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




From: "Fluffygirl" <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT 1 Success)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:57:35 -0600
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 628
Message-ID: <3de7a981@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <7acb5afd.0211231723.639f05a2@posting.google.com> <f112uuoqo6fohhg43v1qj40kj8lpfvarb3@4ax.com> <7acb5afd.0211251205.550cd427@posting.google.com> <ald6uugiahopffp7pgankupbhp5ihv0ura@4ax.com> <3de3bacd@news2.lightlink.com> <g979uugsf9sn4rfmmjvbbfjgbmdfd0puup@4ax.com> <3de4d06a@news2.lightlink.com> <MPG.184e73ba542b23ea9896d8@news2.lightlink.com> <3de56b09@news2.lightlink.com> <tqebuuk91kd1772rvgfusntu8m8n3o43r1@4ax.com> <3de64648@news2.lightlink.com> <5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oqrf6ibj6nf41m1uaog@4ax.com>
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-Trace: 29 Nov 2002 12:53:05 -0500,

"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:41:49 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
> <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
> >news:tqebuuk91kd1772rvgfusntu8m8n3o43r1@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:06:17 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
> >> <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Zinj" <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:MPG.184e73ba542b23ea9896d8@news2.lightlink.com...
> >> >> In article <3de4d06a@news2.lightlink.com>, amafluffygirl@yahoo.com
> >> >> says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:g979uugsf9sn4rfmmjvbbfjgbmdfd0puup@4ax.com...
> >> >> > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:52 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
> >> >> > > <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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,
> >> >> > specifically, an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with
> >> >> > else.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wrote what I wrote because of the condemnatory and invalidative
> >> >> > your response to BB.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Apparently, a civilized agreement to disagree is not part of your
> >> >> > instead, you must cast personal slurs and allusions which lend
> >> >> > the discussion at hand.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > C
> >> >>
> >> >> I found Caroline's most recent post almost disturbingly robotic.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >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.
> Yes, you most certainly did. Check Google. Since you did make the
> claim, you are now lying.

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

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
> >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

> 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
> >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
> >is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting here or whom
> >met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here that I don't
> >automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word, literally,
> >your attempted railroading and summation of my position makes absolutely
> >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.

> 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

> >>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

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
> >"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

> >>
> >
> ><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.


> >I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to which
> >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
> >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.


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
> >personalities and so forth, except for the occasional lighthearted or
> >warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to anyone else
> >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

> >
> >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.


<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
> >
> >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
> >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.





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