http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5o8drukhiha921cjtqa0khogj6pjv7ons3%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: The "Admissions", are they
valid?
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:36:57 +0200
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <5o8drukhiha921cjtqa0khogj6pjv7ons3@4ax.com>
References: <3db3162d@news2.lightlink.com> <3db35073
@news2.lightlink.com>
<3db39e9a@news2.lightlink.com> <3db48440@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.16.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.225.82.127
X-Original-Trace: 23 Oct 2002 09:36:39 -0400, 217.225.82.127
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:48:03 -0500, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Phineas Fogg" <dont@kneejerk.com> wrote in message
>news:3db39e9a@news2.lightlink.com...
>> Well, Fluff, Hubbard was a full grown man when he wrote it, most
>> likely in his late thirties or early forties, which is old enough
to
>> exceed the threshold of adolescent whim but into the realm of
mature
>> thought.
>
>I didn't say one HAD to be an adolescent to write things that would
sound
>odd to overly critical outsiders looking in.
How on earth do you know that wogs (R) finding Hubbard's Admissions
"odd," or even nuts or psychotic, are overly critical?
>
>Really, anything anyone writes that's from one's heart that's private
>off-beat musings, isn't going to sound very cohesive to others reading
it.
That makes goofy sense. Or syllogistic sense, I suppose. Off-beat
musings don't sound very cohesive? Or better said, not very cohesive
musings isn't going to sound, well, very cohesive. Oh?
>
>Things we write for the reading of others tend to be different than
what we
>write for ourselves.
In this discussion, so what? That's one of those thingies like up is
up. Of course the Admissions are different. They reveal something
about Hubbard which he does not reveal in what he has written for,
e.g., Scientologists.
>
>Don't believe me? Grab someone's diary sometime.
Oh I'm sure this is true. But a sort of a straw doll argument.
>
>> The importance of the document is that it reveals Hubbard's
>> complexity, and that he has character flaws just like the rest of
>> humanity.
>
>So noted. It's something I've commented on many times.
Wait, you didn't say Go check Google. This is usenet.
> Usually to people who
>go "ha ha, what do you think of your god now?" (there's some
really
silly
>people on this ng)
Now you may go check Google and bring us back all those instances
where people (wogs, right?) said, ""ha ha, what do you think of
your
god now?"
And they said it to you, right?
And they said it regarding and in response to a posting or comment
about the "Admissions," right?
And you commented in response on Hubbard's character flaws which are
just like the rest of humanity, right?
And when you identify these people, we can know that they are part
at
least of the people you evaluate as "really silly" on a.r.s.,
right?
>
>And my thing has been, always has been, he never was my god. He's just
a
>guy.
That's correct. The problem is that if he's just a guy (the "
god"
deal
is a strawman here) Scientology does not work. Guys are wogs (R).
Almost half of wogs (R) are guys. Homo sapiens are just guys. But homo
novis can't be just a guy. And an OT can't be just a guy. Are you
finally agreeing that Scientology does not work, or at least that its
claims for homo novis, clear and OT are fraudulent?
>
>
>>See, I get so sick of Scn hype and this doc goes a long
>> way to dispel it. It also admits his lackluster war record which
>> proves the Scn hype on this is BS, and the doc is far more
revealing
>> of the Hubbards mindset, which goes a long way to understanding
the
>> man.
>
>It shows what his mindset was at the time he wrote it which was
decades
>before various other writings.s
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. What a goofy evasion. Well yes, I was 20 decades
before I turned fifty.
But Hubbard wrote the Admissions within a year of when he wrote
Dianetics.
And Hubbard wrote the Admissions *after* he says he started
Scientology. In fact 9 years after.
>
>If you were to take my mindset on my wedding day, on the day I was
expelled
>the first time, the day I was expelle again, the day my Mom died, the
day
I
>was offered whatever job, the day I had this or that session- all
would be
>different. Writings by me would reflect that.
Well how on eath can you trust Hubbard then? If his mindset was
changing day to day? Or is he trusted by Scientologists just because
his mindset changes day to day, so theirs can change day to day? Do
they escape responsibility because their mindset is changing day to
day?
" Mindset" is, as I'm sure you're aware, not a
Scientology word.
What
exactly do you mean in Scientological understanding or terminology
when you use the term"mindset?"
>
><snip the rest which I more or less agree with>
>
>C
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org