From: armstr...@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Re: Who Am I?
References: <email@example.com> <hkhensonEHq3vo.6LB@netcom.com>
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:07:00 GMT, hkhen...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
>: Re: Who Am I?
>: 2. I am under no restraint or coercion concerning the
>: contents of any of my postings, save my own personal judgement and my own
>: sworn oaths.
>: 4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
>: experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
>: can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
>: Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
>: state that I do not know about a particular matter or state that I choose
>: not discuss it.
>Certainly this sounds fair.
You could be a breath of fresh air, which I for one feel your
organization deliberately denies us.
First of all, I would like to deal with your bias.
1. What is the precise language of your "sworn oath of defense of
Scientology and Scientologists?"
2. When was that oath or those oaths sworn to?
3. What were the relevant circumstances at the time you swore said
oath or oaths?
4. Are there any circumstances you can imagine which would render
right or just your breaking of said oath or oaths?
5. If, for example, you discovered that Scientology, as many of us
here observe, is abusing innocent people, would you continue to defend
6. Wouldn't your adherence to such an oath make you also a contributor
to the abuse of innocent people?
7. Wouldn't your adherence to such an oath also render your defense of
your organization irrational? (Given of course that abuse of innocent
people is irrational.) And wouldn't your posts to this NG in defense
of an organization engaging in such abuse be untrustworthy?
8. It seems to me that an oath to defend innocent people against abuse
and abusers is a far more worthy and rational guideline for one's
arguments and life. Is it not possible that an abusing organization
requiring of its members an oath of unquestioned defense is abusing
>: 5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
>: anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
>: debate. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with what I have
>: to say [actually, I expect most of you to disagree with *most* of what I
>: have to say]; but, please stick to calm, rational arguments in response
>: childish name-calling, vicious slurs, loud tirades, wild rantings, and the
>: like will simply be ignored and cause me to cease responding to the
Perhaps you will see that slurs, rants, etc have occurred when real
questions, polite requests for debate and rational arguments have been
ignored by Scientology's posters to this NG. I have asked a number of
questions and so far received nothing but slurs and irrational
attacks. Something different would be, as I said, fresh air.
>: 6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology,
>: not "believe" anything. I have had the opportunity to study and
>: portions of this subject to my life with uniform success, when applied
>: exactly as found in my materials. A far larger portion of this subject,
>: have either not studied, or have not had the opportunity to personally
>: test; therefore, I am not qualified to comment upon such areas. I shall
>: endeavour to carefully distinguish these two categories in all my postings
>: to this newsgroup.
I do not believe that you do not believe anything regarding these
principles. You are told by Hubbard that Scientology does not depend
on beliefs or faith. You believe that, I believe. You also, at this
time, believe that it is right and ethical that you honor your oath to
defend Scientology and Scientologists. I believe that Hubbard has lied
to, and indeed defrauded, the people who believe in him and his
"philosophy" and "technology" by telling them and leading
believe that his subject does not require belief (and therefore that
Scientologists as opposed to, e.g., Christians, are not believing in
9. For my understanding and our further discussions, what are the
principles of Scientology philosophy or technology you are refering
10. Scientology claims that a Scientologist is someone who adheres to
the creed of Scientology. The creed contains a number of beliefs
stated as beliefs; e.g., that man has an inalienable right to speak
freely. If you do not have any beliefs about Scientology, do you not
subscribe to its creed? And if you do not hold your creed's beliefs
how can you be a Scientologist?
11. As you probably know, Scientology has sought to silence me about
my knowledge of and experience in the organization, your religion. It
has sought my silence with a "settlement contract," with threats, with
litigation and with court orders. Are not your organization leaders,
by seeking to silence me, in conscious and continual violation of
Scientology's creed? Are they therefore not sham Scientologists? And
since I do not seek to silence anyone about anything, am I not a true
I really have no trouble with Scientology's creed. I have some trouble
with its use by organization leaders to obtain IRS tax exemption when
they violate it knowingly every day of the year.
>: So much for an introduction.
>Thank you very much for introducing yourself. When and if you want
>background material on memes, ask and I will either send it to you in
>email or point you to a web site.
Yes, thanks for your introduction and your promise of willingness to
respond to calm answers such as mine above.