From: "Kate the Wondercat" <email@example.com>
References: <XCB0GL9N37920.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:39:31 -0800
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Trace: 26 Oct 2003 20:39:46 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Original-Trace: 26 Oct 2003 20:39:46 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652187
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
On 26 Oct 2003, Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
It's either that
or you are just out right lying.
>>However if you happen to look at the page with an OPEN MIND
>>and see the flashing OSA sign
>Correction: There is no flashing OSA sign. You've just engaged
>in the technique of propaganda by redefinition. Hmmmm....
>Who else does this? Oh yes, that's right... For one, OSA Scien-
>tologists do this when applying Hubbard's policy "Propaganda
>By Redefinition of Words":
I really wish you would stop using these Scn concepts. I've
been working very hard at getting rid of the indoc and I find
that by using their concepts it only keeps the indoc in place.
**(Keeping this in as it has a correlation to my comments below-CMS)
>>I recommend looking at Gerry's OSA page with an open mind
>>and critical thinking skills intact.
>So do I.
>Thanks for showing me what a spin doctor you are, Cerridwen.
>You're a Scientologist, aren't you?
LOL! Only a Scientologist would dare to talk to you like this
huh? A non Scio would NEVER DARE to criticize you or
It really doesn't matter how I answer because you will use
in some twisted fashion no matter the answer.
I know you are not a Scientologist but between your smug,
superior attitude and your speaking in Scn concepts you seem
like more of a Scnist than me.
The difference between you and I is I will admit that I still have
and operate on the Scn indoc. You on the other hand, call
yourself an Ex but behave more like a Scientologist than I
** (You got no arrowzz, dear, they went awaaaaaaaaay...I'll insert
** It is something I've noted a number of times that people who purport to
be interested in helping victims of the church and of the Scn indoc'd
mindset will, some of them, vilify others who do not go along with their
program. If they know that the person, like, say, myself, is a
Scientologist, these folks will then impute meanings and implications that
simply are not there. They'll follow the person around screaming and yelling
"liar" and in general, mount a black PR campaign, all the while accusing
that person of so doing if she rebuts anything. Yet killfile one of the ones
who do that the most, and, I'm told by friends, he complains about THAT.
**Thing is, I came on to these forums, starting with ars, to find out what
was going on. Stuff my church would not tell me. Stuff they didn't want me
seeing or discussing. As you all know, I took a lot of flak from said
church, to the point where I said fuck it and left and was expelled a year
later. (Ivanhoe's comment last year to the contrary)
**Now, had I come on here and found nothing but screaming meemies, I'd have
decided that these people- ALL of them- were EXACTLY like church propaganda
described, just SPs, certainly not decent people, and I'd have, like a good
indoc'd church member just left and never been tempted to return. Never had
the feeling something was WRONG with OSA's insistence that I stay off here.
No warning bells would have gone off, as they actually did.
**If ars were populated only by people acting EXACTLY like the asshole from
HCO and the assholes from OSA Int who lied about me and screamed at and
harassed me, I'd still be in the church and a lot of church members who lurk
here WOULDN'T be. Maybe you, Cerridwen, would also have not stayed. Dunno.
**Point is, here are some people acting exactly like the church says all
critics act, directing make-wrongs at one out of two target audiences of ARS
(Scn'ists. I mean folks here are always SAYING they'd like to see people
leave CofS, right? And that they'd like to TALK to them.Pfah!!!) and
alienating the fuck out of them.
**And they wonder why the church is so successful at getting people to stay
**There aren't so many net nannies out there anymore, IMO.
**I have a theory that occasionally church members like I was and like you
were do check this forum out- well, I already know they do 'cuz I hear from
'em from time to time- BUT ALSO that some of these say "Jesus Fuck.
Lunatics. Just like DSA or HCO thingie person told me. I'm outta here.I'm
now gonna give a whole buncha money to IAS."
**So, on behalf of the ARSCC (wdne) Dept of Special Affairs, I'd like to
commend Warrior, Gerry, Tanya Durni and several other people (if the shoe
fits then may as well wear it) for doing OSA's work for them and alienating
potential critics and apostates and turning them back into the arms of
**Mike Rinder is somewhere laughing his ass off.
**Again: I will definitively and definitely state that were all critics as
I've described above when I first came here (instead of just some who
behaved like assholes) I would DEFINITELY still be in CofS and I wouldn't be
writing as many posts critical of L Ron Hubbard and CofS as I do.