"You see, take
a gun (they are all over the place), put a bullet in there (also easy).
Now locate the whereabouts of Gerry (requires some doingness), then go to
him (take a plane, that's fastest), wait for him (at some place), pull your
gun (does not require much musclepower), then aim (some will have problems
with this), and finally pull the trigger..(keep your hand steady or you'll
miss altogether). Easy no?"
> >> You will also want to add references to and condemnations
of Fair Game
> >> from Scientology v. Armstrong LASC No. C 420153 (Breckenridge),
the
> >> appellate decision in that case, Wollersheim v. Scientology
appellate
> >> opinion, Re B & G Wards (Latey decision). These are important
because
> >> they show the cult's leaders having knowledge of the execrableness
of
> >> their Fair Game philosophy, policy and practice.
> >
> >Gerry,
> >
> >It seems like that people may not defend themselves when under
attack.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> Examples?
Where you not there when all these things occured during the later
60's? I have understood that you at least have been in this
organization. Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
Scientology was under heavy artillery at times. Is one not allowed to
find some way to defend oneself against attacks? The simplicity of it
is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
> >On both your site AND that SPDL site the reference actually
cancelling
> >fair game is not to be found.
http://mccalcon.notlong.com
> There is no cancellation of fair game. It has never been cancelled.
> Certain policy letters may have been "cancelled,"
Then quote ALL of these references! You base an opinion on these
sites like that the 21 July 1968 issue does not exist. You simply say
that only the use of the name was cancelled. Is that honest? Quote
ALL of them! I don't expect anything honorable from Fredric Rice, but
I don't think that you are like him.
> but fair game -- the
> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was when
> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his solution
> for criticism, decades ago.
Define criticism in this context. Policy is very well defined in the
Admin Dictionary, I assume you still have a copy of this. Policy is to
be followed, there are also a variety of policies which will defend
your rights if being wronged somehow. Do you deny that this is so?
> But on the subject of "cancellation" of policy letters, please
see
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
>
> And now it is your turn to present your proof of your claim that fair
> game is actually cancelled. This will be an impossible task because
> fair game has never been cancelled.
Policy is policy. What do I care about some jerks.
During my time being intern for many years I have seen lots of idiots
doing the most insane stupid things. Does this make L. Ron Hubbard
wrong, don't see why it should. Did all things went well when
Christianity was first introdued? People anywhere are most of the time
quite unpredictable and irrational.
> Policy letters may or may not be policy. Policy letters may or may
not
> be followed. Policy may be counter to or in violation of what is
> stated in policy letters. The policy may be to ignore or act in
> violation of what is stated in policy letters. They are the basis of
any
> action or inaction of the organization.
> With the Scientology organization this is quite clearly the policy.
Was there any time that you did NOT enforce policy when you should
have when you were there? DID YOU?
> >Attack, but do it on 'proper' grounds. Find the 'right' target.
>
> And the "Suppressive Person" doctrine guarantees you won't
find the
> "right target." The SP doctrine is set up to create wrong
targets --
> good, loving people to attack. It's really nice for Scientologists
to
> have a class of people to fair game who are good, loving ones who
> don't have the resources or the mindset to attack back. No wonder the
> Scientologists feel so OT. Cowards.
This is the way David Miscavige and friends go about it, this however
is not Scientology. This is other practices.
> The "Suppressive Persons" Scientology targets are no more
"right
> targets" than all the Jews the Nazis fair gamed were the "right
> targets."
After my many years being intern and my understanding of these things
I happen to disagree with that.