object to?
Starshadow
It's probably more like I ignore most of your blatherings, Joe. I will
continue to do so after this reply.
Starshadow
> In article <3DEBFF50...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>
>> I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
>>either.
>
>
> You characterize his pages as "DA webpages".
>
> Since "DA" by definition consists of obtaining documentary proof that
> what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content of your posts
> that you object to?
In this case I should probably have said Black Propaganda.
---
Zinj
Here's where you're wrong. DA is Dead Agenting, or in other parlance,
'discrediting'
So, it's quite possible to DA with no documents at all.
Zinj
stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net says...
Poowh widdle vicious victim Starshadow... are you under the impression
that saying 'Joe' will bring me into line?
You who so obsessively objects to being called 'Star' or Stars or
miserable excuse for a formerly rational human being?
Why not just use 'Joe Lynn' as you have done so many times before, in
aligning yourself with Keith Wyatt, Clark Bor and that 'critic' dood?
Does the use of only 'Joe' constitute a 'shot before my bow'?
Hon... you are out of ammo... and not particularly impressive even fully
armed. The DogPile Sisterhood has reduced itself to the level of its own
pet lapyap by its own action.
Warrior
>>
>> You characterize his pages as "DA webpages".
>>
>> Since "DA" by definition consists of obtaining documentary proof that
>> what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content of your posts
>> that you object to?
In article <MPG.1855bd133...@news2.lightlink.com>, Zinj says...
>
>Here's where you're wrong. DA is Dead Agenting, or in other parlance,
>'discrediting'.
No, I am not wrong.
"DEAD AGENT CAPER, 1. the dead agent caper was used to disprove the
lies. This consisted of counter-documenting any areas where the lies
were circulated. The lie "they were..." is countered by documents
showing "they were NOT...." This causes the source of the lie and
any other statements from that source to be discarded.
[reference: HCO PL 11 MAY 71, Issue III "PR Series Number 7 - Black PR"]
2. meaning getting documentary proof that what was said was lies."
[reference OODs of June 22, 1970]
I am well aware that Hubbard claimed he got his definition of "DA caper"
from Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_.
>So, it's quite possible to DA with no documents at all.
Sure, but in this case I'm talking about pages (containing webbed documents
in the form of Usenet postings made by herself and others) which Starshadow
earlier characterized as "DA webpages" -- the same web pages which she later
said, in Message-ID <3DEC1912...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, "In this case
I should probably have said Black Propaganda."
True, it is possible to discredit individuals without using documents, but
that isn't what I was asking about.
Warrior
>
>Oh, and one more thing. I did not give you, Caroline, permission to
>archive my ng postings. I demand you remove them.
In article <3DEBFF50...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow wrote:
>
>I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
>either.
When I asked, "Since 'DA' by definition consists of obtaining documentary
proof that what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content of your
posts that you object to?", you responded to my question in message ID
<3DEC1912...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, "In this case I should probably
have said Black Propaganda."
You seem to have responded that the content of your posts are black
propaganda, since I asked what is in the content of your posts that
you object to. If that's the case, I can understand why you want
them removed. Will you be asking Google to remove them?
:)
Zinj
> >> Since "DA" by definition consists of obtaining documentary proof that
> >> what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content of your posts
> >> that you object to?
>
> In article <MPG.1855bd133...@news2.lightlink.com>, Zinj says...
> >
> >Here's where you're wrong. DA is Dead Agenting, or in other parlance,
> >'discrediting'.
>
> No, I am not wrong.
>
> "DEAD AGENT CAPER, 1. the dead agent caper was used to disprove the
> lies. This consisted of counter-documenting any areas where the lies
> were circulated. The lie "they were..." is countered by documents
> showing "they were NOT...." This causes the source of the lie and
> any other statements from that source to be discarded.
> [reference: HCO PL 11 MAY 71, Issue III "PR Series Number 7 - Black PR"]
> 2. meaning getting documentary proof that what was said was lies."
> [reference OODs of June 22, 1970]
>
> I am well aware that Hubbard claimed he got his definition of "DA caper"
> from Sun Tzu's _The Art of War_.
>
> >So, it's quite possible to DA with no documents at all.
> Warrior
I would contend that to accept a Hubbardian definition, is per definition
to accecpt a 'redefinition'.
I would maintain that Dead Agenting would be the practice of discrediting
your opponent. Black PR being one specific tactic within it.
Where merely punching the guy's teeth in, and acid washing his car
works... that too is Dead Agenting. The only requirement being that it
neutralizes the foe.
Lest we accept 'Ethics' from the same dictionary.
Thomas Gandow
ptsc wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:46:50 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
> <caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:05:22 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT
>>cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:33:40 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
>>><caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>>>Ha ha ha ha ha.
>>>>That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
>>>>priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
>>>>Mike Rinder as a reformer.
>>>>
>
>>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>>Diana Ross.
>>>
>
>>Flunk. You dubbed in, ptsc.
>>
>
> Take your Scientology gibberish somewhere else. Have you considered
> that maybe you should actually quit practicing Scientology now that you're
> pretending to be a critic of it?
>
> *plonk*
>
> ptsc
>
It seems, that "p"tscoward is
- either to coward to read the real things
- or that he is no longer allowed to do so.
TG
Thomas Gandow
ptsc wrote:
- either to much a coward to read the real things
Caroline Letkeman
cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:46:50 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
><caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:05:22 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT
>>cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>
>>>On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:33:40 +0100, Caroline Letkeman
>>><caro...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>>>>Ha ha ha ha ha.
>
>>>>That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
>>>>priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
>>>>Mike Rinder as a reformer.
>
>>>That you're calling Starshadow OSA is as kooky as Koos auditing
>>>Diana Ross.
>
>>Flunk. You dubbed in, ptsc.
>
>Take your Scientology gibberish somewhere else. Have you considered
>that maybe you should actually quit practicing Scientology now that you're
>pretending to be a critic of it?
<snip balderdash>
This is rich. I double checked and this is still
alt.religion.scientology. This is where we talk about Scientology,
right? But according to ptsc, I should "take my Scientology gibberish
somewhere else."
Even funnier, really, since every time ptsc posts a usenet message
here, he is using "Scientology gibberish," his chosen handle being a
Scientology term.
In Scientology policy, PTS types A - J is a grouping of potential
trouble sources that are barred from Scientology services. ptsc "is"
of course PTS type C.
From HCO PL 27 October 1964 POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND
POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES © 1964, 1967 L. Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
(c) Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or
who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack
and all their immediate families should never be accepted for
processing by a Central Organization or an auditor. They have a
history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again
turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred
themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are
thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help
from those they have tried to injure.
<end quote>
Given that
a) this is alt.religion.scientology, and
b) I am free to talk about Scientology, and
c) I *do* talk about Scientology, and
d) ptsc is saying I should take my Scientology gibberish elsewhere,
how can I assume anything else but that he wants to shudder me into
silence? How goonish. But at least now with his balderdash, he can
pretend he has had a win.
Finally, it was ptsc who was practicing Scientology. He dubbed it in!
Can it get any funnier than that? Yes it can. Now ptsc is practicing
dub-in of dub-in.
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
------------------------------
Zinj
The pod out of the back seat
The vice-grip off the skull
and mellow out.
PTSC is *not* a person; he's a political entity.
Imagine him as a chitsuh sent sans leash to terrorize your ankles..
And you're starting to get the picture.
Bob isn't here with a leg to piss on anymore. What's a tiny 'lil chitzuh
to do to please his mistresses?
Both you and Gerry should mellow out a bit. Gerry will not be elected God
any time soon, so, you do not need to assume the role of his 'press
secretary'
It's about that simple.
Zinj