"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
Path: pd7tw3no!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!news-out.newsfeeds.com!propagator3-LAX.newsfeeds.com!news-in.usenet.com!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!newspeer1.se.telia.net!se.telia.net!masternews
.telia.net.!newsb.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Spacetraveler" <spacetraveler2000@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology,nl.scientology,de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology,fr.soc.sectes
References: <5ZDOd.16940$d5.136650@newsb.telia.net> <q63o0194php8e6s74r2s32na6sfsvq43r6@4ax.com>
<raYOd.130080$dP1.465344@newsc.telia.net> <rf3r01th8vndu8cljaipiv3lj6phk4hka0@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Is Andreas Heldal-Lund attempting to
avoid delicate situations...? Lines: 92
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Message-ID: <gckPd.17185$d5.138043@newsb.telia.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:42:36 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.209.42.14
X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com
X-Trace: newsb.telia.net 1108201356 217.209.42.14 (Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:42:36
CET)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:42:36 CET
Organization: Telia Internet
Xref: pd7hu0no alt.religion.scientology:132466 alt.clearing.technology:30178580
nl.scientology:3503 de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology:30104687 fr.soc.sectes:79336
X-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 02:44:27 MST (pd7tw3no)
"Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net" <heldal@online.no>
wrote in message
news:rf3r01th8vndu8cljaipiv3lj6phk4hka0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:22:15 GMT, "Spacetraveler"
> <spacetraveler2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Basically ALL I ask for is that you add HCO PL 21 July 68! You
can't
leave
> >out the the issue that factually cancelled the 1967 Fair game issue.
If
you
> >do, it is dishonest. Do you agree or do you not agree? Your readers
should
> >decide how or what, you can't leave out this data.
>
> I agree it is relevant and I believe it is added in a good way
> now.
You mean with the "second opinion" link. Fair enough. You did
something
about it, and this is what I expected that you would. As clear as it was
to
me that Rice and Armstrong simply would continue to go on in complete denial
about it and only would justify it.
>
> >> The important points
> >> I am documenting is:
> >>
> >> 1. This "church" did make such a policy. In itself
that is very
> >> bad and must not be ignored!
> >
> >Fair Game is a specific thing. Which was cancelled less than a
year
later.
>
> This is where we differ. CoS is revealed as doing a lot of bad
> things, and each time they blame individuals that stepped out of
> line. I am of the opinion that is not true. I believe CoS
> creates and promotes this dishonest behavior.
CoS most certainly does, I never questioned that. I experienced that
myself
in a pretty grim manner. But policy defended me effectively, requires
knowledge and understanding, but foremost courage and endurance. Few of
the
complainers possessed that.
> Most people who
> join CoS are still good people. Operation Freak Out was CoS,
> that is what you get if this "technology" is let loose.
>
> We disagree on this and we have both explained our views. I
> don't see us getting any closer by repeating ourselves.
>
> >Are you going to hunt down L. Ron Hubbard for something he already
corrected
> >in 1968? Your response indicates that you do.
>
> You treat it as a honest mistake, I don't.
The policies say what they say. All however may have their only personal
opinion about it though.
>
> >> I said my piece and you said yours, I felt that discussion
had
> >> reached its potential. Anything specific you wanted more
> >> comments on?
> >
> >Are you kidding me? It is obvious that the discussion had not come
to a
> >close. Discussion is about examining something. I am not interested
in
just
> >exchanging opinions, nothing will come out of that. But you may
be you
are.
> >Judging from your response this appears to be so.
>
> To reply to you I would have had to repeat myself. I prefer you
> go back and read again instead.
Before I mentioned it in my first post on this thread I actually did.
It
could have been elaborated some more. Also I have never figured that you
are
not being smart about things... I think we understand eachother about that.
Much smarter than Rice and Armstrong to say the least.
The point where we go astray probably is that I actually have been there,
you never have... All you can do is rely on what OTHERS relate to you.This
actually gives me an advanctage. Personal experience and have gone through
some things can not be replaced by other people's experiences and how they
perceived and/or relay things.
Seems I am about done with the ARS, I wanted to know what I know now,
you
were basically the last on my list.