In <cZZFzPAp++b8Ewyt@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article<FtH58.51350$ka7.8417444@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net> writes:

>>I've been thinking long and hard about why OSA allows Phil Chitester to
>>represent Scientology on a.r.s. This must be a deliberate decision on their
>>part since it goes contrary to the previous Church policy of ensuring
>>Scientologists who post here are hatted and are authoried by OSA. Also you
>>have to bear in mind that a.r.s. is supposed to be a suppressive group and
>>so a Scientologist who posts here is "associating with a suppressive group"
>>which is suppressive in itself. AND on top of that I think there is a
>>Technical Bulletin or Policy Letter entitled "Responsibilities of a Clear"
>>(please correct me if I am wrong) that lays yout how a Clear should
>>represent themselves to the public. And here we have Phil Chitester bragging
>>about how he is a pedophile on this newsgroup.
>>
>>This has got to be a deliberate act by OSA. They clearly want Phil to post
>>here and post the things he does. So why? What wind of change is moving
>>through the Church of Scientology under the direction of David Miscavige.
>>I've got a few ideas.
>>
>>I think David Miscavige is developing new areas of the tech left unfinished
>>by L. Ron Hubbard. As we all probably know, before founding Scientology,
>>Hubbard belonged to a Black Magic circle that was part of the OTO, headed at
>>the time by Jack Parsons. Hubbard also stated in the Philadelphia Doctorate
>>Course that he was a very good friend of Aleister Crowley. So it seems to me
>>that there was an intention of Hubbard to introduce or integrate OTO
>>practices in with those of Scientology so that the adherents would gain
>>God-like OT powers. And the practices of the OTO were extremely perverse
>>sexual practices (to our limited way of thinking). So let's say David
>>Miscavige wants to cure himself of wheezing and grow an extra foot in height
>>so that he is more like a normal person, then he will be experimenting with
>>some of this advanced upper-level material. And this is where Phil Chitester
>>comes in.

> I have a different theory, though mine is no more or less speculative
> than Roland's. There was once a poster on this newsgroup called
> something like Ron's @moeba, a laconic 6ft ex-marine with a
> very identifiable persona. I believed that of all the clam names
> on this newsgroup he was a real person. It was Bill Yoda from OSA-INT.
> Yoda is very good at the technique of being an unreliable first person
> narrator i.e. he says "I am" (say) Hercule Barmpot, and then tells
> everything exactly as Barmpot --- not the writer --- would see it.
> I believe Phil Shitbluster a character devised by Bill Yoda it is.
>
> Shitbluster has two purposes. Shitbluster in supposed to project
> scientology in the ranting pshychopathic loonie manner that the
> insane psychopathic loon Hubbard prescribed. Why he chooses to do
> this I know not. Like many people who are paranoid, he is totally
> confused and dysfunctional in some areas of life yet lucid and
> plausible in others. Most people who stay right at the core of
> scientology for a long time are to some extent insane; just as
> most people who spend a long time in the arctic circle have learned
> to live with extreme cold. But Shitbluster has two functions.
>
>
> FIRST, I remember Fay Ray talking about how they filmed her being
> held in King Kong's hand. It alternated between shots of the real Fay
> in a big fur hand, a hand only with no arm or body, then the animated
> doll Kong holding an animated doll Fay. And they had a very easy way
> of making the doll seem alive: it screamed a lot.
>
> That's what Phil does.
>
> Phil only ever forcefully yells a scientology point of few and
> seeks to attack his opponents' credibility; he never engages in
> rational argument. If this is done quickly and stylishly, it may
> even leave the impression that scientology ideas make sense and
> scientology opponents are inferior people. Debating with HONEST
> people who spend more and more time defending as their points
> are more and more discredited, little or no time spent defending
> means that side is winning so impressionable newcomers may be
> misled to think that cheats, who don't defend where they have
> something to answer, are winning the debate because not put
> on the defensive. Their propositions must be good ones.
>
> Of course, after a while it is also clear that people who debate
> in such a way are functionally insane but, with a little sleight of
> hand, you can get an impression that the ideas are good BUT the part-
> icular proponent is an over-enthusiastic maverick. Instead of getting
> the true idea that scientology is irrational crap as precisely
> demonstrated by the way dedicated Scientologists from OSA propound
> it.... these mavericks act as "cut-offs" or proxies, the scientology
> ideas must be good because they are put forward with such conviction,
> and what's more those over-enthusiastic proponents (POSITIVELY) are
> like the purported members of the public shown in TV adverts
> practically going into orgasms over cheap shite products "independent
> real people independently thing screw-you-up is a wonderful product",
> and (NEGATIVELY) can't have OSA pulled up in court for the things the
> anonymously post; they are deniable.
>
>
> SECONDLY: we tend to react to each article in the tome it deserves
> to be dealt with. Phil/Bill tends to yell and scream and throw
> tantrums, or even better behave like one of those infuriating
> provocative loonies played by Jim Carey who makes everyone else
> scream and shout, to "lower the tone" of the newsgroup into
> babbling raging nonsense. Second best for him is to trick people
> into thinking scientology ideas are good even as they are totally
> discredited. But best of all his job is to stop people reading,
> or thinking for themselves, about scientology at all. And this
> is what Bill Yoda aims for with his character Phil Shitbluster.

Both entertaining theories.

Whatever. I happen to know that Phil is what he portrays himself to be, based on reliable second hand reports. What follows is written in terse and very general terms, since Phil may still be in Colorado and nobody wants to be harnessed or murdered by him.

According to acquaintances, he passed through town and was jobless the entire time anyone was aware of him. Supposedly, he was looking for a job doing DSP programming. Not much chance of finding one of those in town with no electronics industry to speak of. The main TV-repair guy, that everyone used, moved away years ago. Nowadays everyone takes their stuff to one of the nearby towns, 35-45 miles away. There's a very small possibility he might have been doing something at one of the mines -- one was playing with gold prospecting by way of ground-penetrating radio, and computer analysis is involved.

Anyway, Phil's well remembered for his skitzo behavior, weird Scientology rants, and for selling one guy a "refurbished" computer for $300 that was pretty obviously a "Frankenstein" creation made from mismatched long obsolete parts -- obscure oem proprietary mobo teamed up with some other vendor's even more ancient proprietary oem modem, etc.

It never quite worked, died in flames, and (after a collection was held) was replaced with a new $400 600 Mhz machine+monitor package that were found at a clearance sale.

Don't kid yourself. Phil's for real and he's really that loony. It ain't even an act.

--

Ted (ted@ibexbsc.com)

From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Subject: Re: My theory regarding OSA and Phil Chitester
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:12:24 -0500
Organization: ARS: Perhaps the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <a8v17uc7cb54e5oicgku4acjvqveseqcet@4ax.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KvDJn4Z4uitdV7LwrTp0SCoyryI=

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 02:31:59 -0700, ted@ibexbsc.com wrote:

[Second hand knowledge of Phil snipped.]

>Don't kid yourself. Phil's for real and he's really that loony. It
>ain't even an act.

Keith Henson claims to have spoken to university police who investigated Phil.

I just want to make sure that this information is from you and not duplicated information that Keith knows.

Two independent confirmations of this person's existence would be pretty conclusive evidence, and if Phil Chitester is actually real, he should be considered a genuine menace to society. I wouldn't be surprised if he went insane and started murdering people, like Koos did.

He should be locked up. No rhetoric or joke. And throw away the fucking key.

The guy is a dangerous psychopath and a child molester.

ptsc

From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: My theory regarding OSA and Phil Chitester
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:22:34 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3c792874.195191016@news2.lightlink.com>

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:12:24 -0500, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 02:31:59 -0700, ted@ibexbsc.com wrote:
>
>[Second hand knowledge of Phil snipped.]
>
>>Don't kid yourself. Phil's for real and he's really that loony. It
>>ain't even an act.
>
>Keith Henson claims to have spoken to university police who investigated Phil.
>I just want to make sure that this information is from you and not duplicated
>information that Keith knows.

I should be clear that I did not speak to Phil directly, but I did talk to two different officers. The first one knew the story second hand. He gave me the name of the officer who had talked to Phil and I reached him when I called again the next day. Their stories matched what Phil himself had posted about this encounter. The officer I talked to had read some of Phil's postings on the net and advised Phil that he should not be posting if it upset him so much, but that in any case, he considered Phil's presence on the University campus to be undesireable and Phil was advised to spend his time elsewhere.

>Two independent confirmations of this person's existence would be pretty
>conclusive evidence, and if Phil Chitester is actually real, he should be
>considered a genuine menace to society. I wouldn't be surprised if he went
>insane and started murdering people, like Koos did.
>
>He should be locked up. No rhetoric or joke. And throw away the fucking key.
>The guy is a dangerous psychopath and a child molester.

Phil is either real or the must realistic troll in usenet history.

Keith Henson

Go Back