"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?"
The following is taken from a communication with Gerry Armstrong that
he refuses to respond to.
The full communication you can consult here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
Quoted:
Gerry:
> >> 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.
>
> Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
> faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
> accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
> Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
>
> [Quote]
>
> Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we
> have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have
> found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under
> existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have
> criminal pasts.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
> find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
> lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who
do
> not have criminal pasts.
>
> Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
My response:
Did he? "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact is
only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
on. It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
This HCOB is robably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
clear up that issue or to get lost.
Another quote relating to criticism:
Gerry:
> > The simplicity of it
> >is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
>
> No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
> by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
> If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
> totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
> then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
> SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
>
> If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
> and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
> necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
> Game.
My response:
Only criticisms, or not agreeing with Scientology does not get you
fair gaimed. It needs a little more doingness. And please don't call
it my organization, it isn't. It is this simple, if you have a cougar
jumping on you, you better do something, if not you will surely die.