"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?"
— Spacetraveler
February 8, 2005
From: spacetraveler2...@hotmail.com (Spacetraveler)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology,nl.
scientology,de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology,fr.soc.sectes
Subject: An analyze of Tory "Magoo" Bezazian
to which she herself is in denial about
Date: 13 Nov 2004 13:15:24 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 286
Message-ID: <9f53d1e2.0411131315.31ffc94@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.209.42.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1100380524 26737 127.0.0.1 (13 Nov 2004 21:15:24
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:15:24 +0000 (UTC)
Simply a repost of the last post in a discussion I have had with this
girl. She then turned her back to it. Probably because it became
uncomfortable to her.
She continues posting all over the place, but ignores me.
It gives some interesting angles!
It is also interesting to see that none of the critics ask her to
clarify some things either! And what does this tell us? Right, typical
sect-behaviour.
She herself will probably think: "Hmm. let's ignore him, this wind
will blow over, and then'll be safe again!"
Definitely, but this all will be in this database. So, I'll nudge you
a little. You claim you are an advocator for "Freedom of speech",
I
simply assume that my posting will be allowed, even by you.
Spacetraveler
The original thread is found here:
http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl219904232d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=
&selm=9f53d1e2.0411061812.288f2567%40posting.google.com
snip
> > Also you appear to have little to none knowledge nor understanding
of
> > the adminstration technology of L. Ron Hubbard. I have strongly
the
> > impression that you are one of those persons who moved on the
'bridge'
> > the easy way. Just paying money and sitting in the auditing chair
or
> > something like that.
> > Study is half the bridge, do you remember this?
>
> Nothing could be farther from the truth. I got in doing training, and
> Co-Audited the lower Bridge and even FPRD, (and promoted training)
for all
> of my years in Scientology. In fact, I actually had ~many~ discussions
with
> Top Executives, reminding them that 'in the old days' training was
THE way,
> and buying auditing/the "Professional route" (as you proclaim)
was for
> serious weirdo's. I also was in the Sea Org (Briefly...due to their
own
> screw ups), and on staff at CC and AOLA.
> Lastly, I was a volunteer for OSA for 20 years.
And in spite of all that you tell me: (quote)
"Hubbard wrote the Cancellation issue, but at the bottom states:
"This issue does not apply to SP's" And that line was removed
from any
issue I was ever shown, so it never made sense to me. Once I left, I
was shown the original PL, and that statement IS there." You know,
ALL
you had to do is pull OEC vol 1 look in the index, locate the issue
and read it. You were there 30 years, and only after you left you
still needed someone to show you? Do you actually realize what you
are saying? You are one of those persons who do not find out for
themselves, but let other show or tell you things. And this is the BIG
difference between us. I never did any such thing at any time. This is
why you were able to go around blind in 30 years.
<snip>
> > Get this into your head:
> > "Scientology is application of references originated or written
by L.
> > Ron Hubbard.
>
> You can scream that for years to come, and I'll be here telling people
this:
> Scientology (C of S) proclaims it is the application of references
by LRH,
> and it is. However, depending on where you stand in their graces, is
which
> policy will be applied, and which will be IGNORED.
>
> Of course you totally skip over that one, don't you "Spacetraveler"?
Nothing to tell! It is irrelevant what C of S claims they do! If it
is not in policy it is not Scientology. Policy itself will tell you
what is valid and what not. Query it or oppose to it, I always did. It
says in the bible: "Thou shalt not kill." What have Christians
done?
Yes, killing people. Bush also says he's a Christian, people are dead
because of him for no reason, great isn't it. Now are we saying that
Bush did that or was it Jesus? Get your targets straight!
> > Not enforcing these is NOT Scientology even if some may
> > use that name."
>
> Ya, well when David Miscavige, RTC, all of WISE and the majority of
ABLE
> refuse to enforce these.....
I know they don't, and that does make it not-Scientology.
>I'd say you have just about what you have now:
> totalitarianism. Like it? I hope so. It's yours to keep.
>
> > Fair game is long since cancelled, if some enforce
> > these, it is NOT Scientology, period!
>
> Ok, so what would you call "ReligiousFreedomwatch"? Just
a fluke of
> mis-applied BS (and yes, that's bullshit, for yee who pretend not to
know
> what it is)?
You don't WANT to get this, do you! It is NOT Scientology!
> I could list endless "LRH Policy" that is either being
misused, or not
> applied (ignored)...and you'd still sing your same song:
> "That isn't LRH"
> Tell that to the vast majority of people who worked for LRH, and LEFT
> because he was an asshole, used his own 'Tech" against them unfairly,
abused
> people, and then blamed them.
I have been around for over 26 years. I have spoken to many who worked
with LRH, most of the class XII's, and various others. He was tough,
but this does not make him an asshole. An easy guy would never have
been able to get the show on the road. The point is if LRH writings
are something to have or not. Can they be used? For 30 years you
believed they could, and now you think it is about all useless?
> > The changes in the organization after L. Ron Hubbard disappeared
from
> > the lines are tremendous. Or you are totally ignorant about this
or
> > you simply refuse to find out about these things.
>
> I have posted about this greatly. Obviously it's easier for you to
run your
> program than to read what I've written. Yes, the group has changed
> greatly.... Irrelevant!
The problem is that you do NOT implement this information in your
reasoning nor in your communications towards me! You keep on saying
time after time: "YOUR organziation". Claiming such a thing is
a
complete absurdity!
You appear to reason as follows. Those who question the activities and
claims of YOUR group (comprizing of Rice, Armstrong and so on)
automatically have to be in favour of the Miscavige Organization. This
also means that you can not acknowledge when I claim that Gerry
Armstrong is seriously dishonest about his claim and his ignorance of
HCO PL 21 July 1968. (see my first post on this thread). He is in YOUR
group and therefore he can not be wrong in anyway, as it seems. He has
to be defended no matter what. You know what? You left one sect and
just joined another 'sect'! And this 'sect' decides for you what you
are to believe and think. If it was not like that. You would be able
to look sensibly and analyze truthfully.
Think about it. Don't get 'emotional' about it. Think about this!
"That mind which understand itself is the mind of a free man."
>but as I've said, Hubbard isn't the perfect person you make him out
to be.
I NEVER claimed any such thing! But don't blame him for things he can
not be made responsible for!
> I never even knew half of what I know about him, until I woke up.
> I've since met many of the people who told these same stories, and
no,
> they're not made up lies, or any other version you will try to clutch
to,
> hoping and praying they must be wrong.
Evaluation is a difficult thing. He was tough. I remember the story
from Haviva Waters. She f*ed up a pc, again, and he was furious,
threatened to throw her overboard. She did not look back onto him as a
'nice' person. See, evaluation is difficult, when is something just
and when is it not. The majority of people I have spoken to however
speak about him with respect, they tell me, that he understood, that
he wanted to get through to them. You were alright if you were doing
things correctly, but don't fool around too much.
> > However I don't
> > think you have a very good study record, your responses to my
posts
> > indicate this.
>
> Another common attempt to invalidate what I've said. If we're going
to talk
> about study usage, why can't you read what I write and answer it?
Not an invalidation. You yourself are 'telling' me that in your
communications. I made a simple evalutation, nothing more, nothing
less.
> > Also noted is that you take a personal tone in your responses.
Nasty
> > remarks when I say that I do not know what you mean with "BS".
See,
> > this tells people something about you!!!
>
> awwwwwww...poor Spacetraveler is being harmed by the big, bad SP's.
See?
You say that, I dont'. Stop dramatizing, Tory.
> What does that tell me about you? You've got crappy TR's, you are
quite
> illiterate (even 5 year old kids know what BS is), and you are most
probably
> a chronic liar...as well as brainwashed to find "Low toned responses".
> Sorry, kiddo, it just doesn't fly.
I wasn't used in my circles. Besides that I was not born in some
english speaking country. I think people figured that out already
anyway. You could simply have explained what it meant, you chose NOT
to do that! Why?
And still you keep justifying what you said in above paragraph. Now
WHO is invalidating WHO? Start looking at what you are doing, damned!
> I tells them that you are not
> > so sure about your position in regards to the subjects I take
up!
>
> "I tells them"? Well "I tells them" that if your
speech is an example of
> "The Study Tech", you need The Key To Life, (Joke!) or better
yet, to get
> out of Scientology.
'It' tells them.
See, more invalidating remarks because of some typo.
> > You life is what YOU make of it.
>
> Uh oh...."You life is what you make it".
> mmmm...what country are you from?
> It's ~your~ life is what you make it, for the record. And yes, I admit
it
> took me a long time (*30 years) to fully realize this, but once I did,
I
> left Scientology and my life has been MUCH better since~
>
> Dwelling in your personal disappontments does not solve that situation.
>
> First off, I'm not 'dwelling in personal disappointments". I have
posted
> what a fraud your organization is, and many ....many people have written
to
> thank me. I only wish I'd known about the things I do, years before.
There you go again "your organization"! Is this what it is
about,
people that are thanking you? Well, people are also thanking me!
> If you recommended OT
> > VII to others when you yourself were not doing well on it, then
this
> > tells something about YOU.
>
> Yes it does. It tells me I was brainwashed into feeling I ~had~ to
promote
> it was good, even when I KNEW it wasn't. I still thought,,,I still
bought,
> Hubbard's endless BS (bullshit) that "IT must be YOU, Tory, as
everyone else
> is winning",
See, Scientology is about recognizing these things, analyzing people,
to evaluate what is really going on in them, not what they say is
going on. It is quite easy to evaluate that if you observe, really
'look'. And you tell me that I am not looking. 30 years you did not
'look', what reason is there to believe that you can 'see' today, only
because that you have been able to acknowledge some things to
yourself? Well?
>and that "This is TOP Secret and it's a HIGH CRIME to discuss
> your case". But you missed that, huh?
Certainly not, but don't tell that OT VII is GREAT when it isn't!
If I was not satisfied with something people would figure it out from
me. Be assured of that! But I will not tell that it's great or
recommendate it. And YOU did exactly that!
> Well, the truth is, everyone else wasn't winning.
> That's why SO Many OT 7's and OT 8's have dropped off, or left. It
doesn't
> work, pal. Not for me, or you or them. You'd be better to buy a bag
of
> snickers and chant how OT you are while eating them. At least you'd
have the
> enjoyment of the taste.
>
> All we can conclude is that this attitude
> > is NOT Scientology, and makes you a dishonest Scientologist, which
is
> > the same as a non-Scientoligist.
>
> Ya....the perfect OSA Line, told to me about thousands of "Our
Top OT's" and
> "Top Opinion Leaders" ...when They too left. I know the line,
man, I heard
> it for years. Guess what? Is it true?
>
> N O T A T ALLLLLLLL.
Don't have a clue where you talk about actually?
> Here's one policy you *might* have missed:
> Hubbard's final PL;
>
> The way OUT
>
> IS
>
> The Neareeeest Dooooooooooor!"
>
> (Hey..HE Took it, why not YOU?)
>
> Call me when you get out....I'll be here to chat.
I never was IN there as you were, I never lost my senses and threw out
my ability to judge and analzye. And this is the difference between
us.