From: Starshadow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS.
OT 1 Success)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:27:33 -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: 2 Dec 2002 16:27:35 -0500, 184.108.40.206
Caroline Letkeman wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:28:53 -0800, Starshadow
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>>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
>>Put up or shut up, Caroline. Either show specific "dishonesties"
>>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
>>wrong, wrong, wrong. I've been friends with Claire for a long time and
>>assure you that the "Church" has been trying to dissuade her
>>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
>>>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
>>I'd say that the "Church" of Scientology certainly does promote
>>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,
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
>>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
> 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.
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
My advice is to get off
it, at least for a few hours before you post
> 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
> 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.)
> 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
> 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, 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