On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:23:45 GMT, exscio <exscio@freeatlast.com>

wrote:

>Great, we really need someone to act as the "conscience" for other
>ex-scios.

Hey monkey brain-- next time you stick your anthropoid head up your ass make sure it really goes all the way this time so the Italian Flag is flying el-Duce-free out of your mouth :-) It should be a cathartic experience relevant to your thinking capacity, I'm sure..

> The fact is, OUT means OUT,

Your so stupid it's pathetic. Read Steven Hassan's first book for starters to get a clue how that isn't the case as 'absolute terms', which supposedly define each other ABSOLUTELY. The fact you see it this way means your either an idiot/OSA-troll/ or still programmed with the Hubbard 'access codes' while in recovery. Scientologists who are recovering BUT still encoded with Hubbard 'think' FLOAT between states of "good programmed feelings" versus "Recovery measures". OUT means OUT as you put it is an idiocy that thinks once someone is physically out of scientology their *mentally* out as well.

Sorry--doesn't work that way. I've seen too many ex-scios within my experience go through the same 'drawn out' recovery process. That process is almost the same depending how long one was imbued with Hubbard think-tank. Tory was in for 30 years and FLOATS between "good feelings towards scientology" vs. "recovery from scientology" ALL the time when you read between the lines. If the NG doesn't see this in the main, all is lost. The obvious has to be easy or complex issues or scientology deception will never get resolved. Period. Tory is still recovering, NOT mentally out as proven by my post points...

From the points I raised it's obvious Mag00 needs more recovery time before trying to feign VANGUARD criticism towards scientology, and don't be so stupid to think she doesn't try to 'sell this' vanguard capacity by implication. Think!! When she gets through the floating stage, she might be ready to take on such a vanguard position, not now. But as her header shows to anyone with a clue, she is not ready for such a position. Her EGO's taken her a long way, not her criticism capacity. She still FLOATS which is a scientology criticism liability.

If you don't understand what that concept means *read* Hassans book(s) along with Lifton/Singer--at least.. And if you have, you didn't get it. Sorry. If she humbled herself as just another critic without pasting her face everywhere she goes, I'd have no problem with this, as she's a recovery victim, NOT recovered. Critics who have either never been scientologists or gotten through the "good feelings"

floating stage towards scientology should be the vanguard, NOT her right now. Tory's about *Tory* if you have the mental capacity to see a mack truck. Her tagglers are sycophants to her implied 'vanguard' position. Period. Don't just get pissed---think!

>it means not supporting the
>phatso-kult any longer and that's all that matters.

In the absolute physical sense, yes, but someone still recovering who FLOATS between mental states shouldn't try to feign a vanguard position of criticism which Tory try's to do. The day she humbles herself to her actual critical-equity-capacity by first quitting the *TORY SHOW* routine, is the day I'll retract such statements. If you don't see her doing this your just a newbee or an idiot.

>Why bash the guy for
>his "subconscious" feelings and memories?

Did you see me using ANY foul language with Mag00 to warrant a "bashing" retort? No---it's called an accurate observation where the specifics can be found in my first post. Dead on accuracy doesn't need to be repeated for the inane, like you lanyard boy who's still recovering. That's right, I've been reading your stuff to give such an accurate take :-)

>I bet there are people who
>have a few good memories of times in prison too, but that's human
>nature.

Because maybe that prisoner in your example WAS the guy he **was** to *have* a few good times while in prison. Being programmed with scientology means 'becoming' a scientologist-in-mind-set which equates to *actual* repression of the self for the sake of becoming a 'thetan'. The more a scientologist becomes a 'thetan', the more they subconsciously repress who they really are by inverse proportion. You don't get that concept? Thought so...You still have work to do on yourself before slogging off those terrier tirades against me, like your good buddy Cerridwanker-the-mental-clam-come-critic. Idiot!

Supposedly having "good times" while not existing as your true self is a contradiction of terms. Period. Hubbards 'Thetan' which scientologists/FZers become is not the true self. It's a LIE. Prove an OT and I'll retract.

>I can appreciate a nice building as much as anyone else and I'm
>not going to bash Magoo for mentioning that sort of thing in his tour.

Can't you READ??? Let me make the point I previously raised easier for you just this once; OK??:

snip> (to Bedford)

Make the distinctions. #1) The architecture *as* architecture minus what goes on inside (as scientology) is a totally neutral commodity where abstract takes are infinite as to "good" or "bad" architecture.

What actually goes on *inside* that building which makes up the buildings 'purpose' makes the building hideous eg; The 'Reichstag';

constructed for Nazi-Germany-administrators was designed by a gifted architect named Albert Speer. Was the building by itself a decent work of architecture? To me, yes. Was the building actually *hideous* for the activities (purpose) that went on inside?? YES!....End of argument. A building with it's purpose go hand in glove as how it's viewed, where Tory's "good feelings" bleeds into the buildings purpose by association. The Russians burned the Reichstag down and for a reason; they *knew* it's purpose as a building even if it was architecturally wonderful. They weren't fooled. If one was to say Tory didn't have the capacity to make a connection between the purpose of the "nicely painted" building with what goes on inside, they'd be saying she's stupid beyond repair. I *don't* think Tory's stupid which is why I'm making the connection between the building's exterior vs.

the buildings 'purpose' in her mind.

Example:

If we could bring back to life a Gladiator-slave who fought-and-died in that "beautiful" looking 7th wonder of the world colosseum and ask him what he thought of that magnificent structure, chances are he'd see it as *hideous* because he knew it's purpose *as* a structure.

Tourists today can look at the Colosseum and have no such reaction whatsoever because they were NEVER involved as gladiators. Tory WAS INVOLVED with scientology as a major player. Get the complex building connection?? Is that analogy-link waking a remote brain cell somewhere or am I wasting my time here? If you deny the obvious psychological connections in my analogy vis-a-vis Torys 'complex' take your just another liar, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Hey!! if *anyone* has a right to say how nice the complex "looks"

it's ME.--I was BORN at ASHO when it was Cedars of lebanon hospital way back when. Yes---a fact. I out of anyone on ARS should have the right to have some fond memories of that building just by having been born there. Do I?? Of course not!!!. The original purpose of that building (hospital) has been taken over by scientology. Only a total idiot couldn't make a connection between a buildings exterior and it's *purpose*, where Mag00 *is not* an idiot to not realize the connection between the buildings exterior and what goes on inside. Therefore, her 'wisping' take around the complex is indicative of some-sense-of *fondness* towards the building and what that psychologically means to her either consciously OR subconsciously. Ask yourself---"Was her fondness expressed towards the building totally divorced from what goes on inside? Are you really that stupid to believe she did? I was BORN at ASHO(cedars of lebanon) and I don't give a hoot what color they paint the exterior. It's a hideous building because of purpose which an honest mind can't divorce from.

>Of course, there's nothing positive about smiling, friendly Sea Org
>types, since that only means more people might get hooked into the scam.
>

EXCELLENT! You do have potential,, when you calm down from yapping.

>BTW, I certainly did not misinterpret Magoo's reference to the "tons of
>'OT's'" in L.A. to imply that he actually believes there are such things
>as OT powers (other than those that can be explained by psychology).

As I said if you read it closely; others might construe it was a syntactical mistake on Mag00's part by her wording,, but I'm not fooled by what's really going on; she FLOATS between a scientology mind set of "fondness" for her scientology experience versus recovery measures taken *from* that experience. When an individual *stops* floating they *don't* see their past involvement with the cult or players as "good times".

If she ever gets through the "fondness" stage which means through FLOATING---she could claim a recovered personal state which would be great. But to pretend a VANGUARD position in scientology criticism while in this floating state is ludicrous! Are you really that new around here? If you are I apologize for everything I've said as "rough language" put forth. I'm assuming you've been around, but might be mistaken.

>That might be why he put 'OT' in quote marks. Clearly it simply refers
>to the "tons" of folks who went up through the "OT" level of
>brainwashing in the kult, nothing more.

For whatever reason your apparently trying to rationalize how she said it and why to fit into whatever mental box you've got going on to give Tory a break, because you just love yappin at me to take such a 'reverse plunge' in the opposite direction :-) Don't think I don't see you son. You and Cerridwanker make an almost clam like tag-team together when it suits you. Sheeesh--did I just say something that might be obvious for those who can *think*?? Probably didn't.

If your blood isn't too boiled from our 'wonderful' chat together I challenge you to re-read my first post when your not yapping-in-heat,, to weigh factors I've mentioned here while reading the first one again. I've only ever asked readers to think with the material, nothing more. Whether they agree with me or not is their business, not mine. It's called freedom of choice which is sacred. I mean it.

Z-blade

Go Back