From: Starshadow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS.
OT 1 Success)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:28:53 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-Original-Trace: 30 Nov 2002 10:29:28 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Caroline Letkeman wrote:
(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
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
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
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.
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
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