Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.cs.utwente.nl!news.nic.utwente.nl!surfnet.nl!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: informer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS Date: 01 Jul 1998 11:47:13 EDT Organization: inFormer Ministry Lines: 104 Message-ID: <359e58a2.4068510@news.concentric.net> References: <3596DDBB.BF5ACF08@home.com> <1998062912453600.IAA16744@ladder03.news.aol.com> <35983167.E4B8835F@home.com> <359ee78d.115508230@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts039d11.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:80826 stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A): >I know you can't discuss your case, Claire, so I won't ask you what OT >level you are. Scienos can talk about what level they are on, or are stuck at. They do so to establish where they are respectively in the scieno pecking order. (the Bridge[tm]) >Assuming that you've done *some* of the OT's, though, >would it not be fair to say that there was certain information given >to you during the levels you have done that you were not aware of >before doing them? The marks are kept toadly unaware of the nature of their next level if it is above Grade 4. >Assuming you haven't done all the OT levels, would it not therefore >also be fair to say that there are aspects of the levels you haven't >done which, like the ones you have done, will not be revealed to you >until the proper time. Unless she peeks. >Given that, and assuming you aren't OTVIII, how can you say with so >much certainty that you know what the upper levels of your cult's >scriptures say? Have you been reading www.xenu.net? That'd be the place. >> then you don't have informeed will. I know what they >> > are and so I am informed. I choose not to further my studies in Scientology. >> > Scientologists on the other hand have a Web Nanny to help them not discover >> > things about Scientology and not just the OT levels. >> >> That's a heck of a generalization,pardnuh...John and I don't have a web >> nanny. Neither do most of the people we know in Scn. Perhaps you meant >> to say something like "some scientologists have a web nanny" ?? > >Fair enuf. Fact is, that Scientology wants *everybody* to have a web >nanny, and go to the trouble of covertly installing it for them when >they install Netscape off their CD. Scienos that use it think it's a cool new free service. "We will save you the trouble of not looking at these things. That way you won't have to spend time and money in session to clean up the enturbulation you would have received. And it free!" >Incidentally, I wonder whether Netscape might not have any views on >their browser being repackaged and redistributed incorporating such a >piece of software: with a lot of commercial software, it is against >the licensing terms of the package to repackage it or distribute it in >an altered fashion. Shame if Netscape ended up suing the criminal >cult, and given that Netscape already represents about the only >opposition to that other high-control coercive organisation, >Microsoft, in the browser wars, it might be an interesting moral >battle. They must have paid Netscape's licensing fees. >I have a stated wish to see Scn go away. Far away. Like back to 9th & Alvarado in LA. >Scn, that is, as represented >by the actions of your criminal cult. I have no beef with the >religious aspects, although I find them even more ludicrous than many >other religious belief systems, but I do find the coerciveness, deceit >and level of milieu control to be offensive. Offensive. And excessively fascist. >> > When a Scientologist does >> > >something bad or good, it's that person's own actions. >> > >> > Then why does the CoS only use the person's suscces stories. Why not give a >> > reality of the loss too. When you have a loss in Scientology you aren't allowed >> > to discuss it with anybody for that might invalidate them of the tech. If one >> > has a win you can invalidate someone's loss. Isn't that so? >> >> That's not true. One IS encouraged to talk about losses. What one is >> encouraged NOT to do is spread it around during break,socialization,etc, >> to other students and those who are doing well. But one is NOT supposed >> to keep these losses to oneself- the CofS DOES want to know about them. > >Of course. They're future business. "Oh dear, chum, still got some >BT's? Another auditing block, perhaps?" Oops. Must have gotten enturbulated and be headed for pts if you are talking about losses. The kind of losses we care about involve losses of life directly cause by Lrong's tek and policy. Claire and John, it's the institutional nature of scientology's ruthlessness that has us wogs a tad concerned. Perhaps you can let others on the inside know that's why the stats and morale are so low. Only engaging real reform will ensure even a small chance at your cult's survival. Put the word out: REFORM. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *