http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=
6s4nuu8pss7m0ail59t616hqptptt88asn%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Caroline Letkeman <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was
re: TECH Ouside COS. OT 1 Success)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:33:40 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Lines: 1639
Message-ID: <6s4nuu8pss7m0ail59t616hqptptt88asn@4ax.com>
References: <ald6uugiahopffp7pgankupbhp5ihv0ura@4ax.com> <
3de3bacd@news2.lightlink.com>
<g979uugsf9sn4rfmmjvbbfjgbmdfd0puup@4ax.com> <3de4d06a
@news2.lightlink.com>
<MPG.184e73ba542b23ea9896d8@news2.lightlink.com> <3de56b09
@news2.lightlink.com>
<tqebuuk91kd1772rvgfusntu8m8n3o43r1@4ax.com> <3de64648
@news2.lightlink.com>
<5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oqrf6ibj6nf41m1uaog@4ax.com> <3de7a981
@news2.lightlink.com>
<g42huusqo0d6977erof701c87e4ocdamdv@4ax.com>
<3DE8D935.3060204@starshadowlovesxenu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e15117.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.online.de 1038850288 6176 217.225.81.23 (2 Dec 2002 17:31:
28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@online.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Dec 2002 17:31:28 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:28:53 -0800, Starshadow
<starshadow@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>Caroline Letkeman wrote:
>
>(snip for brevity)
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Through all this, Claire has simply shown again that she is
dishonest
>> and knowingly supporting the criminal fraud which is
Scientology. As
>> such, she is a very well trained representative of Scientology,
and
>> actually helpful in the effort to have the fraud recognized for
the
>> fraud it is.
>
>You know, you're the one being dishonest here. Claire has been
declared
>(no pun intended) and is no longer a member of the CofS, as she has
>pointed out time and again, and she has asked you to provide
SPECIFICS
>of lies and you've failed time and again, only mindlessly repeating
that
>she is "dishonest", which just doesn't cut it in this forum
or anywhere
>else.
>
>Put up or shut up, Caroline. Either show specific "
dishonesties"
or
>admit you are lying and stereotyping simply because Claire styles
>herself as a Scn'ist and you don't happen to like Scn'y.
>
>> Sooner or later there will be a high level analysis of
Scientology's
>> actions and intentions, just as there have been analyses of the
>> minutiae of Nazi actions and intentions. Claire's actions and
>> intentions, as a defender and promoter of the Scientology fraud
on
>> this newsgroup, will be a small part of the analysis.
>
>If you're thinking that the CofS is condoning Claire's being here and
>defending Scn'y (not,--I add once again, since you have a problem
>comprehending the difference--the "Church" of Scientology)
then
you are
>wrong, wrong, wrong. I've been friends with Claire for a long time
and I
>assure you that the "Church" has been trying to dissuade
her --first
by
>actual advice and later by demanding that she leave the ng--from
being
>here and publishing her views. If you've actually READ the google
>archives you know this to be a fact and are simply lying about it.
>
>> I have proven, beyond logical argument, that Scientology does
not
>> raise IQ a point per hour as Hubbard promises. This is a single
point
>> in the overall fraud, but the one point I am addressing here,
and
>> which I have communicated many times to Claire, and anyone else
who is
>> reading these posts.
>
>Not going to address this as I don't in fact believe that Scn'y does
>raise IQs, but I will say that all you've proven in "logical
argument"
>is that you don't know a logical argument from your nether exterior.
>
>All you've communicated is that you hate Scn'y and you hate the CofS
and
>that anyone who represents that they like either is going to be
>stereotyped as a liar and a hypocrite without actually providing any
>proof of this statement other than that you believe it to be so.
>
>> Claire's response is to snip, avoid and, as Hubbard directed,
attack,
>> and attack, to deny her attacks, and then attack some more.
>> I have been very specific about addressing one specific
fraudulent
>> representation, that auditing raises IQ a point per hour.
Claire's
>> responses demonstrate the fraud. They are dishonest and inane.
>
>Claire addressed EACH and every "point" you made about her
so-called
>"dishonesty" and her "fraud" which addressing you
completely
blew off by
>simply repeating your accusations of fraud without in fact addressing
>any actual fraud Claire committed. Nice job of black PR. You seem to
>have learned well from your years in the cult. Guess you can take the
>woman out of the cult but not the cult out of the woman, in your
case.
>
>In fact, I think you are the one being dishonest. There certainly are
>ways to disprove what you maintain, but you aren't doing it. All you
>are doing is screeching about Claire's supposed dishonesty while
>ignoring your own.
>
>> Scientology is an extant criminal fraud, and every person who
says
>> Scientology works promotes that criminal fraud. Some more
knowingly
>> than others.
>
>I'd say that the "Church" of Scientology certainly does
promote
criminal
>fraud, but that individuals may or may not, knowingly or otherwise.
Like
>it or not, what Hubbard invented (in my belief simply to become rich)
>has evolved (or devolved, depending on how one looks at it) to go
beyond
>what Hubbard intended, and there are plenty of practicing Scn'ists
just
>as there are plenty of non official LDS mormons, a cult with similar
>roots, which believe in its best tenets --and yes, it does have some,
if
>you read the spew Hubbard put out--and disregard what they don't
like.
>This is no different from any of the religions of the Book, which, if
>you read their sacred texts, especially the Bible, have bits which
>indicate their diety is a spoiled four year old on a power trip who
>exhorts his followers to go out and kill the heathen down to "
babies
in
>arms", and has for thousands of years--but have followers who
sidestep
>those parts of that book they don't like in these kinder (hah!)
gentler
>times. Claire likes some of what Hubbard wrote. So what? The man
wrote a
>great deal of stuff to cover just about everything. Some of it stole
>from the best homilies, and that is what the "Church" uses
to perpetuate
>their fraud on an unknowing public, some of whom become the public
>Scn'ists such as Claire used to be before she was Declared.
>
> What you are basically saying boils down to "It's fraud because
I
>believe it's fraud, and all Scn'ists promote that fraud and are
lying,
>and though I can't find out any actual posts in google to support my
>saying so I will continue repeating that you are promoting fraud and
>dishonesty and that the posts are there to prove it. But I'm not
going
>to dig up any actual posts. I will just go on asserting that I'm
right
>and you aren't, and then call you a dishonest person for telling me I
>should dig them up since I'm claiming they are there."
>
>That isn't logical argument. That is dishonesty incarnate. Again, I
>repeat, you can take yourself out of the cult, but you haven't
managed
>to take the cult out of yourself.
>
>
>---
>
>
>Bright Blessings,
>
>Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
>"Scientology in 1986, after fraud judgement in favor
>of ex-member Lawrence Wollersheim --'Not one thin dime for
>Wollersheim'
>Scientology May 9, 2002 before final appeal--
>86,746,430 Thin Dimes for Wollersheim." www.factnet.org
>www.xenu.net --what the Church of Scientology doesn't want
>you to see
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That Starshadow is authenticating Claire as a declared SP is as
priceless as the gains of Scientology. It's like Dave Kluge certifying
Mike Rinder as a reformer.
I have never laughed so much on a.r.s. when someone is trying so hard
to be so vicious. I am really brightly blessed indeed to be handled
so hatefully by the Starshadow Unit.
This has to be proof of those gnarly mensa powerzz? We've given
Starshadow's post, because it's so wonderfully representative of her
menseless contributions on a.r.s., its own url.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-starshadow-2002-11-
30.html
Here's the relevant "tech" Claire is applying:
from BTB 10 December 1969 CONFIDENTIAL REPORTER TRs, © 1969, 1975
L.
Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
[...]
2. No Answer
Purpose:
To train a PRO to give a 'no answer' to questions he has
no wish to answer directly.
Method: To begin with the reporter reading the questions
asked LRH by 'The Sun' reporter Victor Chapple -- and the PRO reads
LRH's answers. This is just to accustom him to the idea of 'no
answer'.
Then using different questions, the PRO gives 'no answers'.
The trick is to appear to answer the question by giving generalized
statements in simple terms so that the reporter doesn't realize his
question hasn't been answered.
The PRO should be completely causative over the communication
and end it with certainty, so that the reporter gets this and goes on
to the next question.
[...]
Handling an SP
[...]
b) By being knowingly covertly hostile
Purpose: To train the PRO to handle an SP reporter by word
alone without the use of force as in (a). He uses the word as a
rapier and plunges it at the reporter, so that the reporter introverts
and drops the question.
Method: The PRO and reporter sit across a table and the
reporter asks SP type questions.
The PRO observes what would be a button in relation to the
question asked and throws this back with good TR 1 so that it reaches
home. If the reporter is introverted the PRO is successful. If the
reporter persists with the same question, the PRO should not re-press
the same button - it obviously didn't work. He should drop it and use
another one. If the PRO cannot think of a snide reply the reporter
should just say "flunk, you haven't handled me. Start -" or
some such
remark - but should not tell the PRO what to say. When the confusion
has come off the PRO will be able to handle and have a big win.
The drill is completed when the PRO is willing to create a
cave in with an accurate snide remark, question or statement.
<end quote>
(See the whole BTB here:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/trs/reporter.htm )
I'm happy to report that the "tech" does not work. Neither
Claire
nor
Starshadow has created a cave in, and, although Claire has
successfully given hundreds of lines of no answers, I realize it and
haven't gone on to the next question.
So I'll unsnip <for bandwidth> the relevant posts containing the
relevant questions that Claire has no answered, but snipped, and I'll
again try to coach her through to a loss. Start.
<start quote>
From: Caroline Letkeman <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT 1
Success)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:12:06 +0100
Message-ID: <g979uugsf9sn4rfmmjvbbfjgbmdfd0puup@4ax.com>
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:52 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
wrote in
message
>news:ald6uugiahopffp7pgankupbhp5ihv0ura@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Nov 2002 12:05:54 -0800, basic2basic@yahoo.com
(basicbasic)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Caroline Letkeman <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote
in message
> >Hi
Caroline,
>> >>
>> >> Hi bb,
>> >
>> >Hi Caroline,
>> >>
>> >> Make mine a double latte please, and you can sit by the
door,
in case
>> >> I bolt. <g> You were saying...
>> >
>> > Well I wasn't going to ask you your crimes or reg you or
anything.
>> >:)
>> >Feel free to sit by the door. And I'll have a dry
>> >cappacino.
>> >
>> >> I haven't done much work on the axioms since leaving,
but I
analyzed
>> >> his "humbly tendered" Factors against
Crowley's "
Naples Arrangement."
>> >
>> > Sounds interesting.
>> >
>> >> In order to find the LHP/RHP criteria useful or
workable, you
must be
>> >> willing to examine and compare the Scientology
philosophy with
other
>> >> philosophies.
>> >
>> > I wasn't sufficiently clear. I'll restate. Its
>> >not important to me if an idea is categorised as LHP or RHP.
The
>> >importance is whether the idea is useful.
>>
>> And as I said, although this sounds nice, and is something every
>> Scientology mouths, it is not something any Scientologist can
really
>> do.
>>
>> Just look at the inanity my proposal produced in your "
thinking."
>>
>> >
>> >They
>> >> have never examined how useful or workable the idea is
that
>> >> Scientology doesn't work. Try it. See if you can do it.
>> >
>> >So OT 2, wilder than Alice's adventures. I examined
>> >it by runnin it. Had no idea if it would work.
>> >It did.
>>
>> It did what though? Produced a point per hour increase in your
IQ?
>> Or "worked" because the needle moved and the tone arm
went
up and
>> down?
>>
>> When you say Scientology works, you are forwarding a criminal
fraud.
>> That is what "Scientology working" means.
>
><snip>
>
>BB,
>
>And here you have it. It's not just a point on which two people can
agree
to
>disagree. No, it's "criminal".
CLaire's differentiation tech is showing. Make something not being
discussed different from something else not being discussed and then
proclaim it's not that. Sometimes more than others.
The false promises of Scientology make it a fraud. It defrauded me out
of 24 years and over $60,000 trying to get those promised results. The
Scientology cult, despite its promise of a money back guarantee,
refuses to refund the money it ripped off from me. Thus it is a
criminal fraud. The writings of Hubbard, what Claire calls the
"subject of Scientology," are part of the fraud. They contain
the
false promises.
Scientology auditing does not raise IQ a point per hour, or even a
half point per hour. That is the proof for me of the fraud. This is
not my hidden standard. It is the standard Hubbard gave. I had more
than 2000 hours of auditing and my IQ did not go up one point.
Claire exhibits proof that Scientology does not work, because she does
not demonstrate having a superior IQ at all, but resorts in her
communications to inanities like her statement above.
Claire is supporting the Scientology fraud when she claims that
Scientology works.
I am saying that Scientology is a criminal fraud because its promises
are false; to say nothing of the organization's criminal fair gaming
of people and other unsavory practices. But Claire twists this into
"just a point on which two people can agree to disagree," and
then
attacks me for the strawman she has mocked up.
>
>You, in following the dictates of your conscience and what you have
>experienced, are, in Caroline's words, "criminal".
Again Claire demonstrates, by seeming to exhibit a lack of
intelligence, that Scientology does not work. I am saying essentially
the opposite of what she's claiming I'm saying. Scientologists, Claire
included, do *not* follow the dictates of their conscience. If Claire
followed the dictates of her conscience she would cease lying about
Scientology working.
Does your conscience, Claire, tell you that Scientology processing
raises IQ in anyone a point per hour? Or do you have to play goofy
tricks with your conscience to get it to agree with Hubbard's and
Scientology's lies?
And where does the conscience enter into Scientology in any form
anyway? In Scientology, you follow the dictates of L. Ron Hubbard, or
the dictates of your seniors, or supervisor, or auditor or ethics
officer. Following the dictates of your conscience is another
practice.
I do not believe that a conscience, by definition, would support a
criminal fraud by forwarding the lie that the fraud works.
>
>It's pretty easy for her to point fingers, isn't it.
You are famous for your cheap thoughts, Claire. Why not address the
real subject of the fraud of Scientology. Prove to me that your IQ
went up a point per hour, or even half a point per hour, as a result
of your auditing. First off, please state how many hours of auditing
you've had.
>
>In truth, "criminal" and "brainwashing" are just
buzzwords,
used so often by
>some individuals, that they've become meaningless in this context and
in
>similar contexts.
This is cheap, unintelligent obfuscation. All it does is demonstrate
that Claire is a liar. Her IQ is not superior because she doesn't
exhibit the smarts to discuss or even recognize what the issue is.
After a while, does "Scientology working" mean that you have
become
unintelligent enough to no longer recognize that you're unintelligent?
Does attaining the necessary stupidity to believe that your IQ went up
a point per hour of your auditing demonstrate to yourself that it
really did? I am so glad I got out of Scientology before that happened
to me.
But Claire has the advantage of access to the Internet, real
discussion here on a.r.s. and real evidence, including sworn
testimony, that IQs do not go up a point per hour. What is her excuse
for continuing to support what is demonstrated, even by her own
behavior, to be a fraud?
>
>In of themselves, denotatively speaking, those words aren't innately
>meaningless but in the past decade or two on forums like these,
they've
>become so.
Complete nonsense. Claire might like it if her silly postulate here is
true, but it's just silly.
What she's trying to do is redefine these words for her propaganda
efforts against people victimized by Scientology fraud and
criminality.
Here's the Hubbardian dictate to which Claire is complying:
From HCO PL 5 October 1971 Propaganda by Redefinition of Words
© 1974 L. Ron Hubbard
<start fair use quote>
The trick is--WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST.<sic>
[...]
The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions
and symbols with the word than were intended.
[...]
The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as
often as possible.
Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology
downward and define Dianetics ® and Scientology ® upwards.
This, so far as words are concerned, is the public-opinion battle for
belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition.
A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this
technique of propaganda.
One must know how to do it.
<end quote>
>
>You were clearly trying to establish some points of agreement and
also
>create a civilized agreement to disagree on other points,but Gerry-
line,
>oops, I mean Caroline, has, by her words, shown that this is not
where her
>preferences lie in this matter.
Gerry says that your stupidity is pretended. I disagree with him.
What you are not addressing, and what you are trying to babble
through, is the issue of the fraud you're supporting.
Scientology auditing does not raise IQ a point per hour. I am proof,
and you, Claire, are proof. You apparently do not even have the IQ
necessary to address the subject of Scientology's failure to raise
your IQ a point per hour. Instead you resort to unintelligent cheap
communication tricks.
But you can prove me wrong just by proving that Scientology auditing
did raise your IQ a point per hour.
Hubbard made the a.r.s discussion of Scientologists' intelligence
relevant with his claim that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Your
intelligence is relevant here, Claire, because you are claiming that
Scientology works, and attacking the victims of the fraud who have
realized it does not work. You are attacking these people, and
defending Scientology's fraud, in ways which do not demonstrate your
superior intelligence, or much intelligence at all. Your vilifying of
the victims is unintelligent. Your unintelligence is unintelligent.
But your unintelligence is relevant because it supports the truth that
Scientology is a criminal fraud.
Since I am a wog, my intelligence is not relevant on a.r.s., except as
it relates to my claim that Scientology does not work. I am
intelligent enough to recognize and state the truth that auditing did
not raise my IQ a point, or even half a point, or even a quarter of a
point, or even an eighth of a point per hour. Auditing and Scientology
simply do not work as promised.
>
>Anything other than "it's all crap" is pretty much going to
be condemned
by
>this (these) individual(s).
No, this is just another unintelligent lie by you to avoid the subject
of Scientology fraud.
What I am saying is *all crap* is the claim by Hubbard and Scientology
that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Now it is your turn to
demonstrate by your superior intellect, gained by your Scientology
auditing or not, that this claim is not *all crap.*
So far your defense of the fraud of Scientology has been *all crap.*
You can also demonstrate that your defense of Scientology fraud is not
*all crap* with evidence and arguments which are not *all crap.*
>
>But all the same, your posts to such people aren't a waste of time or
>bandwidth being that they are examplars of tact, tolerance and what
we
>Scn'ists call "pan determinism".
There are no examplars extant of your tact, tolerance or pan
determinism in your post to which I am responding. Your post does
contain examples of unintelligence, obfuscation and cheap thought.
Your post supports my convictions that Scientology does not work and
that you are supporting a fraud.
>
>You also aquit yourself quite well as a spokesperson for the Scn
philosophy,
>probably better than anyone in the church does these days. ;->
If that is in any sense true, then both of you support my convictions
that Scientology does not work and that both of you are supporting a
fraud.
Since you have no intelligent response to the charges that Scientology
promises are false, and that auditing does not raise IQ a point per
hour, or even half a point per hour, and since I have brought these
facts to your attention very clearly, it must be concluded that you
are knowingly supporting Scientology fraud.
>
>C
>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
------------------------------
<end quote>
<start quote>
From: Caroline Letkeman <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT
1 Success)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:57:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oqrf6ibj6nf41m1uaog@4ax.com>
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:41:49 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
wrote in
message
>news:tqebuuk91kd1772rvgfusntu8m8n3o43r1@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:06:17 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
>> <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Zinj" <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MPG.184e73ba542b23ea9896d8@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >> In article <3de4d06a@news2.lightlink.com>,
amafluffygirl@yahoo.com
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Caroline Letkeman" <caroline
@gerryarmstrong.org>
wrote in message
>> >> > news:g979uugsf9sn4rfmmjvbbfjgbmdfd0puup@4ax.com...
>> >> > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:52 -0600, "
Fluffygirl"
>> >> > > <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Re the title of this post:
>> >> >
>> >> > My first name has an e at the end and the L is not
capitalized.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am not CL, if that is what you're implying.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your personal opinion of my IQ is both a non
sequitur and
also, more
>> >> > specifically, an ad hominem attack that has
nothing to
do with
anything
>> >> > else.
>> >> >
>> >> > I wrote what I wrote because of the condemnatory
and invalidative
nature
of
>> >> > your response to BB.
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently, a civilized agreement to disagree is
not part
of your
repetoire,
>> >> > instead, you must cast personal slurs and
allusions which
lend
nothing
to
>> >> > the discussion at hand.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > C
>> >>
>> >> I found Caroline's most recent post almost disturbingly
robotic.
>>
>> That's because you obviously didn't understand it. Your
>> interpretation was similar to Claire's; i.e., no interpretation
at
>> all, but a response to something which wasn't there.
>>
>> My post was about the irrebuttable proof that Scientology is a
fraud.
>> It does not raise IQ a point per hour. Claire claims that
Scientology
>> works.
>
>I have never claimed that it was everything represented by LRH, in
fact,
>I've made statements to the contrary.
>
>> And Claire opted into the discussion.
>
>Yah, that tends to happen on public forums. (forae?)
>
>> Claire has claimed for
>> years that she is here to defend Scientology.
>
>No, actually, I have not made such a claim.
Yes, you most certainly did. Check Google. Since you did make the
claim, you are now lying.
And if you want to find stacks of your lies, check Google for them
too.
>
>For years, months, days, or seconds.
Not only did you claim it, but you have in virtually every post tried
to do that. Though your efforts might be pathetic, you do try to
defend Scientology. Surely you are not claiming that your insistence
that only 1% of Scientology is problematic is not defending
Scientology?
>
>
>> Therefore it is
>> incumbent upon her to demonstrate that it raises IQ a point per
hour.
>
>Well, no, it's not, since the IQ thing is not my claim
It's Hubbard's claim. It's part of Scientology "scriptures."
It
is,as far as I am concerned, the perfect standard to evaluate
Scientology's unworkability. Everything you say supports my
conviction that Scientology does not work, that it is a criminal
fraud, and that for whatever reason you are defending and promoting
that criminal fraud.
> and since I have
>stated many times in the past that there's a distinct YMMV aspect to
Scn and
>some exaggerations by Hubbard.
A total copout by you. And a further support of my certainly that
Scientology is a criminal fraud.
Deal with this then. Okay, your mileage may vary. Okay, only a
certain percentage of Scientologists will attain the point per hour.
But since Hubbard claims that the point per hour is an average, it
would be clear that in the YMMV sort of Scientology some people would
get increases of 2 points per hour and some would only get a half
point per hour increase. And this would all average out to one point
per hour for the 8 million.
So, okay, the point per hour didn't work for me, which I confirm with
well over 2000 hours of auditing. And, it is clear you're now
admiting that the point per hour promise wasn't true for you. Fine.
Will you please then point out one person, just one person, for whom
it did work, one person who had let's say, only a thousand hours of
auditing, and whose IQ went up a point or more per hour.
>
>Apparently you've got this idea that anyone who thinks it works
thinks
>everything Hubbard said did and thought about it was exactly as
written,
>IOW, the idea is any Scn'ist- even a free form one like me- is a
>fundamentalist, taking it all quite literally, no evaluation, no
grains of
>salt, nuttin'.
No, you are lying. You are deliberately and idiotically
misinterpreting my words. That too convinces me that you are willfully
supporting what you know to be fraud.
Address the single issue of IQ being raised in you, or anyone else, a
point per hour of your auditing. Or unequivocally admit that that
promise by Hubbard is completely untrue, and a fraudulent
representation.
>
>Now, I could understand your making that mistake (happily assuming
away as
>is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting here or
whom you
>met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here that I don't
>automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word,
literally, then
>your attempted railroading and summation of my position makes
absolutely no
>sense.
Of course you would say that. Because you are trying with all the
abusive Scientology communication tech you throw at me to defend and
divert attention away from the criminal fraud of Scientology. You
must attack and invalidate me because that's all you've got. You
simply cannot address even one false promise of Scientology. You do
anything *but* address it.
>
>>
>> You also for some "reason" don't seem to be able to
confront
that
>> simplicity. I know Claire has a terrible problem
>
>I have no problems, dollink.
Good. Then you have plenty of time to address the criminal fraud
you're promoting. Address the fraud of the representation of Hubbard
and Scientology that auditing raises IQ a point per hour.
>
>>confronting the fact
>> that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts over some
time.
>
>This is what I meant about agreement to disagree and your inability
to do
>that.
This comes out of Scientology bag of "handling suppression"
tricks
for shuddering someone into silence. "Can we ever be friends?"
What
a load. "While we fair game you, can't we just agree to disagree?
"
I have demonstrated beyond argument that Scientology is a criminal
fraud. I have also demonstrated that you support that criminal fraud.
All you can say in response that I have the inability to agree to
disagree. I have demonstrated, also beyond argument, that indeed I do
agree that we disagree. You agree with, support and promote the fraud
of Scientology, and I disagree with it. I agree that we disagree.
Again you prove that Hubbard's promise of an increase in IQ of a point
per hour is a lie, making Scientology a criminal fraud.
>
>If you meet someone with whom you disagree, instead of saying you
disagree
>and have an entirely different take on the subject you have to say
that that
>person can't do this or that.
Oh, yes, and some more than others.
>
>You sound just like those Bible-totin' fundies who claim that not
only do
>they have the way to get into Heaven but that other religions don't,
not
>even other Christian denominations such as Catholics.
Oh, yes, get in a little black PR while you're at it. Again and again
you prove that Scientology is a criminal fraud, and that you support
that criminal fraud, knowing full well it is a criminal fraud. You
cannot address the issue of the promise of a raise in IQ of one point
per hour, and instead, when asked about that vulnerable point you try
to find or manufacture enough threat against me to cause me to sue for
peace.
>
>Instead of saying "Well this is what we (I) believe, and here's
where
it
>differs from your ideas..." people like that,(of which you are
one) will
say
>"you're wrong. You're deluded. You can't do this. You can't do
that."
False. Every lie from you is more evidence that you know that the
promise of an increase in IQ of a point per hour is a total falsehood,
and that you know that Scientology is a fraud.
>
>People like that are no different from the hysterical idiots
Wait, let me check the sampler. Oh here we are: " That is because
you
do not know the meaning of differentiation."
> who screamed
>"there's no God but God!" and rioted about a beauty
pageant, instead
of just
>politely offering their perspective about why Miss World should ~not~
be in
>Nigeria.
>
>This is exactly what you sound like
"Exactly? " Where'd I put that sampler? Oh here: "Such
as the
difference between an indoc'd critic who refuses to differentiate and
one who isn't that way."
This one works too: "I'm totally against all or nothing black and
white package deal mentality."
>and you should know that this kind of
>fundamentalism never did go over very well in most places, including
this
>ng.
Strawmen flourish and prosper, however, in a house of cards.
>>
>
><snip bullshit> >
>> >>
>> >> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
>> >
>> >It won't be me.
>>
>> I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24 years of my
life,
>> ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my daughter, and
you,
>> Claire, stoop to this?
>
>Stoop to what, exactly? I'm not a member of CofS. I criticize 'em all
the
>time. I criticize them for things as you've described in the above
>referenced paragraph, so tell me, what stoopage do you imagine here?
Stoop to your attacks on Scientology's victims. You know , as I have
demonstrated, that Hubbard's promise of raising IQ a point per hour of
auditing is a complete lie. You therefore know that Scientology is a
fraud. Instead of addressing even this very specific lie, and this
very specific fraud, you attack the people defrauded. That is
stooping. It's very cruel. Your dishonesty is stooping, and it is
very cruel.
Maybe you have been so dishonest for so long, been defending the
Scientology fraud for so long, and been attacking Scientology's fraud
victims for so long that you don't see it as stooping, because that's
the only posture you know. But I believe that I have carefully
pointed out to you, in very simple language, what you're doing, and
that you do recognize that in differentiating your behavior from the
behavior of ordinary, honest wogs, you are knowingly stooping.
>
>
>> You pretend to be persecuted,
>
>Well, actually, I just figure I'm a girl posting to a newsgroup.
Isn't that sweet. Then you've got no reason to continue to be cruel,
to continue to lie, to continue to defend the Scientology fraud.
Since you are so cruel, do lie so pervasively, and do continue to
defend the fraud, mainly by attacking its victims, it is reasonable to
conclude that you are not just a girl posting to a newsgroup.
>
>But if I'm attacked with something, I'll take that something and jam
it up
>the person's ass.
Especially if it's the truth. I know that.
>
>And I'll point out their hypocrisy.
No, you won't. You'll lie. And you'll point out as hypocrisy
something which is not hypocrisy at all.
>
>I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to which
everyone
>can relate, now is it? ;->
That's nice. You're not persecuted. But you do support the
persecution of others by the fraud which is Scientology.
>
>
>>and you support
>> the persecution of the people who really are being persecuted.
>
>No, I don't, and there is nothing in my posts to support such a
ridiculous
>hypothesis.
Yes there is years of it. Check Google.
And, Claire, I have demonstrated in this post and in this thread that
this is exactly what you're doing. You are doing it every time you
deny doing it. Some times more than others.
>
>
>> Have
>> you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel Scientologists are,
how
>> cruel Scientology is?
>
>~Now~ who's actin' persecuted?
Yes, the fraud you support ripped me off for 24 years, more than $60K
and my daughter. Now the fraud you support has declared me fair game.
You support the SP doctrine and what results from it when you support
Scientology fraud. You willfully support my persecution. In fact you
personally add to it.
>
>My Scn'ist friends- the church and non church ones- are decent good
people.
>I've met some Scn'ists who weren't, but then again, the proportion is
>certainly not out of balance with the proportion of cruel non
Scn'ists I've
>met over the years. Stereotyping just doesn't work.
Then don't do it. It is what you're doing with your black PRing me
with your black hysterical idiots brush above.
You are cruel. You are doing the Scientology organization's dirty
work. You support its fraud. That is not stereotyping. You can
address those precise charges logically if you want.
>
>
>>No, you're too busy being cute.
>
>I write what I write from the heart. If it's not something with which
you
>agree, well, I can't help that. You know the old saying about not
being able
>to please all the people all the time.
This is the sort of silliness which only convinces me that Scientology
is a fraud, and you support that fraud. Your reasons for doing so,
since I have proved, and you prove, beyond argument, that Scientology
does not raise IQ a point per hour, or even half a point, are immoral.
You, Claire, are terribly unethical, because you refuse to reason, but
resort only to shoddy, baseless, unintelligent attacks. Even in your
low ethical standards demonstrated in your history here on a.r.s., you
prove that Scientology does not work. Your lack of ethics
demonstrates that you knowingly support the criminal fraud of
Scientology.
>
>
>>Too busy
>> throwing out inanities to deflect attention from your own and
>> Scientology's cruelty.
>
>My thing is that I like to post on to this ng. Period. I've no
interest in
>personalities and so forth, except for the occasional lighthearted or
>warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to anyone
else is
>if they initiated rude communication and really, all anyone has to do
to
>avoid this, is to keep it civil.
This is another cruel lie. You demonstrate that cruel behavior --
black PR, invalidation, arrogant evaluation, obfuscation, sniptech,
etc. -- when you are confronted with the truth. This is often the
truth that you are knowingly defending and promoting Scientology
fraud, and attacking its victims. That truth is what you then try to,
as you say, "jam it up the person's ass."
>
>Every single person with whom I've exchanged harsh words initiated
the
>rudeness.
What a lie. Check Google. It's bulging with your rudeness, what you
call "jamming it up the person's ass," initiated *after* you
were
confronted with the truth.
>
>Now, I did have other choices, I suppose. I could have ignored them-
but
>frankly, I've no interest in playing doormat, any more than anyone
else
>would.
How does this work: "Don't give me that sententious bullshit,
Ed."
Your omission of your real choices further supports my conviction that
you are knowingly supporting Scientology fraud. Your other real
choices include being honest, confronting the truth, and acknowledging
the fraud you've been supporting. You avoid these choices by calling
them "playing doormat." That way you can be so right, so
justified,
when confronted with the truth, in "jamming it up the person's
ass."
>
>And the other choice would be to say "oh, everything you say is
right
and
>I'm a terrible person."
>
>Oddly enough, this isn't a perspective to which I can lay claim.
Well yes, you can. Your reason for not doing so, when the person is
right, and when you are supporting a criminal fraud as you've been, is
not because you are incapable of saying the person is right, but
because for clear immoral reasons you choose to be cruel, to take
their truth and their rightness and "jam it up the person's
ass."
This is what Hubbard said to do. If attacked on some vulnerable point
(like the truth) find and manufacture something and "jam it up the
person's ass." That is what Scientology teaches. That's what
Scientologists mean by "Scientology works."
But again, your actions only convince me more, if that's possible,
that Scientology does not work. You are still faced with sooner or
later having to confront the truth that all this time you have been
supporting a criminal fraud. You are still faced with sooner or later
having to confront the truth that when you took all those truths over
all those years being stated by all those people and "jammed them up
the person's ass" you were not only being cruel and not only
supporting a criminal fraud, but you were proving each time that
Scientology doesn't work. All those truths you thought you were
"jamming up the person's ass" weren't "jammed up the
person's ass"
at
all, but sat unmoved in perfect clarity, just waiting for you to
acknowledge them.
> I know
>that's rilly rilly weird, but well, you know, it must be the fluff.
No, it's cruelty. But then that's Scientology. Scientology equals
cruelty. Differentiate that.
>
>>
>> >
>> >And as to the "other flow", I've no interest in
making
anyone cry,either.
>
>Leaving that in as it was not commented upon although there was
plenty of
>commentary re imagined cruely from yours truly. This statement- both
the
>making of it and the fact it preceded yours- puts the lie to that
particular
>claim.
Untrue. Your lies do not put the lie to the truth. Your cruelty is
actually augumented by each lie you tell, Claire, each time you take
the truth someone is saying and "jam it up the person's ass."
You've tried Scientology's "jam it up the person's ass" tech
for
at
least four years on a.r.s., Claire. Why don't you try some decent,
honest, caring wog tech?
>
>C
>
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
------------------------------
<end quote>
<start quote>
From: Caroline Letkeman <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud (was re: TECH Ouside COS. OT
1 Success)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:01:12 +0100
Message-ID: <g42huusqo0d6977erof701c87e4ocdamdv@4ax.com>
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:57:35 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
wrote in
message
>news:5pjeuu4ibl0unm7oqrf6ibj6nf41m1uaog@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:41:49 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
>> <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Caroline Letkeman" <caroline
@gerryarmstrong.org>
wrote in message
>> >news:tqebuuk91kd1772rvgfusntu8m8n3o43r1@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:06:17 -0600, "
Fluffygirl"
>> >> <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Zinj" <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote
in message
>> >> >news:
MPG.184e73ba542b23ea9896d8@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >> >> In article <3de4d06a
@news2.lightlink.com>, amafluffygirl@yahoo.com
>> >> >> says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Caroline Letkeman" <
caroline@gerryarmstrong.org>
wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:
g979uugsf9sn4rfmmjvbbfjgbmdfd0puup@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:21:52 -0600,
"Fluffygirl"
>> >> >> > > <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Re the title of this post:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > My first name has an e at the end and the
L is
not capitalized.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I am not CL, if that is what you're
implying.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Your personal opinion of my IQ is both a
non sequitur
and also,
more
>> >> >> > specifically, an ad hominem attack that
has nothing
to do with
>> >anything
>> >> >> > else.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I wrote what I wrote because of the
condemnatory
and invalidative
>> >nature
>> >> >of
>> >> >> > your response to BB.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Apparently, a civilized agreement to
disagree
is not part of your
>> >> >repetoire,
>> >> >> > instead, you must cast personal slurs and
allusions
which lend
>> >nothing
>> >> >to
>> >> >> > the discussion at hand.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > C
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I found Caroline's most recent post almost
disturbingly
robotic.
>> >>
>> >> That's because you obviously didn't understand it. Your
>> >> interpretation was similar to Claire's; i.e., no
interpretation
at
>> >> all, but a response to something which wasn't there.
>> >>
>> >> My post was about the irrebuttable proof that
Scientology is
a fraud.
>> >> It does not raise IQ a point per hour. Claire claims
that Scientology
>> >> works.
>> >
>> >I have never claimed that it was everything represented by
LRH, in
fact,
>> >I've made statements to the contrary.
>> >
>> >> And Claire opted into the discussion.
>> >
>> >Yah, that tends to happen on public forums. (forae?)
>> >
>> >> Claire has claimed for
>> >> years that she is here to defend Scientology.
>> >
>> >No, actually, I have not made such a claim.
>>
>> Yes, you most certainly did. Check Google. Since you did make
the
>> claim, you are now lying.
>
>No, I did not use those words.
>
>I have said, on different occasions, different things- all of which
were
>true, re my participation here.
>
>Mainly, I'm a girl posting to a public forum. John and I discovered
this
>forum by sheer accident and now, well, you're stuck with me. Heh.
>
>One lady, Barbara (posting under Ceon Ramon) said something to me way
back
>when about me "witnessing for (my) religion". I didn't like
the
sound of
>that and told her that wasn't it. Later on, I reconsidered the matter
and
>said that it was true, that I did want to kind of witness for it, in
a
>manner of speaking.
>
>I've also said my main thing is rebutting and debunking stereotypes.
>
>These are the things I've said about my reasons for participation
here. The
>phrase you've attributed to me has not been written by me.
>
>Now, if you can actually find a post where I said that, please feel
free to
>pull it up and paste it in somewhere in a reply. I'd be more than
happy to
>take a look at whatever you find.~If~ you find anything.
>
>>
>> And if you want to find stacks of your lies, check Google for
them
>> too.
>
>I've not lied to this ng.
>
>And you are not even giving examples of things I'm supposed to have
lied
>about. You've not made any specific statements, pasted in anything
from the
>google archives, nothing.
>
>What actually is the case is that you and I have different
perspectives and
>your way of discussing my writings is to hysterically accuse me of
mendacity
>rather than saying "clearly we disagree and here's why I
disagree with
you
>and these are the points of disagreement." Not only that, but
all you
did
>was make a vague,unsubstantiated accusation with absolutely no
specifics
>given.
>
>This does not constitute good debate or discussion.
>
>> >
>> >For years, months, days, or seconds.
>>
>> Not only did you claim it, but you have in virtually every post
tried
>> to do that. Though your efforts might be pathetic, you do try to
>> defend Scientology.
>
>I've not said I don't try to "defend Scn". However, I did
point
out that
>your claim that I ~said~ I was HERE to defend Scn was untrue.
>
>That does not mean I don't defend Scn.
>
>I've never claimed to NOT defend Scn or to NOT want to do that. I
merely
>said that I've not said that I was here to defend Scn.
>
>I am here and I am defending Scn but I am not HERE to DEFEND Scn.
>
>I'm here because I like discussion.
>
>Once here discussing the topic at hand, I write what I think. It
doesn't
>happen to be what you think and you seem to have trouble dealing with
that.
>
>But that's really not my problem.
>
>
>
>>
>> > and since I have
>> >stated many times in the past that there's a distinct YMMV
aspect
to Scn
>and
>> >some exaggerations by Hubbard.
>>
>> A total copout by you. And a further support of my certainly
that
>> Scientology is a criminal fraud.
>
>No, it's not a copout. I'm a renegade Scn'ist. I'm not a churchie,
and I
>agree with whatever I agree with and disagree with whatever I
disagree with.
>I walked away from a church in which I'd been a member 2 lifetimes
and
>counting. I stood up to OSA and told 'em to basically fuck off.
>
>So obviously cop outs are not my specialty and your accusation is
>unsubstantiated.
>
>>
>> Deal with this then. Okay, your mileage may vary. Okay, only a
>> certain percentage of Scientologists will attain the point per
hour.
>> But since Hubbard claims that the point per hour is an average,
it
>> would be clear that in the YMMV sort of Scientology some people
would
>> get increases of 2 points per hour and some would only get a
half
>> point per hour increase. And this would all average out to one
point
>> per hour for the 8 million.
>
>I don't really care.
>
>Hubbard's processes are helpful and efficacious to some degree or
extent or
>other for various people and, occasionally, not so much.
>
>That's really all I'm interested in.
>
>> >
>> >Apparently you've got this idea that anyone who thinks it
works thinks
>> >everything Hubbard said did and thought about it was exactly
as written,
>> >IOW, the idea is any Scn'ist- even a free form one like me-
is a
>> >fundamentalist, taking it all quite literally, no
evaluation, no
grains
>of
>> >salt, nuttin'.
>>
>> No, you are lying. You are deliberately and idiotically
>> misinterpreting my words.
>
>Hence my use of the word "apparently" as a qualifier.
>
>> That too convinces me that you are willfully
>> supporting what you know to be fraud.
>
>Well, no, all that would mean was that I had a certain opinion about
you and
>your communication with me. It wouldn't reflect on anything else.
>
>Your point is illogical.
>
>>
>> Address the single issue of IQ being raised in you, or anyone
else, a
>> point per hour of your auditing. Or unequivocally admit that
that
>> promise by Hubbard is completely untrue, and a fraudulent
>> representation.
>
>I don't like those choices, so I'll just make a third one...see
above...
>
>> >
>> >Now, I could understand your making that mistake (happily
assuming
away
>as
>> >is sometimes your wont) about some newbie Scn'ist posting
here or
whom
>you
>> >met elsewhere, perhaps, but since I often say right here
that I don't
>> >automatically accept everything Hubbard said, word for word,
literally,
>then
>> >your attempted railroading and summation of my position
makes absolutely
>no
>> >sense.
>>
>> Of course you would say that.
>
>Yes, I always say what I think. I say it 'cuz it's my stance and my
opinion.
>Small wonder, then, that I would express it and represent it as being
my
>stance and opinion.
>
>
>> Because you are trying with all the
>> abusive Scientology communication tech you throw at me to defend
and
>> divert attention away from the criminal fraud of Scientology.
>
>This comment makes no sense and is, perforce, illogical.
>
>I'm just posting what I think and am just replying to a post.
>
>There've been some harsh words and recriminations, sure, but they are
coming
>from you to me, not the other way around.
>
>> You
>
>Well, you've seen me say that I can't please all the people all the
time.
>You've seen me say that I've no interest in making anybody cry. And
we've
>seen you go on and on about lies and "it's all you've got",
so it's
pretty
>obvious who's behaving more on the offensive in this series of
exchanges.
>
>> must attack and invalidate me because that's all you've got.
>
>I've not attacked you. I've stated some points of disagreement and
I've
>rebutted some things you've said.
>
>If this seems like attacking to you, then you might want to find some
forum
>where everyone thinks exactly as you do so that you won't feel
attacked
>every time someone expresses disagreement with you.
>
>There's been some real lashing out here, but it's been done by you,
not by
>me. I won't call it "attacking" because it's rather like
being lashed
with a
>large damp pasta noodle, so I'll call it lashing out. Your various
>accusations and indignant communication. Your incivility.
>
>This is a discussion group. This is not some Roman arena with
gladiators in
>it. You should get comfortable with the fact that not everybody's
gonna have
>the same perspective as you and that they, on usenet and in other
public
>venues, are gonna feel free to express their perspective(s).
>
>If that doesn't seem all right to you for any reason , then I would
guess
>that (if that ~were~ the case) that participation on such a forum
isn't
>really the best thing for you.
>
>Every time I express any disagreement with you, you go off into some
measure
>of hysteria, flinging accusations around. That just doesn't make
sense on
a
>forum like this.
>
>This isn't life and death and nobody's out to get you. ~I'm~
certainly not.
>(I don't actually care about you one way or the other at all, you
see.)
>We're just talkin' to ya. If this is hard for you to handle, you
might want
>to take another sabbatical from a.r.s.
>
>>You
>> simply cannot address even one false promise of Scientology. You
do
>> anything *but* address it.
>
>I've addressed them just fine. I just haven't done it as you'd have
>preferred.
>
>
>
>> >>confronting the fact
>> >> that Scientology is a fraud from observing her posts
over some
time.
>> >
>> >This is what I meant about agreement to disagree and your
inability
to do
>> >that.
>>
>> This comes out of Scientology bag of "handling
suppression"
tricks
>> for shuddering someone into silence. "Can we ever be
friends?"
What
>> a load. "While we fair game you, can't we just agree to
disagree?"
>
>I never studied that kind of stuff when I was in the church. Ever.
>
>So I really wouldn't know.
>
>If a non Scn'ist were to write the same sorts of things I wrote in
the
>preceding paragraph, you'd make an entirely different attribution.
And that
>indicates bias, intolerance, a tendency to stereotype and poor
control and
>understanding of logic.
>
>>
>> I have demonstrated beyond argument that Scientology is a
criminal
>> fraud.
>
>What can I say? For you, it's a fraud. For many of us non CofS
Scn'ists as
>well as CofS members, it's not.
>
>It ain't perfect, but that doesn't mean it's all bad. That would be a
silly
>and illogical supposition.
>
>Just as to say that one thing worked meant that everything in it
didn't
>work.
>
>That's package deal mentality and I don't do package deals.
>
>But you do.
>
>
>> >
>> >You sound just like those Bible-totin' fundies who claim
that not
only do
>> >they have the way to get into Heaven but that other
religions don't,
not
>> >even other Christian denominations such as Catholics.
>>
>> Oh, yes, get in a little black PR while you're at it. Again and
again
>> you prove that Scientology is a criminal fraud, and that you
support
>> that criminal fraud, knowing full well it is a criminal fraud.
You
>> cannot address the issue of the promise of a raise in IQ of one
point
>> per hour, and instead, when asked about that vulnerable point
you try
>> to find or manufacture enough threat against me to cause me to
sue for
>> peace.
>
>I'm not trying to find or manufacture any threat against you. I'm
posting
on
>a public forum. If you don't want people to respond to you in a
public forum
>then don't post anything there.
>
>I've neither expressed or implied any threat against you.
>
>You are conjuring this up out of your imagination and there's nothing
to
>indicate any threat.
>
>How silly!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Instead of saying "Well this is what we (I) believe,
and here's
where it
>> >differs from your ideas..." people like that,(of which
you are
one) will
>say
>> >"you're wrong. You're deluded. You can't do this. You
can't
do that."
>>
>> False. Every lie from you is more evidence that you know that
the
>> promise of an increase in IQ of a point per hour is a total
falsehood,
>> and that you know that Scientology is a fraud.
>
>Well,no, since the above paragraph discusses your tendency to make
>accusations rather than to express disagreement in a logical, civil,
point
>by point basis.
>
>The two things are entirely different and therefore separate.
>
>And you've, in entering into more accusations, proved my point.
>
>
>> >and you should know that this kind of
>> >fundamentalism never did go over very well in most places,
including
this
>> >ng.
>>
>> Strawmen flourish and prosper, however, in a house of cards.
>
>Yeah, and a wet bird seldom flies at night. And the stars do not have
to
>wait til the king's birthday to shine. A white cake may have
chocolate
>frosting...
>
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> ><snip bullshit> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sigh... somebody's gonna end up crying
>> >> >
>> >> >It won't be me.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure. The cult you support ripped me off for 24
years of
my life,
>> >> ripped me off for over $60K, ripped me off for my
daughter,
and you,
>> >> Claire, stoop to this?
>> >
>> >Stoop to what, exactly? I'm not a member of CofS. I
criticize 'em
all the
>> >time. I criticize them for things as you've described in the
above
>> >referenced paragraph, so tell me, what stoopage do you
imagine here?
>>
>> Stoop to your attacks on Scientology's victims.
>
>I've not attacked anyone.
>
>And, again, you've made an accusation with no specifics. What
attacks? what
>victims? When?
>
>Considering I've commiserated with many people here who've run afoul
of the
>church (and I myself have run afoul of the same church) considering
that
>when Peter Alexander, I think it was, talked about someone screeching
the
>contents of his pc folder at him when picketing and I said that was
wrong
>and disgusting - thereby obtaining even more unwelcome attention from
the
>likes of OSA boding not much good Fluffy-ward- well, your comment,
again,
>makes no sense.
>
>
>> You know , as I have
>> demonstrated, that Hubbard's promise of raising IQ a point per
hour of
>> auditing is a complete lie. You therefore know that Scientology
is a
>> fraud. Instead of addressing even this very specific lie, and
this
>> very specific fraud, you attack the people defrauded. That is
>> stooping. It's very cruel. Your dishonesty is stooping, and it
is
>> very cruel.
>
>I just write what I think.
>
>The cruelty is in your imagination.
>
>If you're going to take it personally every time someone disagrees
with you,
>again, I suggest you rethink your participation on a forum like this
which
>gets a broad assortment of people on it.
>
>There are NO two people here who agree with each other about
everything.
>
>So disagreement's part of the deal here on a.r.s. and mature
responsible
>adults know that and can handle it.
>
>>
>> Maybe you have been so dishonest for so long, been defending the
>> Scientology fraud for so long, and been attacking Scientology's
fraud
>> victims for so long that you don't see it as stooping, because
that's
>> the only posture you know. But I believe that I have carefully
>> pointed out to you, in very simple language, what you're doing,
and
>> that you do recognize that in differentiating your behavior from
the
>> behavior of ordinary, honest wogs, you are knowingly stooping.
>
>If I were to say the sorts of things you say about Scn,I'd be
dishonest as
>it's not what I think and it doesn't correlate to any of my
experiences.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> You pretend to be persecuted,
>> >
>> >Well, actually, I just figure I'm a girl posting to a
newsgroup.
>>
>> Isn't that sweet. Then you've got no reason to continue to be
cruel,
>> to continue to lie, to continue to defend the Scientology fraud.
>> Since you are so cruel, do lie so pervasively, and do continue
to
>> defend the fraud, mainly by attacking its victims, it is
reasonable to
>> conclude that you are not just a girl posting to a newsgroup.
>
>Let me check.
>
>(un) z-i-i-i-i-i-i-p!
>
>Let's see. Still have vagina. Tits.
>
>Still posting here.
>
>Yep. That's settled. Am a girl posting to a newsgroup.
>
>Ok, now let's look in papers, databases, let's check memory-
hmmm...did
>anybody send me here or do I have some interest in getting anybody
for
>anything re this ng?
>
>Nope. Just postin' here 'cuz I like to.
>
>Ok, have now established that I am ~just~ a girl posting to a
newsgroup.
>
>Fluffily.
>
>
>
>> >I don't feel persecuted but I guess that's not something to
which
>everyone
>> >can relate, now is it? ;->
>>
>> That's nice. You're not persecuted. But you do support the
>> persecution of others by the fraud which is Scientology.
>
>Nope. I decry any and all abusive behavior by CofS or by anybody
else.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >>and you support
>> >> the persecution of the people who really are being
persecuted.
>> >
>> >No, I don't, and there is nothing in my posts to support
such a
>ridiculous
>> >hypothesis.
>>
>> Yes there is years of it. Check Google.
>
>Nope, there's not.
>
>
>
>
>> >> Have
>> >> you any idea how cruel this is, how cruel
Scientologists are,
how
>> >> cruel Scientology is?
>> >
>> >~Now~ who's actin' persecuted?
>>
>> Yes, the fraud you support ripped me off for 24 years, more than
$60K
>> and my daughter. Now the fraud you support has declared me fair
game.
>> You support the SP doctrine and what results from it when you
support
>> Scientology fraud. You willfully support my persecution. In fact
you
>> personally add to it.
>
>Nope.
>
>I don't support CofS' actions in things like that and I'm no longer a
member
>of CofS. And since I often criticize exactly that type of behavior
it's
>obvious to one and all that I do not perpetrate or support "Scn
fraud".
>
><snip whining>
>
>
>
>> >My thing is that I like to post on to this ng. Period. I've
no interest
>in
>> >personalities and so forth, except for the occasional
lighthearted
or
>> >warmhearted exchange. Any time I've ever been aggressive to
anyone
else
>is
>> >if they initiated rude communication and really, all anyone
has to
do to
>> >avoid this, is to keep it civil.
>>
>> This is another cruel lie. You demonstrate that cruel behavior
--
>> black PR, invalidation, arrogant evaluation, obfuscation,
sniptech,
>> etc. -- when you are confronted with the truth. This is often
the
>> truth that you are knowingly defending and promoting Scientology
>> fraud, and attacking its victims. That truth is what you then
try to,
>> as you say, "jam it up the person's ass."
>> >
>> >Every single person with whom I've exchanged harsh words
initiated
the
>> >rudeness.
>>
>> What a lie. Check Google. It's bulging with your rudeness, what
you
>> call "jamming it up the person's ass," initiated
*after* you
were
>> confronted with the truth.
>
>Nope. People who are civil to me, even when making it clear they
totally
>disagree with me, are, in turn treated with civility.
>
>There've been many discussions between myself and people who flat out
told
>me they didn't agree with me. I was civil to them and they were civil
to me.
>Because I don't perceive disagreement with my views as attacking,
unlike
>you.
>
>> >
>> >Now, I did have other choices, I suppose. I could have
ignored them-
but
>> >frankly, I've no interest in playing doormat, any more than
anyone
else
>> >would.
>>
>> How does this work: "Don't give me that sententious
bullshit, Ed."
>
>Right. His post was rude and "make wrong" ish. He took me
to task,
so I
>told him what I thought.
>
>I bet if someone else wrote that, you'd have no trouble with it.
>
>Hypocrite.
>
>
><snip various exemplars of hysteria and circular logic>
>
>> But again, your actions only convince me more, if that's
possible,
>> that Scientology does not work.
>
>I doubt very much that you'd needed any persuasion...
>
>;->
>
>
><snip comment of Caroline's to the effect that anyone disagreeing
with
her
>re Scn is cruel>
>
>> >> >And as to the "other flow", I've no
interest in
making anyone
>cry,either.
>> >
>> >Leaving that in as it was not commented upon although there
was plenty
of
>> >commentary re imagined cruely from yours truly. This
statement- both
the
>> >making of it and the fact it preceded yours- puts the lie to
that
>particular
>> >claim.
>>
>> Untrue. Your lies do not put the lie to the truth. Your cruelty
is
>> actually augumented by each lie you tell, Claire, each time you
take
>> the truth someone is saying and "jam it up the person's
ass."
>
>Oh, like when I was called a cocksucking whore and a liar and a cunt?
>
>Well, baby, if it's true for you it's true for you.
>
>But, oddly enough, it ain't true for me.
>
>>
>> You've tried Scientology's "jam it up the person's
ass" tech
for at
>> least four years on a.r.s., Claire. Why don't you try some
decent,
>> honest, caring wog tech?
>
>My posts, in the main, are civil. People play nice with me, and I
play nice
>with them.
>
>If they're rude they can get fucked.
>
>Fortunately, the majority of exchanges here betwixt me and others
have been
>just fine. Lots of disagreement expressed, but little or no
incivility.
>
>And when incivility and rudeness and crudeness rears their ugly
heads, I'm
>never the one to initiate such. But I'm more than happy to respond in
kind!
>
>I've also never been hatted to talk to critics/detractors/ whatever
of Scn
>nor have I taken any dissem courses or can we ever be friends type
crap. I
>had to listen to that tape for a course and thought it was the
corniest shit
>I'd ever heard. But then again, I don't like Jeff Pomerantz and never
have.
>
>If a non Scn'ist wrote some of the things I've written, you'd not be
>imagining it as "snip tech" or any other kind of "
tech".
>
>Ah me, so many biases and stereotypes to deal with and soooo little
time.
>
>C
>
Through all this, Claire has simply shown again that she is dishonest
and knowingly supporting the criminal fraud which is Scientology. As
such, she is a very well trained representative of Scientology, and
actually helpful in the effort to have the fraud recognized for the
fraud it is.
Sooner or later there will be a high level analysis of Scientology's
actions and intentions, just as there have been analyses of the
minutiae of Nazi actions and intentions. Claire's actions and
intentions, as a defender and promoter of the Scientology fraud on
this newsgroup, will be a small part of the analysis.
I have proven, beyond logical argument, that Scientology does not
raise IQ a point per hour as Hubbard promises. This is a single point
in the overall fraud, but the one point I am addressing here, and
which I have communicated many times to Claire, and anyone else who is
reading these posts.
Claire's response is to snip, avoid and, as Hubbard directed, attack,
and attack, to deny her attacks, and then attack some more.
I have been very specific about addressing one specific fraudulent
representation, that auditing raises IQ a point per hour. Claire's
responses demonstrate the fraud. They are dishonest and inane.
Scientology is an extant criminal fraud, and every person who says
Scientology works promotes that criminal fraud. Some more knowingly
than others.
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
------------------------------
<end quote>
There. And, as Claire says, when incivility and rudeness and crudeness
rears their ugly heads, I'm never the one to initiate such. Sometimes
more than others.
-----------------------------
Caroline Letkeman
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
------------------------------