Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: RE: more questions Message-ID: <9509291624.0N1XJ03@support.com> References: <9509291800.AA04120@next.ocsg.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 16:24:37 -0700 Lines: 192 Tim Schmitt > A while ago, I sent you a few questions about Scientology, >to which you kindly responded. I've generated a few more questions >since then. If you have the time/desire, could you >respond to this new batch? Also, feel free to post my >questions + your answers to ars. Sure thing. Glad to help. > 1) What is difference between cancel bunny, cancel poodle, and the >canel moose? The cancelpoodle (sometimes called cancelbunny because it keeps going) is part of the scieno OSA operation to stifle criticism by cancelling posts critical of the kult, that quote their Saykrid Droppings or point to the Droppings. Universally detested on the net. Cancelmoose is a benevolent canceller who cleans up spam with the tacit approval of good netizens everywhere. > 2) Hubard's "discover" of the analytical/reactive mind seems >pretty basic to me. When an incidence happens to me, I >find that's its best if I think about the incidence for a few >seconds before reacting to it. > The premise that it's better to think before acting is so >basic, I don't see how anybody could label it a "discovery". >Is there something I'm missing? Is Hubard's model of the >analytical/reactive mind more elaborate? Well, yea. Phatso said that the reactions that you *cannot be aware of* are the ones that are in the Redactive Mind. If you can exert any conscious control over the reaction, to that extent they are analytical. It's what you are NOT aware of that gits ya. So you couldn't know, without the help of an auditor, anything about the reactive mind AT ALL. > 3) At what stage does Scientology present a believer with its >Xenu theory? Hubard's history of the galaxy seems pretty wild, >so I imagine they don't mention it to new recruits. How far along >in Scientology does one get before this version of the Earth's >history is presented? It's alluded to in various auditor training tapes, but the mark really doesn't find out that his reactive mind is cause by demonic possession until Oat Tea 3. Then he hears the story of the 75 million year ago/hydrogen bomb on the volcanos/36 days of pictures of Jesus, God and the Devil/body thetans & clusters/R6 implant. > 4) Do celebrity Scientologists get a break? I can't imagine >John Travolta or Kirstie Alley being intsensly audited or >given the greif many other scientologists, those who are ordinary >people, are given. Well, they are not gang-bang sec checked, locked in basements, made to run around trees for months, given huge amends projects, thrown in chain lockers, separated from their children or made to eat rice and beans, if that's what you mean. They are treated like lead sheep who bring the rest of the flock in for shearing and eventual slaughter. Their selfishness disgusts me, because they have more than an inkling that people are being abused and ripped off by the cult, but do nothing to speak out or stop it. > 5) Has anyone had the chance to debate Scientology in a sane >and rational manner with a pro-scientologist? I debated Hever Jentsch on radio in 1990. It was the infamous "Body Raisin" interview on KFI talk radio in LA. Hever became so upset and screamed so loudly to shut me up that the host of the show had to turn his microphone off. If you want I'll post the Occult Mouth - Speaking in Foot story again. >Has anyone talked >to a Scientologist whose sincere in debating the merits of >Scientology? They are not allowed to discuss it. That's considered Verbal Tek and is toadly forbidden just like discussion of their personal problems, except with an authorized representative of the cult for a fee. >If so, what where the results of the conversation? You're seeing it on ars. > For instance, I'd like to talk to a Scientologist about their >core beleifs in a civilized manner. Is this even possible? No. They're not allowed to discuss tek. > 6) If somebody wanted to, could a person learn how to physically >manipulate the E-meter and just sail through all of the auditing >sessions? Yes. It's not that difficult because the auditor gives signals that operate as biofeedback. > 7) Scientology seems to be loosing the war on their court >cases - is this accurate? Yes. Their Trade Sekrit Skriptures are being spammed all over the world. Their little scam is losing the element of surprise. If everyone knows that they are headed toward the occult goal of exorcizing familiar spirits the bait & switch fraud cannot work. >How serious is this loosing trend to them, Only life and death. >and what do you think they're trying to do to stop it? "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause." - El Tubbo > 8) How big of a deal is the Internet (a.r.s and postings of >sacred documents) to Scientology? It will mean the end of their ability to scam the public. >Is the Internet OSA's number one priority, or is the Internet >just one of a few on-going battles? Since they got the IRS to back off, they can use the taxpayers money to persecute disidents, critics and whistleblowers like Arnie, Larry, Bob, Gerry and me. > Given the beating Scientology is taking on the net, I imagine >they have a high desire to nuetralize the net. Are you >aware of any stories or conversations in which members of >OSA express great need to nuke the net? Wonderuss said he'd shut down the newsgroup in a short time . He also tried to get the scienos to flood the newsgroup with "Big Wins" and make it unreadable. Ho, ho, Helena tried to remove the newsgroup back in February. Do those count? > Furthermore, does OSA really believe they're going to win? They have to believe that. They believe that the future survival of the population of earth, every man, woman, child and dog on it depends on their winning over us Espees. >I see more and more sites carrying the Fishman Declaration. >Does OSA beleive that they can eventually shut all of these >sites down? They're gonna try. > 9) Do they OT9 and OT10 material exists? Has anybody read them? The old Oat Tea 4 & 5 are now OT 9 & 10. > 10) Did Hubard have thetans? Thousands. >How did he get rid of them? He invented Oat Tea 3 and NOTs. Then he made David Mayo pick them off, one by one. > 11) If one makes it up to OT8, then what? What attributes is >someone supposed to posses whose up very high in the OT >courses? Cause over matter, energy, space, time, life and thought. A god. Able to create and destroy universes at will. Able to be exterior to the body or the physical universe. Total freedom and control. No physical limits. Able to transcend the laws of physics. Able to make his postulates come true. >Peace of mind, wealth, success? - Tim At minimum. Good questions again. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"