Random posts sample of a
Scientologist posting to ARS
"Critics" often use examples on how
Scientologists "can't communicate" or how otherwise stupid they are
supposed to be. They often forget to give counter examples. Here are some of
them, picked among recent posts made by Whippersnapper, one of the few
Scientologist posting to ARS.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Remember the Clam Nanny! (was: Re: Why I am a public critic)
Message-ID: <6n5sd4$6ij@examiner.concentric.net>
Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>:
>The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20 years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out. They are doing everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them from reading these messages, AND the web pages.
The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
materials. Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
believe that or approve of it.
>You can be pretty damn sure that the ONLY Scientologists
posting here are doing so with express permission from OSA. And why would they get this permission? Because they're part of the "Handle ARS" project. (Hello Whippersnapper!)
I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
interest.
You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
Given who and what I know and what I have seen, and regardless of some
enormous egos hereabouts, it appears to me that a.r.s is regarded with a
shrug for the most part by the Church; with the important exception of the
abuse of the Advanced Courses materials.
>Anyone remember the innocent-sounding "Put Scientology On
Internet" campaign?
I probably cement your fears with a denial, so I'll issue it for my own
amusement and in hopes you sleep fitfully: I am no part of any "campaign"
or organized effort of any kind to deal with this newsgroup or its motley
denizens. Nor does one exist to my knowledge, outside the known persons
and issues surrounding the well-known lawsuits.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Remember the Clam Nanny! (was: Re: Why I am a public critic)
Message-ID: <6n74nl$6nk@examiner.concentric.net>
Whip:
>> I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never
"told" to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject
of interest.
J.M. Ivler ivler@net-quest.com:
>The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
Whip:
There ARE?
>> You might find it remarkable, and given your
paranoia, unbelievable, but I have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy
or tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
>And there you have it folks. An open admission that
OSA folk post here.
Hardly. As the most obvious examples, Cory Brennan and Andrew Milne were
two a.r.s posters who had connections to OSA. In Cory's case, I am fairly
sure it was entirely on her own initiative, and only incidental to her
work in CCHR. Andrew, I presume, probably did it as a part of his job,
though I have no direct knowledge of that.
I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
secret agency. But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
they are pretty much open and accessible.
>Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under
their own names, Ward, Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides. Anonymity can be
either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.
Myself, I prefer to keep personal details generally out of view, in part
because there are clueless gits out there who may decide to engage in
real-world harassment. But I am known (however slightly) personally to
some who have posted to this newsgroup.
While I am by reason of personal circumstance pretty much immune to
harassment, this may not be the case for others. Imagine the damage that
could sometimes be done if someone were to embark upon a campaign of
anti-Scn PR at some Scientologist's place of work. This is the sort of
thing that happens daily now in Germany, and a startling number of a.r.s
denizens are unconcerned. Some applaud it.
Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
unwanted scrutiny or exposure on the newsgroup and/or on his website for
absolutely no reason but the fact of being Scientologists.
On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
pro-Scn poster known as "Vera," herself anonymous. While I place
*very*
little credence in most of the hysterical claims of harassment, "blood
attacks" and pet killings by some of the anti-Scn folks; still they have
as much right to privacy as anyone else.
While some people seem emboldened by the shield of anonymity to act
truly outrageously, it is still not often a good argument against anyone's
position in a debate.
>They also are big on the accusation thing. They accuse
the critics of being paid to post here.
I've seen very little of that without some basis. More often, the profit
motive of people like Wollersheim and his associates has been pointed out,
the whining money-solicitations of folks like Erlich and Lerma (who
created their own legal headaches) and the pretty-much indisputable fact
that some "critics" are receiving financial support from Minton.
>But we all know what Hubbard said... accuse people of what you are doing.
Hey, *there's* a new one.
I recall though he did say, "The overt doth speak loudly in
accusation."
>They do that very well. They are paid to post, the critics aren't.
Can Henson state unequivocally (and truthfully) that he hasn't received
financial support from Minton? Can Grady?
Lerma rarely posts here without soliciting funds. He has admitted he uses
the money for whatever he pleases.
While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
good PR, it's ridiculous to assert that individual members or even staff at any level have any such motive for participation here. Staff pay is
rarely more than a stipend, particularly for Sea Org members. Individuals
would obviously be far better off doing whatever earns their living.
Now, while I realize I am responding to a clueless person here, the
accusations are perennial, so I've taken the trouble to offer my
perspective.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Bob Minton is as unlike McVeigh as I am
Message-ID: <6mp3ph$lje@examiner.concentric.net>
Now, THIS I find remarkable.
We have Deana Holmes discussing her Anti-Scn-ism WRT her family and
friends in much the same terms and circumstances as many a new
Scientologist!
Her zeal is not shared by them nor is it well understood. She feels she
must convert them! Some think she's crazy!
This is fascinating, and you just can't fail to see the parallels. I
wonder how many other cult-of-critics members have the same problems.
Henson, apparently. Anyone else? Practically all, I'll bet.
There's a Scn principle: What you resist you become -- if you lose.
In article <hkhensonEv0nKL.7vE@netcom.com>,
Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom.com> wrote:
>Deana Holmes (mirele@newsguy.com) wrote:
>: On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 06:29:02 GMT, armstrong@dowco.com (gerry
>: armstrong) wrote:
Gerry Armstrong:
>: >I see that cult agent Delaware Street is attempting to excuse Mike Rinder's black PR effort to position Bob Minton with Timothy McVeigh.
Deana Holmes:
>: I'd like to say publicly that the Dateline story about Bob Minton has caused a lot of discussion among my relatives. They still think I'm crazy, but they can't bring themselves to say that a wealthy, successful man like Bob Minton is crazy.
>I have had similar responses among people who know of
my involvement.
>Bob Minton and I have a similiar leadership style, we lead by example.
[snip]
>: I had the longest discussion that I'd ever had with
one of my relatives on Sunday night regarding the Scientology issue. This person brought it up, and specifically mentioned the Minton story on Dateline. No converts (yet, and given my relatives, probably not going to happen), but perhaps a tiny bit more understanding.
>There is considerable more understanding out here--I
have had calls from total strangers supporting me, and people have started coming up and donating money during pickets.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Bob Minton is as unlike McVeigh as I am
Organization: ARSCC (WDNE) Cat-Herding Working Group (Temporarily Seconded)
Message-ID: <35906172.410520@news.total.net>
References: <358f4759.134044517@news.dowco.com>
<358f9d07.45330438@enews.newsguy.com>
<hkhensonEv0nKL.7vE@netcom.com> <6mp3ph$lje@examiner.concentric.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.205.157.67
Lines: 92
Path:
newsr.Belgium.EU.net!news0.Belgium.EU.net!EU.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!pln-e!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!news.total.net!205.205.157.67
Xref: newsr.Belgium.EU.net alt.religion.scientology:461767
I'm posting this for Deep Wog (who was the better half at the APA
counterpicket):
The BURGERFLIPPER scribbled:
>Now, THIS I find remarkable.
Are all $cientologists so easily amused?
Oh wait. I forgot. One of the first things $cientology must destroy
is the sense of humour. No doubt open laughter is an ethics
violation;
to the RPF with the offenders!
>We have Deana Holmes discussing her Anti-Scn-ism WRT her family and friends in much the same terms and circumstances as many a new Scientologist!
Well, KNUCKLECRACKER, I guess you'll just have to produce these "many"
"new scientologists" before we can give your claims more weight than
a neutrino, eh?
>Her zeal is not shared by them nor is it well understood. She feels she must convert them! Some think she's crazy!
It's funny, I sometimes think the same thing when I see otherwise
normal
human beings standing on busy sidewalks, trying to "convert" passers
by
to the 'glorious' tenants of the "Church" of $cientology.
Who but a borderline nutcase would do something like this? Especially
with the *proven fact* that the "Church" IS a criminal cult. The
answer,
of course, without question, absolutely NO doubt, is that *NO ONE*
would
do this -- these people are dupes of the criminal cult.
This explains why the "Church" so frightened of the pickets. It
certainly can't be the act of informaing the public; even the Co$
knows that the average member of the public would rather live beside
an
open tank of raw sewage rotting in the bright August sunshine than
reside
next door to an Org of the Criminal Cult. Naturally. So it must be
the
'church' is terrified -- in a near panic -- that current members of
the
cult discover the truth. It doesn't take much; just a whee *whiff*
of that potent elixir, and a lifelong addict is formed and the cult
is down one more member. Yes indeed, without a doubt, the criminal
cult
is firmly on the path of slowly suffering a death of a thousand cuts
[revenue
cuts, of course!] if it keeps to current form.
>This is fascinating, and you just can't fail to see the parallels. I wonder how many other cult-of-critics members have the same problems.
Good Bob! Is the CANDYWRAPPER next going to suggest that even the
critics must eat, sleep and (gasp!) breath? Can it be true? What
other
ominous parallels are there between the critics and your average Co$
flunky on alt.religion.scientology? Is there *any* substance to
recent
reports that the critics also have to go to the washroom -- just like
a member of the criminal cult?
>Henson, apparently. Anyone else? Practically all, I'll bet.
>There's a Scn principle: What you resist you become -- if you lose.
You certainly *are* revealing today, aren't you, WOODYWHACKER? Like
most people, you were "resisting" the urge to be a member of the
criminal cult. After all, who wouldn't? People do not naturally want
to "destroy" someone else for the act of criticism -- it takes
special,
in depth, training only available (at great expense) from the criminal
cult to become someone like this.
So presumably you "lost" your struggle -- and became a $cientologist.
Grady Ward is dead-on: a criminal cult, made up of losers and
weaklings.
Now officially confirmed!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Humor vs. Joking & Degrading
Message-ID: <6kplgm$et0@examiner.concentric.net>
I just want to philosophize a bit here on the subject of humor.
Prior to encountering Scientology, I had always regarded humor as a sort
of mysterious genius some people posessed in startling abundance, of vast
value but of an elusive nature. I was acutely conscious that I could not
well define it.
I found Hubbard's statments on the subject, wherein he defines humor as
*rejection* and in its relation to illogic, as wonderful insights.
Nowhere else have I encountered anything even remotely so cogent on the
subject. It is one of my own favorite examples of Ron's brilliance.
I've yet to see one single example of humor, good or bad in intent, that
fails to meet perfectly with Ron's definitions.
And to my own delight, defining humor has done nothing to dispel my
appreciation of it, nor my wonder at others' genius for its application.
I remain in awe of Robin Williams! And many others who display that
almost metaphysical combination of quick wit, insight and expressiveness
that conjure-up the magic of laughter.
Humor can be delightfully, almost miraculously illuminating. It can
derail the most diabolically clever lies with a gentle push. And expose
mysteries and anxieties and those oh-so-many things we don't confront to
light as a wind might waft smoke aside.
By compelling us to reject the absurd, the false and the
irrational, humor
often strips away the confusions and camouflage that obscure the
usually-simple truth. Sometimes those truths are profound and important.
Truth is an odd creature, sort of ethereal. It vanishes on inspection,
and it makes illusion lose substance in the most startling ways. But it
is there, and there is such a thing as Truth. We obscure it ourselves,
perhaps as a requisite to perpetuating our games (which depend so much
upon illusion) and our precious problems.
But humor has, one might say, a dark side. We laugh, as well we should,
at the ridiculous. But ridicule can find its basis in hatred, or falsity
or irrationality. It can present as absurd, something that is not, and
introduce a lie just as as true humor can dispel one. Ridicule with a
motive of malice or in a spirit of carelessness or self-indulgence can be
as damaging as the brighter sort of humor can be enlightening.
Measured by this yardstick, David Letterman comes out wanting, with too
many jokes at others' unnecessary and undeserved expense; and Jay Leno
shows himself a far better-motivated comic, more benign and more genuinely
insightful.
It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It is
usually easily recognizable. Does it add more obscurity, or does it
enlighten? Is it a subtle sort of moral or spiritual violence without
clear intent? Or does it sweep aside a curtain and show us something --
something we really knew, didn't we -- all along?
- Whippersnapper
Example of a typical "critic" reaction (although there has been
positive ones too):
On 30 May 1998 15:09:10 EDT, Whipsnap@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>It's this *dark* form of humor that is "joking and degrading." It
is usually easily recognizable.
No kidding! And did you really need instructions for this? And do
you need to word-clear it to be sure you get all the meaning of it?
And does it deserve to be called Sacred Scripture?
And does this PL make scientology a religion?
And because this is correct does it make the
Jack In The Box Incident listed in History of Man also correct?
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: clam sleuth on the web
Message-ID: <6kprh7$rr1@examiner.concentric.net>
In article <3581622a.8817791@news.snafu.de>,
Tilman Hausherr <tilman@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>http://www.romanceweb.com/karenk/kkbio.html
>Karen Kay, writes romance novels, supports the "world literacy
crusade" front group. Her advice for writers is
>
http://www.romanceweb.com/karenk/writetips.html
>"Forget grammar, spelling, punctuation, paragraph structure". (L.
Ron Hubbard certainly applied that rule a lot!)
As usual, Tilman misrepresents; this time by deliberate omission. The
next sentence is:
"Most of what one is taught in college courses, I'm afraid, is how to edit
not how to write."
I see no recommendation *not* to edit once one has written something. And
I daresay this woman's own books aren't published without having been
edited. She seems to be saying, "write first" and implying one can
thereafter perfect the expression.
As a published writer, one might conclude she has used the approach with
success. As I am sure other writers may very well do.
Tilman's "clam hunt" is so pathetic. Not only does he single out
people
for their religious belief -- an act so offensive as to be almost beyond
words -- but he then invents things to ridicule about them.
I've seen schoolyard bullies with better manners.
- Whippersnapper
"It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw." -- Calvin
From: Whipsnap@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: I need some parts . . . .
Date: 09 Jun 1998 20:59:48 EDT
Message-ID: <6lklq4$qvt@examiner.concentric.net>
Whippersnapper:
>>>snip
>> >> I could probably help you, Keith. But it's not very likely I will!
Keith Henson:
>>>I doubt you could whipper.
>> >(snip teaching grandpa to suck eggss)
> >Whipper, look up my first patent, about a 4 quadrant log-anti-log multiplier. Think about what that took in matched parts.
Whippersnapper:
>> Not having tried the device, I can't say, but it's clear you didn't match them perfectly:
>> "Variations of the transistor gains among the transistors connected
in the loop induces a linear error which may readily be corrected by adjusting input resistances in the input signal paths. A compensation resistor is connected between the base electrodes of the first and fourth transistors of the loop; the compensation resistor is provided with a compensation current derived from the collector electrode of the fourth transistor. The compensation current is adjusted by setting the value of the compensation resistor, which provides a correction for the error in the circuit created by the ohmic resistances of the transistor emitters."
>> I suppose you didn't think I'd look it up.
Keith Henson:
>You looked it up, but you don't seem to have understood what you read.
I understood it perfectly. As far as I can see, the requirement of this
circuit for matched components is near zero.
>The first sentence is about correcting for effects
which are on the same order as the errors in the input (gain) resistors.
Can the doubletalk, Henson. It's to correct for gain mismatch, which
means simply that one of the POINTS of this invention is to reduce or
eliminate the need for component matching! I see no limits on that
resistor's value, and presumably it could compensate for a large
discrepancy.
You said: "Think about what that took in matched parts." I did. It
obviates the need for matched parts! You're a lot of smoke, Henson. The
invention is clever (has it seen any actual use?). Why you used it as an
example of omigod how awesome its requirements for matched components... I
can't imagine.
You were hunting a way to seem superior, I suppose.
>The second is about correcting for errors induced by the ohmic (non log) resistances which are a small source of error even for ideally matched parts. (Then you have third order errors due to drift with temperature.)
Yadda-yadda. Of course.
You said: "Think about what that took in matched parts."
The invention says it over and over. It compensates for mismatched parts:
"It is yet another object of the
present invention to provide an
electronic analog multiplier ... where in the mismatches between the
transistor junctions and the error induced by ohmic resistances of the
transistor emitters are readily compensated..."
"Gain error ... is readily compensated by simply adjusting input
resistances ..."
"The system ... readily generates a correction signal to be fed back into
the transistor loop to compensate for the ohmic resistances of the
transistor emitters."
"To calibrate and correct for errors from junction mismatches, an
appropriate input resistor R is adjusted..."
Et cetera. All of which you know, or is your name on there by
mistake?
What a maroon.
Like Archangel, your prejudice makes you stupid, and it makes you assume
I'll be stupid too. (I have Deming on my bookshelf, three feet away.)
- Whippersnapper
Random Quote :
Disclaimer :
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
