<35779EF4.6209@micron.net>

I am indeed the epitomy of a sales professional Starshadow. Glib, charismatic, undeniably handsome and sincere and a firm believer that it's an honorable and fulfilling vocation. Besides which, my only other schooling is as an auditor and I don't have any bloody choice if I want to eat!

<356FB37A.5E16@micron.net>

Competitively speaking, my current business has survived 16 years of assaults by better financed, better schooled and better located opponents. They're gone. I'm thriving. To the man, each one of them figured they could whip me because they viewed my style of operating as stupid and old-fashioned. In my defense, I restrained myself from a malicious grin and evil peal of laughter when I cut their fucking hearts out. I am a compassionate and caring soul.....

<35703FA2.53D3@micron.net>

In the case of Lisa McPherson I blame the individuals directly involved and see no reason to blame the 'tech', whatever I may think about the value or lack of value of the Introspection r/d. For the record, I think the Introspection r/d is bullshit. But I also thought it was bullshit to eat wafers and drink red wine while the minister mumbled about the body of Christ.

 <356FB37A.5E16@micron.net>

Lisa McPherson apparently died while on the introspection R/D. That disregard for her health and even malicious mistreatment was rendered by the three main players in this sad occurance seems obvious. Are they guilty of manslaughter? That's for the courts to decide. Do I think so. Yes. Based upon what I have heard and seen this seems to be the case. Asserting that she was killed by the introspection rundown is the worst sort of demonization and proves nothing about Scn. More to the point, it proves that many critics are full of hype, bigotry and prejudice which they hide under the fuzzy blanket of concern about the evil cult.

<35954b79.105866264@mail.newsguy.com>

In the end, if [the three people involved] are tried and found guilty, I have little doubt that the introspection r/d and the CofS will be harmed by that finding. But it's not apparent or even suspected that the tech of Scn in any way leads to the death of some of it's members. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that humankind is divided into two distinct groups: those that are victims and those that are perpetrators. If you believe that then there is little I can say that will make sense to you.

In short, it appears that your mindset re: The CofS is that it's methods are harmful and it's practitioners are aware of that and use it anyway. Lack of proof, or even lack of enough similar events doesn't seem to give you pause to think. You assert, therefore you are.

<35722E54.3C22@micron.net>

Instead, I view it more like the ritual baby-killings of Satanists. That meme spread throughout the US and the Uk to the point where otherwise reasonable and logical people actually believed that 50,000 babies were being slaughtered every year. While it has been proven, in at least once instance, that some people, purporting to being Stanists, did kill a baby, the facts hardly bear out the accusations and irrational fear of the public.

The illogic of ARS group-think seems to be:
*Lisa McPherson dies
*She's on the I/R
*She should have received proper care
*The I/R 'seems' to have instructions that may have been mis-applied and led to her death
*Therefore, the I/R killed her
*Therefore, because the I/R is part of Scn, Scn policy and tech kills
*Therefore, Scientology kills
*Therefore, any deaths may be seen to be caused by Scn tech, which kills

Is the above true or false? If you answered true, then you answered exactly like a Christian bigoted against Jews in the middle ages. Or perhaps like an ill-informed illiterate who believes that 50,000 babies per year are being thrown into the maw of Satan. The obvious answer is
false and the lack of suspicious deaths alone ought to dissuade one from over-reacting.

That doesn't make McPherson's death any less a crime, if indeed it's proven to be one. It's just not a crime committed by an entire body of people who both accept and apply a technology that they know leads to death. To suggest such is, at the very least, a reprehensible and destructive mindset.

<35634BCD.12C1@micron.net>

ARS is gradually evolving into the very same thing it's main speakers say they hate about Scientology. But since you're already a cultie, you wouldn't have noticed.

<3576E063.6096@micron.net>

Just read in the paper this morning that GM/Chevy trucks rank as #1 in customer satisfaction. Despite the heavy media attention GM received about exploding gas tanks. Are you really suprised that negative media coverage doesn't always cause lowered sales? Do you still eat apples? Drink coffee? Buy packaged meats? Despite ARS assertions that negative PR *does* have a negative effect on potential Scn's, the fact is that media exposure often does little more than raise public awareness that certain things actually exist. Realize too that excessive criticism often makes people curious as to what all the ruckus is about. And not every curious person agrees with the negative PR. Just the musings of someone who has made a good living selling contentious products and services for 30 years...

<35779EF4.6209@micron.net>

I've been hearing that on ARS for four years. Before ARS I was hearing it as far back as the early 60's. I was in Scn when the FDA banned emeters. Same thing, less media. Critics now think the net is what forms world opinion and they think ARS forms public opinion about Scn. If you think that, I can see why you align yourself with some of the scoundrels you do.

<35734777.59D@micron.net>

Did it ever occur to you, or any ARS readers, that one of the eventual outcomes of ARS may be to make Scn a better, stronger competitor? That by constant pressure you might be having a part in actually growing the CofS, rather than eliminating it?

<3578C2EC.6F56@micron.net>
<3578C2EC.6F56@micron.net>

Keith Henson:
> Wolf, I think you could match posters for having/not having experience. Martin was a member, Pope Charles was not. Grady was not, Dennis was.

Wolf:
It might be considerably less than 50/50 Keith. Interesting though that three of the above posters are three of the most vulgar, contemptious and crass posters on ARS. Anything that is posted that does not meet with their approval is roundly answered with at least one or more of these words/phrases: fuck - you - piece - of - shit - asshole - blow - turd - cunt - fuckwit and so on. The internet is indeed a model of free speech... not to mention public domain. How come these bright boys haven't considered how archived files of their true nature might look in the public's mind?

> I have met a *lot* of the critics  by now, and far from being bitter, most of them are really amusing and  interesting folks to be around.

No doubt many of them are fun. I'd argue with you on the bitter though. It's hard to write thousands of articles to a ng without the true nature of what drives you showing through.

<356FBD43.1FB2@micron.net>

Wolf:
> > A very select few on ARS are valid critics of Scn who keep their own minds despite the 'consensus' you think they all must inevitably reach.

NoScieno:
> I suppose you have an idea of what a "valid" critic is; as far as I'm concerned anyone who expresses an opinion on the work of others is a critic. If I go see a movie and tell someone what I think of it, I'm a movie critic.

Wolf:
You're right. Having an opinion makes one a critic. But it doesn't make the criticism valid. That's the major problem with ARS. Too many assholes with mere opinions.

<3570D783.7AB5@micron.net>

More to the point though, ARS'ers are perfect targets for J&D because they tend to fall quickly into the patter of condescending humor and terms that degrade Scn. The nice thing about humor and sarcasm is that once a person commits themselves to that method of attacking an opponent, they're wide open for counter-humor. I think anyone still calling Scn's clams is mere fish bait and are showing more their own lack of humor and intelligence than any real wit. You'd think if the ARS-snobs were really bright, they'd have come up with a new joke by now...

<35650A40.885@micron.net>

Right now Starshadow, there is a power struggle in the ARS Cult. Erlich has seemingly lost ground because he can't get a job and Wollersheim has been found out to be what many of us knew all along, an attention-mooch. Tilman has fallen victim to the clam-meme virus and Rob has proven steadily that he's too intelligent to buy into _all_ the rants and spew of this cult. RVY and his bride are angling to fill the vacuum by planning and staging daring GO type operations and rescuing fair maidens in the nick of time, but who can trust a couple of ex-GO button men? Barwell would love to be leader but he *plonks* anyone who says anything that isn't exactly what he wants to hear. Henson has the smarts, but the RTC left tread marks on his checkbook. I don't think you want the job... so... that leaves Dave Bird, He's the only ARS cultie here who has consistently been looney enough to dribble his garbage out in an on-policy, 100% standard fashion. Plus there's the added bonus of his giant beard and bohemian appearance. I vote for Dave!

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=356FBD43.1FB2%40micron.net&oe=UTF-8

I'm not sure who you hung out with while a Scn., but most of the people I dealt with were well-read, open minded and acutely aware of the world around them. Of course, I didn't hang out with SO types... they were too zombie-like and fanatical for my tastes... not to mention uninformed.

356FB37A.5E16@micron.ne
<356FBD43.1FB2@micron.net>

Wolf:
> > I wish you ARS cultists would get it through your skulls... wgert, gunny, whip and the rest aren't major assets of the CofS. They're grunts. Foot soldiers. They don't know dick about what the RTC is up to. The threat of any enemy can be determined by the quality of the assets sent against it. Erlich, Henson, Wollersheim did, at one point, present a threat. That's why bigger guns were brought into play. You guys get wgert. Which shows how much impact ARS has had in the last four years.

Starshadow:
> Why do we need any foot soldiers at all? Why does a religion need foot soldiers at all? Why not just ignore ars if it is that little a threat?

Wolf:
Huh? Did you snooze through history class? I'm not suggesting ARS isn't a threat. What I _am_ suggesting is that CofS doesn't see it as a great threat right now. You'll know when they do, of that you can be sure.

> I feel awfully free when I read the wgerts. Co$ sends in the drones because there's not much else they really *can* do about the ARSCC Flap, is there?

Why bother? I wouldn't worry about a bunch of broke dick critics who, FTMP, resort to pleas for stamps and money orders and checks to pay their rent. At least you have Minton, who I suspect may have about as much money as FSO earns in a couple of weeks.

<snip confusing patter involving Bozo and nose squeeking>

<35650A40.885@micron.net>

What you've seen are things posted on this ng that have been claimed to be from peoples folders. Common sense (of which I have copious amounts) would tell you that after millions of hours of auditing, somebody, somewhere is bound to scan a few folders looking for dirt. It happens in Law offices, psychiatric offices, doctors offices all the time. But to make a point: *Scientology* does not utilize the confidental contents of pc folders for blackmail.

<356FB37A.5E16@micron.net>

I hate to split hairs, but it's my specialty. I'll acknowledge that some in the GO/OSA power circle may have culled data from folders. By pointing out that professionals have been accused and found guilty in other arenas of similar breaches in confidence I'm not attempting to lessen what may have been done by GO people. In either instance it's contemptable. But a mental health professional or attorney who violates confidentiality doesn't make all his/her peers guilty by association. Nor does the random act by a GO/OSA member. *Scientology* doesn't use pc folders to blackmail anymore than *psychiatry* uses session notes to blackmail.

<356FB37A.5E16@micron.net>

Starshadow:
>Grady Ward's mother was called on by Ingram who stole photos of her son. There are lots of others so harassed right here on this ng, why not ask them?? Oh, I forgot. We are all droids and bigots, can't trust us.

Wolf:
My mother - who is an ex-Scn - had a visit 18 months ago from OSA people. They were looking for an individual who shared her residence and had been involved with some German reporters. How to interpret that visit? Harrassment? Covert Ops? Intimidation? I don't know... how about 2 people who represented the CofS knocking on a door and asking questions about a matter that concerned their group? The freedom of movement and speech that we still have in this country does not exclude CofS and they have the same right to move about, ask questions and investigate matters they deem of significance as ARS'ers have to picket or drop into an org and ask some 17 year old receptionist about BT's. My mother was initially perturbed by the visit, but after speaking to her at length and asking her exactly what the people asked and their manner she concluded that she had overreacted. Was this reaction due, in part, to her occassional ARS lurking and the spin of this group?
>Certainly. She has not since heard a word from OSA... even though they are well aware she is a highly trained auditor who remains critical of the CofS mngmnt.

I have other friends who have experienced visits from OSA people and who didn't define those visits as harrassment. Why should I take Grady Ward's mother's assessment over the assessment of my own mother or people I know well who are highly critical of Scn? My aim here is to at least suggest that some of the emotional heat pumped into the alleged harrassment may be bs. ARS hard-liners call that the act of an 'apologist'. Personally I see it more as adding a little sense to the issue.

<35779EF4.6209@micron.net>

Starshadow:
> The PI I'm speaking of *stole* photos and misrepresented himself. There  are numerous other such instances I've seen detailed here. It's not  happening to me, but then I think I'm not perceived as much of a threat.

I just read an accusation of Scn harrassment from a guy who got back from vacation and finding several pay phone calls on his caller ID, proceeded directly to ARS and wrote a big report on OSA harrassing him. He even gave the freaking pay phone numbers and dates. Duh. Some harrassment eh? They wait for him to leave town and then dial his number? And then when he gets back.. nothing. Here's what I think. I think some harrassment has been done. I think virtually every (not every, but virtually) report to ARS is edited to appeal to the mindset of the group. I have also read numerous reports of so-called harrassment where it was painfully obvious that the poster was praying it was harrassment... because that's the way to get recognition on this ng. How do you sort the truth out from the BS? Answer. You really don't. Nobody has the resources or even the desire to track down every dead animal, phone call, man with sunglasses and bad credit report. Sometimes shit happens just because. Reading ARS you'd have to think SCN *does* have OT's if they can create that much disruption.

<35779EF4.6209@micron.net>

Believe it or not, most mysterious coincidences are well within the normal probability ranges. How hard is it for someone who is bigoted towards a class of people (you know.. clams, evil cultists, death cult, criminal cult... bigotry) to jump to the conclusion they're being harrassed when something fairly routine happens. The cat thing had me laughing so hard I woke my kid up. For Christ's Sake! There are about 900 million cats in America. How hard is it to believe you may occassionaly see a dead one? Yes. Even on your porch. Only on ARS would this be reported as harrassment, seconded and then generate a long argumentative thread. And you claim you believe what you read here?

<35779EF4.6209@micron.net>

> I criticise the Pope,  and many do, but I've not seen accounts similar of a Vatican  investigation of their critics. Why does a church need lawyers and PIs in  the first place, let alone a "boot camp" etc. etc.

Last time I checked being a PI is a legal and legitimate business. If you ever need one, you'll be able to answer the question yourself. I can't answer for the Pope or the vatican, but I've heard rumor that entire armies had been raised in the past and that they even have their own military to protect his holiness. Now why do you suppose that is? Is there a chance that there is an entire group of hate-filled bigots out there who would love to get another shot at him?

<35783E3E.95B@micron.net>

Here's an analogy for you to think about. You know as well as I that anyone can go buy a book on Cold Reading and suddenly become a psychic. Since I've seen a post where you claim to be a psychic, is it fair for me to brand you as a scam artist because some, or even most psychics are? In fact, since books and techniques exist which prove that one can scam people while appearing to be a psychic, doesn't that automatically make all psychics criminals? Or are you willing to defend both the workability and usefulness of *some* of the lore of that area while admitting that it is rife with fraud and deceit?

<35783E3E.95B@micron.net>

I never refused to talk. What I don't do (and didn't then), was get in the face of just anybody who sees things differently than I do... particularly if there is nothing to be gained. This has as much to do with any job or group as Scn. Be a little more open minded Starshadow and you might see that butt-kissing, aggressive behavior, complaining, whining, back-stabbing, lying, cheating, stealing and the entire host of human foilables are no more or less present in Scn than they are in any other work place.

<356FBD43.1FB2@micron.net>

You ex-SO people's diatribes all do seem to run together and melt into one common theme. WTF cares if Hubbard was a charismatic BS'er? I knew that about him in 1967. So what? George Washington was a slave owner and I don't see anyone denying the validity of the Republic because he was. Hubbard is dead. He created a colorful past. He re-wrote other's works and claimed them for his own. Scn is valid because Scientologists say so. They keep spending dough on it despite the BS of Hubbard and his history. Remove your own prejudice (perhaps based on negative SO experiences) from the equasion and that's what you have. If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing, fools and a dead man's ego.

<35783E3E.95B@micron.net>

Since I don't view the tech, ftmp, as unworkable, your suggestion that I compromised a belief system is out of line.

<356FBD43.1FB2@micron.net>

This explains it's income and membership? People pay the big bucks because they know it's full of shit?

<356FBD43.1FB2@micron.net>

As for my 20 years in Scn, it was fun, profitable and I learned much that has been a boon to me since. I didn't even have to spend $100,000 or sign a billion year contract... that stuff is for losers.

<35734D24.182@micron.net>

I'm not sure what your point is. For starters, I don't have a clue what a 'scn apologist' is, I gather that's an opinion-laden arena as well. As for Scn itself, it has been roundly criticized, attacked, sued, yelled at, picketed and denigrated for nearly 50 years. And the last time I checked it was still present and accounted for. There are entire nations that didin't have that much longevity.

Now... you were saying something about the ineffectiveness of their doctrine?

http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=357698302

Wolf:
> > > > So long as you're convinced (as I understand you to be) that all human experience, reaction and action are brain-driven this makes sense. You know my views and history well enough to know I am not so convinced.

Henson:
> > >Occam's razor. You don't need to invoke invisible causal agents to account for the observations. If you don't need them, they complicate the picture needlessly.

Wolf:
> > Tell that to Gallileo. Up into proper instruments were invented and then accepted (which seems to have been difficult at the time) for perceiving the invisible causal agents, they complicated the picture then as well. Same holds for the microscope. Occam's Razor indeed.

Henson:
> I see your point. So far I know of no objective evidence that humans have  "spirits" other than the kind I see in a running computer operating  system. I have often asked: Where does the OS spirit go when you turn off  the power? Come up with objective evidence that spirits persist over past  lives, and I will certainly reconsider my world view.

Wolf:
We've been here before. It's easy to see that Scn *can* assert it is a religion because it acknowledges spirits. Proving the existence is another matter. OTOH, 1-900 psychics might be able to make a similar claim about being religious. The way I see it is that the inability to prove something exists doesn't prove it's non-existant.