Unanswered Questions

You are a critic, right?

Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>

10 Aug 98

From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>

>[The Exile]

>It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time after time.

[Anon]

I'm sure you wouldn't say anything so disparaging about a person unless you had solid proof for the assertion.

So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard where he lied "time after time" about his grades?

Or even just one quote from him about his grades.

I would really be grateful. I'm trying to document lies.

Anon

[Anon]

The comment was made in public. It's up to you guys to substantiate your claims right here, in public.

Deo Morto

>[Deo Morto]

>"Jeez you are full of it. A shill for a liar."

[Anon]

Non sequitur. No quotes have been provided that proved that LRH was "lying about his grades". It would be something like "I obtained an A" where in reality he obtained an F. As usual, you critics have just answered aside the question, pretending that you answered.

Starshadow

>[Starshadow]

>Jaysus, what a maroon!If someone says they have a degree when they actually *flunked* that is tantamount to saying they had the *grades* to have a degree!!

[Anon]

No, it doesn't prove that LRH lied about his grades. You can have high grades and still fail to get your degree, because you stopped your studies, for example.

>You can't get a degree when you flunk, you stupid sod. Word-clear  "straw man"...we aren't talking about your fool dead guru getting high grades and no degree, we are talking about the *opposite*!!!

Liar. You critics *are* talking about LRH's grades. Here's the original message.

It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time after time.

>Christ on a crutch, if you think what you are doing is thinking, then  you are to be pitied. And you might check out a book on elementary logic,  because if you think that you are being a real wit, then you are half  right.

You don't even have the good grace to admit that it was misstated, but feel the need to make a second lie in your pathetic attempt to justify the first.

Rob Clark

>[Rob Clark]

>look, you dipshit, l. ron hubbard DID in fact get an "F" in nuclear physics and then later claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists.

Getting an F in a branch doesn't necessarily mean that you won't make the whole curriculum. Getting an A doesn't necessarily mean you will complete the curriculum.

Steve A

>[Steve A]

>But he *didn't* make the whole curriculum. Where is his degree in nuclear physics?

Who claimed that he made de curriculum? You critics are just lousy in logic, and liars too.

>Unbelievable! The words of the truly deluded.

What is unbelievable about that? some of you lousy critic said:

It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time after time.

and the question was asked:

So would you please be kind enough to post the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard where he lied "time after time" about his grades?

And rather than address the question, you keep coming up with non sequitur statements about his degrees, his education, and the rest of your usual rant.

You prove to the world that *you* are the truly deluded, no matter what you gratuitously assert.

Martin Hunt

>[Martin Hunt]

>Hubbard flunked out of college, dude.

So? You are once again speaking beside the point instead of confronting the facts.

>You culties are just lousy at confronting facts, and liars too.

Must make of you a cultie, then. And what lie did *I* make? You are full of shit.

Grady Ward

>[Grady Ward]

>On the contrary, the OSA scum-clown is setting up a straw man. L. Ron Hubbard was indeed a liar about his academic achievements  whether he specifically lied about his *grades* or not.

My dear friend - the "straw man" was made by none other than by lousy critics. Here is the original sentence:

It is not just that Hubbard got low grades but he lied about them time after time.

You now say that it's a straw man, yet, this comes straight from a sentence made by you lousy critics. Where did LRH lie about his grades "time after time"? You can't even quote *one* sentence where he ever lied about his grades.   You critics are a laughing stock.

>We at least we have the gonads not to post anony-mouse-ly :-)
A credit to yer "religion." Yep, hyuk!

And you are not even able to address the issue and admit your mistakes.

A credit to yo "critics". Yep, hyuk!

Steve A

>[Steve A]

>Have you any idea what impression this schoolyard hair-splitting gives you, Anonymous, and by extension the "church" you shill for? Not a good one, I can assure you.

And how about the impression it gives about you, critics, unable to get what is a simple and straightforward point, weaseling out like rats, and trying to justify your lies?

Roger Gonnet

>[Roger Gonnet]

>Dont't forget this one: you know how fierce the scientologists are for "dipomas" and certificates. Did you ever saw any diploma from the George Washington College? That's it!

Oh yeah, bright boy. "That's it". Why don't you join ef's club of "period" and Dave Bird's club of "obvious"? You three should make a good trio.

>The only trick I've seen is a mots probably faked letter translated for a leaflet sent to major publishers and writers in France on "education" etc... where the "aplied scholastics" front of scam boasted that Hubbard had written in the 40s to his dean of College, explaining how much he admired some education etc... and criticizing some others.

Nothing about grades. Did you actually read the thread before posting?

>And was presented from the start in France as "a nuclear physicist", a "Dr Honoris Causa from the cedar's university" - he resigned this title later in a policy - near 79, saying he did not need such titles while it was Justice Latey who had flunked him -; he did present himself with various other "qualities" he never had the shade of one - like "honesty, courage, etc).

Nothing about grades, and nothing that addresses the question that was initially asked.

jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (j-p.s)

>[jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk (j-p.s)]

>OK, considering you're so interested in this technicality, how about "L Ron lied about the majority of his education; he implied that he was a chartered engineer, which would almost certainly have required at least better grades than the god-awful ones he got to even be considered for the course. He lied about a degree and he lied about a doctorate." Will that do, you self-important, oversensitive shill? Or have you finished shooting yourself in the foot?

That would be much better indeed :-)

Martin Hunt

>[Martin Hunt]

>Hubbard *did* lie repeatedly about his grades, when all is said and done; he said he was a "CE" and a "Physicist", while, in reality, he flunked out.

<sigh>

To be a Physicist is not a grade, whatever "CE" means.

>According to him, he passed, whereas in reality, he failed. Anon's arguments are mere sophistry; he'd no doubt argue that Hubbard never said there was no Jesus, just that there was no Christ, which "isn't the same thing." Free clue, Diane-esque anon: "grades" and "education" are the same damn thing in this context. Hubbard *failed*, and he lied when he said he succeeded.

Oh great! So grade=degree=education...

I see that you are totally unable to make appropriate distinctions.

You are a critic, right?

William Barwell

>[William Barwell]

>Claiming to be a nuclear scientists when he flunk college is lying.

So lying about his education is lying about his degree is lying about his having sex with Monica L. is lying about sexually abusing his daughter is lying about his grades. You are a critic, right?

[This makes referrence to a thread in which William Barwell accused L. Ron Hubbard, without a shred of proof, of having sexually abused his daughter.]

>Now if you want to be technical about, There are soem scattered quotes on his tapes where he lies. "I easily learned math", I'll have to hunt that one down. He didn't.

Good. Quote where he repeatedly lied about his grades and I'll take back my accusation that you are a liar, a cheat, and a moron.

>His claimed PHD. That was a lie. In his early tapes he implied his scientific training in nuclear physics was that basis of Scientology. He had no real training in physics, flunking out.

Blablabla...

Gates are down, lights are flashing - no train.

Ben the Allen

>[Ben the Allen]

>Wheee....alright, we've got four possible states here...Hubbard could a) have good grades and a degree in nuclear physics, b) bad grades and a degree in nuclear physics, c)good grades and no degree in nuclear physics, or d)bad grades and no degree in nuclear physics.

>One can have good grades and fail to get a degree -- this is true, and I thank you for pointing it out. This is state "c". State "a" is also possible, as to get a degree in a complex field such as nuclear physics one must have good grades. State "d" represents one who flunks out of a course, and is also obviously possible.

>You, by bringing up the possibility that their exists the possibility of good grades without a degree have suggested that grades and degrees are not totally related. You imply (at least, I believe you imply...perhaps you can clarify your position) that this disassociation works both ways; that since one does not have to have a degree to have good grades in a subject, one does not have to have good grades in a subject to have a degree.

>This is a wrong assumption, One who received grades as bad as LRH's could never have received a degree from any reputable school in any subject. State "b", the one you are trying to say is possible, is in fact not possible, and by lying about possessing a degree Hubbard was also lying about having good grades.

>Of course, this is totally moot, since Hubbard's bad grades and lack of a degree is information available to the public. I for one wonder if you are in fact actually reading the posts you are replying to.

Well, Ben that's very good reasoning of yours, but quite beside the point, really. If you read my posts carefully you would have seen that I never argued about whether LRH got a degree or not, or whether he got good grades or not.

>hahaahah SP2 biaziniatch!...pity he didn't bother to read the post...

I suggest that you read what I wrote again. I don't give a damn about LRH's degrees or grades and whether these were real, high or low. What I would like to see is a straight answer to the straight question of providing hard and solid proof of LRH having lied time and again about his grades. My concern is seeing you come up with the stuff for your own claims or fess up to your mistakes

>[Steve A]

>OTOH, if you have utterly lousy grades, it is unlikely that you will make a big hit in the world of science:

Unlikely, but doesn't prove that he lied repeatedly about his grades.

>yes, there *are* people who have done it - Einstein is a good example - but Einstein produced research which the scientific establishment could work with, even if - as in the case of his Special Theory of Relativity - his hypothesis could not be proven for nine years, until 1919 when an eclipse of the sun gave researchers a chance to measure his predicted light-bending effects.

Einstein is only the most known example.

>Hubbard, however, was evidently incapable of conducting any sort of scientific research, grades or no grades.

OK. Then why are you coming up with or defending the statements that he repeatedly lied about his grades?

>Remember, too, that he didn't *just* get bad grades: he went on to lie outrageously about his skills and qualifications. Had he been unfortunate enough to get bad grades because, like Einstein, his education was too boring, but then, like Einstein, he had pursued his studies in a scientific manner, it is conceivable that, like Einstein, Hubbard might have had some degree of scientific credibility. But to suggest that because Hubbard did not lie about his grades, he must have been telling the truth about his degree,

WOW! You are reading more in what I say than there is to it. I called a poster on an obviously false statement, and I am sitting here amazed (well, not really) about the weaseling out by you wondrous critics of what is a pretty straightforward question.

>his status as a nuclear physicist, etc., etc., is a stupid and naive attempt to bend the truth.

Non-existent but in your fanciful imagination. A stupid and naive attempt to bend the truth. Try to read what stands on the screen and address the question directly, for a change

>[Gerry Armstrong]

>Well now!

>It's possible someone else answered this challenge already. In any case, yes, Hubbard did lie about his colege grades over and over. Hubbard lied about his grades *and* his degrees.

Very well, bright boy. Come up with the quotes where LRH lied about his grades.

>You will find in the $cientology literature on Hubbard a line which goes something like: "While excelling at his studies he detested the restraints of formal education..." It will take me some time to retrieve this publication, but it is a very well known statement.

OK. Come up with the statement, then we can talk about it and critically examine how it sustains the statement that LRH lied about his grades time and again.

>Excelling at his studies can only mean that Hubbard got great grades (unless of course what's true for Hubbard and his cultists is what's untrue for rational thinkers).

>Hubbard wrote that description of himself. I had proof of Hubbard's authorship of this lie while in possession of his papers. It was repeated over and over on Hubbard's orders. It is very possible this was admitted into evidence in CSC v. Armstrong, LASC No. C 420153, along with a great number of Hubbard's lies about his credentials.

>While Hubbard at times told the truth about his poor academic record, it is clear he did so to give plausible deniability or deniable plausibility to his many claims of academic excellence and professional status (nuclear physicist, civil engineer, mathematician and 26 other professions).

Well, critics, don't forget to come up with the quotes where he "told the truth about his poor academic record" as well.

>His cultists also like to make the charge that the cult's public relations people, and not Hubbard, claimed that he was a nuclear physicist. Unfortunately for this shore story I had that claim by Hubbard in his own handwriting. When I showed this to Norman Starkey, at a time he was accusing me of saying that Hubbard rather than the PRs had made the false claim, Starkey blew a gasket, and I shortly thereafter, coming to grips with the madness of $cientology's top cultists, blew the org.

>The impression Hubbard sought to implant in the mind of anyone reading his statements promoting himself and his cult operation was that he was academically accomplished, scientifically sound, honest, credible, and properly degreed by the proper and usual academic institutions. What every person believing this guy and investing time and money in chasing his false promises must sooner or later come to grips with is that Hubbard was academically unaccomplished, scientifically unsound, dishonest, discredited, discreditable, and utterly undegreed by the proper and usual academic institutions.

A bunch of non sequitur statements and red herrings, proving once again that critics are dishonest, discredited, discreditable, unable to think, unable to face the facts, unable to address straightforward questions.

Do you have hard and solid evidences that LRH lied about his grades time and again? Yes or no?

Perry Scott

>[Perry Scott]

>This monumental waste of bandwidth really revolves around whether a degree implies the grades necessary to get the degree. In fact, nobody has ever asked me what grades I got, except the first time I was hired. What remains is the degree I possess. I suppose I could say "BSEE/3.63", but nobody really cares.

>Some humor:

>Q: The person with the highest grade-point average in medical school is called a Valedictorian. What do they call the person with the lowest grade-point average?

>A: "Doctor".

>To claim a degree, one claims the knowledge that goes with the degree. In fact, the diploma is a signed statement by the school that the holder has satisfied the school's requirements for the holder to make a claim to hold a degree. Part of those requirements are (typically) to have demonstrated the required knowledge of the subject matter, usually expressed through a curriculum grades. At my college, I think minimum grades (2.0) in the prescribed curriculum were in fact the ONLY requirement to obtain the degree.

>Thus, I find "anonymous"' arguments to be sophistry. If A implies B, and A is false, then B is false as well. A = "degree", while B = "grades".

The complexity of your argument shows once more that it's the critics who are trying to engage in sophistry, trying to justify what is plainly and simply a lie. Why don't you say, simply, "OK, he didn't explicitly lie about his grades, and therefore this was a misstatement. But he gives a false impression to his readership of having had outstanding grades by coming up with a bunch of brags about degrees he never had"? And that would be all. Too simple, I guess.

A critic is someone who is able to admit mistake where mistake is due. He is someone who has the ability to reflect back on his own statements, and to honestly open himself up to the possibility of having been wrong or inaccurate so that he can better focus his criticism.

People like you, unable to answer a simple request and trying by all means to be right even when you obviously aren't, are no real critics at all. You are trying to justify, drown in sophistry, weasel away, and intimidate through insults and ad hominem rather than simply address the question that has been asked and examine whether or not it was a misstatement.

That's the whole point I have been making. I really don't care about LRH's grades or degrees. I care about logic and honesty and before you accuse someone of having lied time and again about something, you better have *solid* and *hard* evidence to back it up or you are going to look like utter fools and weaken up your whole approach.

Message-ID: <199808180543.HAA29334@replay.com>

>[Rob Clark]

>dear drooler:

>you are indeed probably correct about l. ron hubbard never directly lying about his grades.

[Room 666]

Finally, a critic almost man enough to admit the truth. I say "almost," because he first has to get in a cheap shot (dear drooler) to soften the damaging effect of the admission, and then makes sure he puts in the "probably," to further soften it up and leave room for doubt.

But Rob, as they are saying about Slick Willy's confession, "It's a good start."

But then, of course, you go and louse the whole thing up:

>however, you utterly FLUNK on the larger issue.

Oh, no, no, no, no, NO! PLEASE, Rob! Now you start to sound so pathetic. You start to sound like a Presidential advisor, shuckin' and jivin', trying to misdirect and obfuscate and prevaricate--not to say "lie."

There IS no "larger issue." FLUNK! Here's the only issue that this thread was EVER about:

1. A critic, "The Exile" <exile49b@hotmail.com>, told a lie. He claimed, falsely, that Hubbard lied "time after time" about his grades. That is a lie. It wasn't stated as opinion, or a guess--it was stated emphatically as FACT. Yet it is a lie.

2. An anonymous poster asked him to post quotes where Hubbard had done that, or even ONE quote where Hubbard had done that.

3. The Exile neither posted a quote to back up his assertion, nor apologized for having told the lie in the first place.

4. An army of critics have jumped on the bandwagon, trying to turn this thread into ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE LIE TOLD BY ANOTHER CRITIC, and trying to make a certain Anonymous, who has been doing nothing but trying to get the question answered honestly, out to be the bad guy or some sort of idiot, when he obviously is correct.

Why are you, and every other critic who has posted on this thread, being such hypocrites about this? Why don't you hold The Exile to the same standard that you hold Scientologists to? Why do you defend his lie?

I, personally, would have a great deal more respect for The Exile if he would be man enough to step forward and admit that what he said was not true, and end this idiotically long thread.

In the meantime, every critic who tries to change the subject of the thread, or tries to claim a "bigger issue" in order to minimize the original lie, just looks like a fool, and a liar himself. It is a pathetic exercise to watch.

Give it up. The Exile is busted. Admit the lie. And demand that The Exile admit it. And then drop it. Find something better to do.