http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=37e0d1e2.82010824% 40news.dowco.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: armstrong@dowco.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: The Dorian Challenge
Date: 1999/09/16
Message-ID: <37e0d1e2.82010824@news.dowco.com>
X-Trace: 16 Sep 1999 04:29:21 -0800, dial-027.tch1.chw.dowco.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

Bob asked me some time ago if I was going to enter the
Dorian Challenge. Bob called it something else. I called it the
"Dorian Challenge" because it's a title, and I'm a titleist. I
really have no idea if it's a correct title, or even if there
hasn't already been another Dorian Challenge. The contest has
nothing at all to do, of course, with Dorian. I say of "course,"
knowing that on ars there are a number of thinking participants
who think otherwise, by not going beyond the four corners of
contest. I know that Bob has Dorian as the inspiration, and well
he might be, but the rules which form the challenge make it very
clear that Dorian is not a factor.

In fact, because a contest entrant need not write as well
as, better than, or similar to Dorian, there is no reason Dorian
could not himself enter the contest. It could not be undivine if
Dorian, an obviously literary man, won the first ever Dorian
Challenge. I asked Bob if Dorian could enter, since the contest
criteria in no way concern him, and I don't think Bob gave me a
definite answer. If there's a vote on it, I would say that Dorian
for sure should be able to participate in and win the Challenge.

The day Bob's challenge appeared I got to work and outlined
my own essay submission. I read some of the discussion over the
next few days, and wrote responses to a few of the posts on the
subject of the contest; but never posted anything until now for
one reason or another. I do that a lot. Much of life has to do
with timing. From the start I thought that the contest is a very
cool idea and a very worthy challenge. By the time Bob asked me if I
was going to enter, I had already been thinking about it a bunch of
days, and had pretty well, for reasons I'll state a little later in
this post, decided. I told Bob some of this, and said I'd perhaps post
some of my unposted responses and my decision.

Ars participant Baba ROM DOS, addressing Bob, wrote: "I do
not doubt that I, among other contributors here, could outwrite
your buddy "Dorian". But since you insist on being the sole
judge, the game is rigged from the beginning. I'll be damned if
you're going to make me dance by waving your money around. Award
the prize by vote of jury not beholden to you, and I'll think
about it."

My fellow foot soldier Martin Hunt followed up: "Well said.
You've driven to the heart of the matter; this is yet another of
Bob's attacks on critics. The point of this exercise seems to be:
1. The "Dorian" troll is a wonderful, fantastic writer. 2. Bob is
superiour to all critics. 3. The critics on ars are jerks to be
toyed around with."

But demonstrably the point of the exercise is to produce
within a month an essay of 10,000 words which is, as Bob
requires, full of surprising, insightful, and thought provoking
ideas, not only relevant to $cientology, but revealing its hidden
workings and showing it for what it is; which doesn't lecture to
$cientologists, but speaks indirectly to them, explaining some of
the hows and the whys of what they have experienced; which opens
up what L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (Nibs) referred to as the part of his
father's mind that no one could get into, the part that was
locked up tight, not revealed to anyone; which takes steps
towards revealing Hubbard's true intent, and does all this in a
manner that is compelling and convincing to $cientologists; and
which, on top of everything else, says some significant and
useful things about life in general.

That is to say, the point of the exercise is unrelated to
whether Dorian is a wonderful writer, Bob is better, or we, the
ars participants, are jerks being toyed with. The Challenge in
no way attacks critics. Martin I know can with some ease produce
an excellent essay within the guidelines. This Baba I don't know,
but I know he says he can outwrite Dorian himself, so he is
better than equally qualified. I would bet that an overwhelming
majority of ars folks would look forward to an essay from Martin
and Baba and every other critic of $cientology.

As for dancing to the waving of Minton money, no it's more
like running in that it's a serious challenge. It is a bit like
any prize fight or competition. A writing competition for a
worthy cause. And as for the contest being rigged, sure it is.
But its rigging is pretty well exposed. You can be reasonably
certain that there is no one behind Bob to whom he is beholden.
In almost all judgments I would rather trust Bob Minton than a
jury.

Boudewijn van Ingen, another always welcome ars participant,
fired off this response to Bob's contest announcement: "A
challenge to waste even more time on? Rob Clark said "More
matter, less art!". So now you would like to see the opposite?
<snip> Those of us that are out here to earn a quick buck might
enjoy your hobby. These poor bastards have my blessing. <snip> I
am not here to play. $cientology was deadly serious when they
"played with" Lisa McPherson. So I will not shoot in the air.
<snip>.

Flaming Bob's 8 rules for the Dorian Challenge, Boudewijn
wrote: "You missed a couple of things, like: 9) It may not
contain any references to actual, independently verifyable facts
10) It must be open to different interpretations. And of course
the other part of this "deal" is that anybody that doesn't "win"
gets to "shut-up". Wasn't that your general idea, Bob? < snip> If
it's relaxation you want, you'd better drop your support for
"Dorian", Bob. No amount of money you throw at it will buy you
that otherwise."

I must say I don't think so to much of this. There is no
reason why Dorian, with good sense, cannot be supported. All of
$cientology's opponents should be supported with good sense, and
it is abundantly clear that Dorian, while he may not be many
things, is definitely an opponent. It is my understanding that
Dorian has never asked for, nor even given the appearance of
needing, money, and there is no evidence that Bob has thrown
money at him. I see nothing in Bob's rules to support the charge
that he wants participants in the Challenge who don't win to shut
up. I think the contest is actually Bob putting his money where
his free speech mouth is.

Sure the essay, and the essayist, must be open to different
interpretations. Anyone who participates can be certain he will
be interpreted in many different ways. All the interpretations in
fact can be guaranteed to be misinterpretations. According to the
rules, on the other hand, and contrary to what is insinuated, an
entry may contain as many references to actual, independently
verifiable facts as can be packed into ten thousand words. The
essay, of course, is an artistic form for maximalizing matter, a
form specifically intended to be packed with facts. This is a
fact.

I doubt that there are any of us who are out here to earn a
quick buck. Because we're out here, however, for reasons other
than earning a quick buck, why not earn a quick buck while we're
at it? I can't recall any other such offer or contest since I've
been on ars. Should we not hope that there would be large checks
or even more valuable prizes awarded every week; perhaps Thursday
afternoons. It isn't at all enjoying Bob's hobby, because Bob
certainly, as opposed to Dorian, cannot participate in the
contest in which he is the sole judge. This contest is for people
with a hobby, or, I suppose, gift, or the Christians might say a
burden, writing essays about $cientology and the dark side of L.
Ron Hubbard.

Regarding shooting in the air, I would say don't do this if
you haven't got a gun. Be deadly serious about deadly serious
things, and if you can, shoot in the air. If shooting in the air
is unsafe, discourteous or unwise, naturally, shoot as straight
as possible somewhere else. Shooting in the air is not to be
sneezed at. Isn't it a fact that Bob has not been bothered at his
residence by $cientology's militiamen since he shot in the air?
And isn't it a fact that up to the time of shooting in the air he
had been bothered at his residence by this militia? I think
everyone, $cientology's critics, and the head $cientologists too,
whether they shoot or don't shoot, are deadly serious about Lisa
McPherson.

Bob gave me much pause with my Dorian Challenge submission
when I read his post stating: "I may even agree that no MFC
members can participate but some smart-ass on ARS will have to
name the MFC." I'm not a smart-ass, and I can't name the MFC, but
I am, as everyone is, I'm sure, aware, a member in good standing.
Now it is true that I am a member of many fan clubs, easily
spanning the alphabet from Andreas to Zenon, but that fact
doesn't detract from the threat my membership in the MFC appeared
to be to my participation in this contest.

Lronscam, addressing Bob, brought up yet another problem:
"you said that there are only a handful of people who could win.
And out of that handful only a few who were allowed to
participate, barring those who have injunctions against them." I
have an injunction against me; one which "prevents" me from
mentioning $cientology, and which I violate every day without
fail, just because it is illegal, impossible, unconstitutional,
irresponsible, unenforceable, illogical, oppressive, suppressive,
dangerous and flat out stupid.

But that same $cientology injunction also applies equally,
and equally illegally, impossibly, unconstitutionally,
irresponsibly, unenforceably, illogically, oppressively,
suppressively, dangerously and flat out stupidly, to persons
"acting in concert" with me. If Bob permits me to enter his
contest, is he acting in concert with me and therefore subject to
the same illegal, impossible, unconstitutional, irresponsible,
unenforceable, illogical, oppressive, suppressive, dangerous and
flat out stupid injunction? Since I'm also a member, as I
mentioned, of the MFC, I am, as Poirot might say, on the
dilemma's horns, n'est-ce pas?

I would think this might be the perfect opportunity for Bob
to tell the $cientologists and their lawyers that their
injunctions are illegal, impossible, unconstitutional,
irresponsible, unenforceable, illogical, oppressive, suppressive,
dangerous and flat out stupid by specifically inviting everyone,
me included, who is gagged or shuddered by such $cientology
documents to submit an essay. Bob is, of course, in a much
different legal and financial position from what I am in, and a
case can be made that I am suggesting what is easy for me to say.
I am not a lawyer and my observations and opinions are not legal
advice. But one way or another, $cientology's judicial
suppression of free speech and the Dorian Challenge will
intersect. Indeed haven't they?

I don't know if Lronscam ever got a response to the
"suggestions, questions, ideas and comments" about Bob's contest.
I thought this person Lronscam really cares, and is really
serious about this great challenge, and needs to be cheered on.

L: Can the person remain anonymous, as with a pseudonym,
and still win or do they have to give their real name -- ?

G: Anonymity, pseudonymity or cognominality, in the
contest's context, are not factors. It will be a great day when
anyone wins, whoever he or she is.

L: I mean openly, duh. Of course their real name will be
divulged if they win.

G: Not necessarily. The two events are in all likelihood
unrelated.

L: Does the literary work become your, Bob Minton's,
property after all is said and done?

G: In that there is nothing in the contest rules regarding
a transfer of ownership of the entrants' works, these works must
remain the property of their creators.

L: Will there be a waiver of sorts to collect the money
from you?

G: I have no idea what a waiver of sorts is, but Bob could
open a Dorian Challenge account with a $10,000 deposit.

L: Is this contest abiding by all laws in your
jurisdiction?

G: Not in $cientology. But then $cientology has no
jurisdiction. Where we stand is free and sacred ground and
$cientology has no jurisdiction.

L: How will the check be presented?

G: Live on Xenu TV(R)?

L: As a gift (tax free, but possibly illegal) or less
taxes? Roughly, people in America will get around 75% of it, if
it is a bona fide contest. I dont' know about other countries.

G: Writers, it should be remembered, have all sorts of
writeoffs. And in a bona fide contest like the Dorian Challenge
the writeoffs are especially bona fide.

L: In a later post, you said that there are only a handful
of people who could win. And out of that handful only a few who
were allowed to participate, barring those who have injunctions
against them. That means you already have in mind who you like
ahead of time which precludes most of 'us' from even getting a
chance.

G: We all know many of the handful. But I'd bet that the
winner is surprisingly unknown. My dear Lronscam, you have a far
greater chance of winning than I do, and I can, but you can't win
if you don't write.

L: I like odds better than that.

G: I give more than even odds on everything. If you can
get better than that for goodness sake go for it.

L: I may not participate at all anyway, but for those who
are going to spend a great deal of time at this adventure, you
should make if fairer to them and spell everything out in the
open. There should be at least a week of setting down the rules
and changing them per inquiry of an unfair bias.

G: That's what makes this such a challenging contest. One
would have to write well. I think that on its face the contest is
perfectly fair. It's better to have written and lost, even to
unfair bias, than never to have written at all.

L: Some of my suggestions for rules are:
1) Pgp signed anonymous submission from the beginning to the end.
For those who aren't familiar with PGP someone that would cause a
problem. Make your anonymous PGP password simple. What happens if
your password is forgotten? No win?.. If you're not anonymous
you loose. How about if people guess who you are even if you are
anonymous? I feel at a distinct disadvantage here.

G: Now there's a contest. But seriously, I would bet
everyone, and certainly Bob, in my case, would know it was me
inside the first paragraph. Everyone would know me the first time
I laughed. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

L: 2) Have at leeast 2 months to write essay after all
rules are settled. The way I see it there are about 300 words per
page in a normal novel. That makes 10,000 words equal, some where
in the ballpark of 30 to 40 pages of work. That is 10% of a
normal novel. 30 days is just not enough for those of us who hold
normal jobs.

G: I'd have to agree and I'd suggest trying this cheer.
Two months or nothing. Two months or nothing. Two months or
nothing. Two months or nothing. Two months or nothing.

L: 3) There should be a vote of who is has the best work
before you make a decision, where everyone votes which is the
best and which isn't. No votes can come from an anonymous
remailer. All votes have to come from a valid Email
Address. One voter per address and you can't vote for
yourself.

G: Separate Readers Choice Award. Separate Readers Choice
Award. Separate Readers Choice Award. Separate Readers Choice
Award. Separate Readers Choice Award. Somebody other than Bob
could put up $10,000 for a separate Reader's Choice Award. But
voting for yourself is always the least you can do.

L: You said that you are the decider of who wins and who
doesn't but you must take the totality of votes of who is the
winner with great weight. This is my general idea.

G: Great weight to the winner. Great weight to the winner.
Great weight to the winner. Great weight to the winner. Great
weight to the winner.

L: This process can cast a shadow over ARS if there are
possibilities that the contest is rigged.

G: A shadow on ARS. A shadow on ARS. A shadow on ARS. A
shadow on ARS. A shadow on ARS.

The contest is rigged. We're moving in. The contest is
rigged. We're moving in. The contest is rigged. We're moving in.
The contest is rigged. We're moving in. The contest is rigged.
We're moving in.

L: People in your immediate vicinity can not participate.

G: Wow, are there a bunch of essay-writing
Hubbard/$cientology experts in some town in New Hampshire we've
never even heard of?

L: It must be voted on ahead of time to decide what
immediate vicinity is.

G: I vote for within the city limits of Sandown, NH.

L: It take it that Keith Henson would be glad to
participate and I think that he would not like it if he is
precluded from the get go.

G: Yeah, me too. I think Keith can meet all the criteria,
and could produce a winner.

L: Stacy should definitely be precluded.

G: Boy I hope not. I think she could produce a dynamite
essay. I would hate to have her excluded. But I know you're
serious, so I'll say wouldn't it be hilarious, don't you think,
if the only writers who can enter Bob's contest are those who can
prove they despise him.

L: 4) You must define what a literary word is. Is it 5
digits including spaces or is it just any old word that counts as
a word count?

G: I've always gone with the any old word definition. I
think that counting only those words <----- there's two of them
---- of five digits will make this challenge more challenging
than it ought to be.

L: These are just some of the questions that come up when
someone enters any contest. These are my suggestions. Rules
should be agreed upon and possible even written up by a lawyer.
We don't need any lawsuits here on ARS.

G: That's actually the reason the lawyers shouldn't touch
the rules. But what do you mean we don't need any lawsuits here
on ARS? Of course we do. ARS is the torch that carves anvils into
earrings. We need more lawsuits. However do you expect to go SP
if you're not sued?

Since you are the contest rule maker, promoter and producer,
it is best you decide before hand who should be allowed in the
contest to begin with.

G: I agree. Let everyone in. Let everyone in. Let
everyone in. Let everyone in. Let everyone in.

L: You don't need any OSA bots around putting forth their
two cents.

G: Yes we do. Two cents from O$A. Two cents from O$A. Two
cents from O$A. Two cents from O$A. Two cents from O$A.

L: and have Scientology come in with a lawsuit to break up
the fun.

G: A lawsuit from $cientology can only heighten the fun.
We want a lawsuit. We want a lawsuit. We want a lawsuit. We
want a lawsuit. We want a lawsuit.

L: You never know do you; it could happen. This is their
ball park when it comes to shit like this.

G: What is their ballpark? ARS? Shit like what? Like
writing essays about them which pin their ears back?

L: They are the master when it comes to games,IMHO.

G: Their legacy will be their failure. They wake up every
day to slave toward that legacy. They are not even the master of
nothing.

L: One more thing. Can anyone tell me how much 10,000
words would be in Kilobytes? This may give a good indication of
how much work is involved.

G: A lot of work. It's a difficult challenge. Make your
words count.

But here's the deal on my membership in the MFC. I've hung
out with Bob a number of times, always, I think, in other
people's company, and I've talked to him by phone a number more.
He didn't asked me to write or post this, nor did anyone else.
He's never asked me to post anything.

I don't get everything that gets posted to ars and don't
read a huge percentage of what I do get. I can't take much time
in this activity, and in what time I do take I probably get only
a fraction done of what any normal wog can do. I say this to make
it clear that I know I have but one point of view out of umpteen
impossibillion points of view.

I have a Grade 11 education and know that my academic
development does not go much beyond that. My religious
convictions are, even for a prophet I would think, middle of the
road toward liberal. Some at least of what I write here, and just
about anywhere I can get away with it, is for not much more than
its sound, although I try not to stray from the truth. That way,
I don't have to keep much in mind and there's all this space for
words.

I think a lot of people are very kind to me on ars when they
really might want to wring my neck. There are some here, of
course, who are very unkind and they also might want to wring my
neck. I am grateful for every time my coparticipants chose
kindness, and I am grateful to those who came to my defense, and
pretty well anyone's defense here at the ars hodown (R).

Sometime after I first knew of Bob or had heard his name, I
learned here on ars that he had, some months before, made an
offer of $360,000 to anyone who could get $cientology's tax
exemption revoked. After giving this some thought I called Bob
and said that I believed I could get $cientology's tax exemption
revoked, and, reasoning that someone who has $360,000 for one
purpose probably has even more to do other things, asked him for
a loan to be able to give it my best shot. I repay him upon
completion of the project; that is, when the IRS tax exemption is
revoked.

Now it isn't that I am any old guy who thought up such a
cool venture. I have the undeniable need and the legal standing
to effectively challenge $cientology's US-approved and defended
status. Breckenridge, the MCCS tapes, the Zolin v. US cases, the
CST v. US case, the religious persecution cases (CSI v.
Armstrong, Marin Superior Court, US Bankruptcy Court),
$cientology's IRS 1023 response, and my being where I was and am
all add up to the requisite need and standing. The need and the
legal standing to obtain the revokation of $cientology's tax
exemption also makes me a bigger than life sized target.

So Bob said, how about $100,000. I said bless you Bob. Of
that, $75,000 I earmarked for costs in my legal battle, and
$25,000 was for me to pay a bunch of bills, set up a place in
Nevada and get on with my work. The litigation and Nevada are,
beyond what I've said, another story for another occasion, and
aren't further related to Bob, to whom this post relates.

Bob has given or loaned a lot of money to a number of the
participants in the battle against $cientology. Each of these
gifts or loans was honorable, for honorable purposes and to
honorable recipients. There has been an ill-conceived idea on ars
that there has been something dishonorable in what has been
received from Bob. $cientology thrives on ill-conceived ideas.

There is also the faulty idea that what the people Bob
helped monetarily have to say on the newsgroup owes its existence
to his money. The truth is probably closer to that proposition's
opposite. I believe Bob helped those people who way deep down are
not very influenced by money. It wouldn't hurt noting that the
people helped were pretty well all involved in litigation with
the frightfully rich and ever so barratrous $cientology cult.

Maintaining that someone's statements (mine) are motivated
one way or another by Bob's having loaned him (me) a bunch of
money is not reasonable, or defensible, unless the specific
statements are identified and the linkage made. I am certain that
there is a consistency in what I have posted here, from before I
contacted Bob to after he loaned me the money and on up to
present time. In that sense I am unmotivated by it. In that I am
writing about the loan now, I am writing something different from
what I would be writing had Bob not loaned me the money. But even
this is not motivated by money.

On the other hand, in a sense Bob made it possible for me to
write every word I've written over the past year or so. But he
has never told me one word to say. And I believe there would be
no relevant difference in what I've written if I had received
money from any other source. Which we all have. We have all
received money from other sources. That does not mean therefore
that the word of us all is corrupted. Some is; some isn't.

Even without considering the litigation costs, Bob made it
possible for me to help my mother and family, stay above water,
and keep moving along toward victory. So in that sense, Bob has
been kind, generous, understanding, validative, and fun. He sure
seems to be in the same war I'm in and on the same side, and I'm
honored to call him my friend.

Regarding Dorian, some time back someone asked on ars what
the Dorian thing is all about, and I answered "broken glass bead
game." I was refering to Hermann Hesse's novel *Magister Ludi,*
titled in some printings, *The Glass Bead Game.*

I know I've been saying, and I still say, that God is the
L[ong] F[all] B[low]D[own] F[loating]/N[eedle] answer to every
properly asked L[isting] & N[ulling] question. What Hubbard
called the LFBD F/N item, which according to him should be
accompanied by other G[ood] I[ndicator]s including the T[one]
A[rm] between 2.0 and 3.0, was simply the answer. He was wrong in
his assignment of these E[nd]P[henomena]s, but he was right that
questions had answers. Duh, you say?

And, as I've also been saying, and as everyone has noticed,
I'm sure, just about any good rule is qualified by safety,
courtesy and wisdom. So although God is the answer to the
question, "What's the Dorian thing all about?" which is, by the
way, a pretty good L & N question, it would be stupid to give
that answer. "Broken glass bead game" still F/Ns for me. Perhaps
it does for others as well.

It is actually inappropriate to call it a broken game, since
it was not my game, and such a judgment on players is in almost
all cases discourteous, unwise and even unsafe. My sole
contribution to Dorian was to chime in, earnestly I think, a
singled whispered name, "Leni Riefenstahl." And then I tried to
cheer everyone up when the game, as I judged it, disassembled.

There were actual players whose contributions unfortunately
went largely unapplauded, indeed unrecognized; and there were
spectators and judges whose sentiments became, I can say with
assurance, a more valued part of that particular glass bead game
than the game itself. It may be that ars is not a fertile setting
for glass bead games. I would myself not choose to develop one in
certain settings; courtrooms for example. When the war is over,
when we toast all the opponents to the $cientology octopus, when
we toast Allard, Cooper, Whitney and Wollersheim, I know we'll
hoist a glass too for Dorian.

I understand that there are people here who might want to
wring Bob's neck. Bob has done things differently from the way
I'd do them, and done some things I wouldn't do at all. It makes
me sad when Martin, who has contributed so much to the war
effort, and he fight. It makes me sad when Sten-Arne, whose
contribution and presence are so valuable, shoots it out on ars
with Bob. It makes me sad when any of our officers scrap with
each other. On the other hand, it makes me happy that ars is a
perfect place to learn patience.

Whenever I've travelled in the US during the past couple of
years, I've advised Bob, because he is the one person I'm
connected to who can do something if I run into the kind of
trouble the $cientologists manufacture. I can't call Martin or
Sten-Arne, and I can't call a jury. Because I'd call Bob, I'm
fully paid up MFC member. And because I'm a member I will not
enter the Dorian Challenge.

(c) Gerry Armstrong

 

Thread