§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

 

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3de3bacd%40news2.lightlink.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: "Fluffygirl" <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: TECH Ouside COS. OT 1 Success
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:52 -0600
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <3de3bacd@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <7acb5afd.0211211011.5740e9cb@posting.google.com> <ggtstucer2agoich3snnced77q164lphsf@4ax.com> <7acb5afd.0211221731.343ea3d4@posting.google.com> <igqutu4nvdomuume9ukis3v6bg2du4lt5i@4ax.com> <7acb5afd.0211231723.639f05a2@posting.google.com> <f112uuoqo6fohhg43v1qj40kj8lpfvarb3@4ax.com> <7acb5afd.0211251205.550cd427@posting.google.com> <ald6uugiahopffp7pgankupbhp5ihv0ura@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.16.34.12
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.171.158.238
X-Original-Trace: 26 Nov 2002 13:17:49 -0500, 172.171.158.238

"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
news:ald6uugiahopffp7pgankupbhp5ihv0ura@4ax.com...
> On 25 Nov 2002 12:05:54 -0800, basic2basic@yahoo.com (basicbasic)
> wrote:
>
> >Caroline Letkeman <caroline@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".

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


 

Thread

 

§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §