Path: bogie.dyn.ml.org!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master
From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Apprehend a Spirit, by Ralph Dorian
Date: 04 Nov 1998 08:15:10 PST
Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families."
Lines: 391
Message-ID: <36406e20.1852892@news.concentric.net>
References: <36434818.32145259@news.tiac.net>
Reply-To: informer@informer.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts033d38.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: bogie.dyn.ml.org alt.religion.scientology:138788

bob@minton.org (Bob Minton):

>It seems you have taken my introduction to 
>implied communication seriously enough to press it into immediate 
>service. There is obviously no way I could ever foist myself upon 
>ARS, either through intimidation or the use of covert implied 
>commands. 

   Just like Elrong, you told us what you were going to do to us.

>Among my peers, what's been taking place was once blandly referred 
>to as "value recognition". You may be doing it right now. Is Dorian 
>good or bad? 

   Yes, explain to us what we think, O Wise One.

>What's his intent? 

   To make us all think you make sense.

>Where is he intending to lead us? 

   Oh, a leader!  Let's play follow the leader, kids.

>Is
>it a good place or a bad place? --- Don't let the bland term fool you. 
>Value recognition is the most important thing you do. 

   Yes, teach us marketing, Great One.

>Value 
>recognition determines your behavior. Human beings are self-
>determined only if we define "self" as the structures that recognize 
>value. Human behavior is therefore, value-determined. What's 
>amazing is how little it takes to trigger it. I have provided only
>scant evidence of my intent. Or have I? 

   No, you telegraphed.  And we ducked.

>In our current encounter, I haven't 
>left any injured or bereaved ARS members in my wake. 

   Only bemused that Bob is still channeling you.

>Yet some 
>people are sure that this must be part of my plan. 

   I expect you will bore them into submission.  It's a new technique
connected with your implied command tek.

   <snip>

>Next, controlling people to prove something to myself never had 
>much appeal for me. 

   I'm sure you just knew you could.  But you've never been on a ng
before (not that you really are now - hi bob).

>That was H's thing, not mine. For a long time I 
>wondered how anyone could find manipulated adoration so 
>satisfying. I rapidly caught on to the fact that this isn't what he
>was after. I think he liked putting something over on people because it 
>made him feel smart. 

   And you already know you are.

>He liked toying with people.

   Alert the press!  The king of mindfuck liked toying with people.

> He didn't excel in 
>school and he needed a way to make up for it. 

   Compensating for it, Doc?

>If he could put 
>something over on a college-educated egghead, it made him feel 
>good, kind of like a runner that conserves his energy, comes from 
>behind, and wins. There was a certain glory in it for him, even though
>his intellectual backing derived from other sources. 

   Poor, misundersto0d Elrong.

>Next, I obviously don't have a long life ahead of me. Even if I had
>the inclination to start up a new cult, I don't have the time. 

   You overestimate your skill, whoever tf you are.

>And finally, though H and I attended the same esoteric "school", we 
>are two *very* different people. He was poorly educated; I was not. 
>He had a vendetta against other people; I don't. He thrilled to the
>idea of building a machine that couldn't be destroyed, that would 
>thrive on chaos and uncertainty, that would grow as strong as humanity
>is weak. I didn't. He liked to joke that the sun would never set on 
>Scientology as long as there were people afraid of the sun setting on 
>them. My challenge is to prove him wrong. 

   Good luck and bon voyage.

   <movie story>

>We are seeing the same thing happening here, in ARS. 

   You are not seeing ars.  What "we" are seeing is you trying to
mischaracterize the reaction of a newsgroup that you probably only
started following (if at all) recently for posts with your own name.

>I'm not H, 

   I know aytch.  Aytch is a friend of mine.  You are no aytch.

>but 
>I know everything that he knew about deceiving people, and more. 

   Oooo, scary.  Please don't deceive us, Great One.

>ARS is collectively playing it safe and taking no chances. 

   Our collections have been lax.  It's time to take off the gloves.

>Obviously, 
>I must be wanting to do the same thing all over again. 

   It's true, you don't seem all that bright to me.

>But, before the
>realization becomes an ultimate truth set forth in stone, perhaps the 
>fretful among you could answer some questions. There are some 
>loose ends hanging from your version of the story. They need tidying 
>up. 

   Not my virgin.

>The Church of Scientology is a fairly well crafted deception that is 
>already up and running. A desire to continue deceiving people should 
>have drawn me to CofS management because it is there that I would  
>find the easiest prey. I could have invited David Miscavige to my 
>estate, shown him who I was, and offered him my services. He's a 
>Scientologist. He's human. That makes him a sucker for flattery. He 
>also needs new material. And he's got the complete S-implant already 
>inside him. So very easy it would be. If all I wanted was puppets and 
>money, Scientology is like an open bank vault and puppet theater 
>wrapped into one. It's easy pickings. I ask the hyper-vigilant among 
>you --- why didn't I go for it?

   I don't assume any of the implied underpinnings of the logic you
attempt to foist on me.  Therefore your question makes no sense.

>Another loose end: To work, implied commands must not be 
>consciously recognized. 

   Another assumption I'd reject.

>If my plan was to use implied commands to 
>manipulate ARS, why would I want to tease you with reminders of 
>their potential power, or provide you with examples demonstrating 
>how they are used? 

   Sleight of hand?

>Of course, like H's talk in the 1950's, mine too 
>could be artful trickery intended to rule out, or "misdirect" you away
>from the true possibility. But if that's what it is, why would I again
>be reminding you of it now? 

   Because you have run out of bullshit and are filling time.

>And then there's my brusque approach. Why so harsh? A con-artist's 
>most powerful tools are *flattery* and *alliance with instinct*. But 
>not only have I failed to employ standard tools, I've used their
>logical opposites: I've insulted you by suggesting your own urges can be 
>used to lead you astray. If I really wanted to deceive, I've begun in
>the worst possible way. A workable deception must first be pleasing to 
>the ear, not grating. It should attract, not repel. It must flatter
>instinct, not disparage it. Do you see the contradiction? 

   No.  

>A Christian proverb says you may "know them by their fruits." What 
>has this tree born you? 

   Nothin I'd want to step in.  I suppose road apples might be
considered fruit to some.  We certainly gobbled up whatever issued
from the Phattman's Orifice.

>Distress and upset, perhaps. Fear of getting 
>more of exactly what you don't want? Maybe. 

   "I don't wanna buy your car."  -  Mark Knoffler

>A sharpened and 
>unflattering picture of your own vulnerability? Definitely. 

   You gonna stand on the sidewalk in front of this newsgroup, and
yell insults at us thru the front door while we party, and expect us
to take you seriously?

>But I've 
>also given you a glimpse of at least part of Scientology's underbelly.

   Footbullet is their/your underbelly.  But thanks for playing.

>You may have already seen it, but it's clear from reading your 
>responses that very few, if anyone, has grasped its importance. 

  Any more of your tortured rhetoric and we'll be gasping for fresh
air and running from your little theater of the twisted.

>One ARS respondent mentioned the possibility of an experiment. 
>This guess is correct. My presence here in part is an experiment to 
>determine how people respond to the weapon that *could* destroy 
>Scientology. 

   Something artsy.

>I did _not_ expect the weapon to be easy for most to 
>deal with. 

   Is it bigger than a breadbox?

>In exposing CofS vulnerability I must also expose personal 
>vulnerabilities. 

   Oh no.  Not that.  We quake in fear before your expository powers.

>The CofS is as strong as you are weak, 

   Meditate on that, grasshopper.

>and conversely
>may be rendered as weak as you can be strong. 

   I can have my own universe, just like Heidi?  I can make my BT's
run around poles, do my laundry or refurbish my quarters?

>This is clearly 
>Scientology's best defense, better than the value-button implants, 
>better than the RPF, better than the SP-PTS "tech". Scientology could 
>never be taken down by a bunch of indignant "scientifically correct" 
>spoilsports appealing strictly to reason. 

   The ng may serve your words back to you ... cold.  

>It won't surrender to
>objective proofs. Scientology could never be significantly damaged by ARS, 

   Then it doesn't mind what's going on?  Good deal.

>such as it is, or such as it was. But it *could* be annihilated by a
>large group of disciplined performance and literary artists who know well 
>what they are doing. 

   A troupe!  I geddit now!  With Damian directing.

>If one were to join this group, the first step 
>would be to confront one's own humanity and with that, one's 
>vulnerability. No small task, I know. 

   But with you as our guide, Great Leader ...

>Has a light bulb switched on up there somewhere? 

  If no one was there to see it, did it shed any light?

>I have just one 
>intent here and that's to undo what has been done. But I can't do the 
>job alone. I'm going to need some help. A single individual can only 
>do so much.

   But you've done so much already.  Maybe it's time for your nap.

>It's unfortunate that my presence draws forth such displeasing images 
>and feelings, 

   It is a particular odor that offends the third nostril, not an
image.

>but as I attempted to make clear in my introduction, you
>are already being dominated. 

  We are slaves.  We know.  Heidi told us.

>It's not likely that I could do much 
>more. 

   There, there.  You have done enough.  Rest now.

>Your overlords are the scripts of Scientology that have been 
>allied with at least one of your (secondary) instincts. If you are a
>true believing Scientologist, you are controlled by your instinct to find 
>what's bad and cut it out of alliance (be the alliance cellular or
>social). If you are an ex-Scientologist, you are being controlled by your
>urge to avoid repeating a mistake. A similar urge compels certain non-
>Scientologists to warn others away from a known danger. In addition, 
>being on what clearly seems the "right" side in a good-bad conflict 
>inspires pleasing emotions. Righteous indignance feels good. But 
>whether you are "inside" or "outside" the official Church, all believe
>that to cut the bad out of alliance is good. All believe that to
>convince others, is to keep yourself convinced. All believe that to
>protect the loyalty of your allies is to protect yourself. 

   Yes, Wise One.  Tell us more about what we think.

>This is
>[secondary and tertiary] human instinct, expressed. 

   Are you familiar with the net.acronym "fos?"

>Regardless of 
>whether you *are* in, *were* in, or *were never in* Scientology, if
>it has caught your interest, you are *in* the Scientology play. The
>behavioral, visible results of several of your key natural urges have
>been intentionally written into it. Because your behavior is in its
>script, you must also rightly be considered actors within the S-play.
>There, you have a role and this role is identified by the characteristic
>behavior that you have thus far been unable to resist. Understand? 
>Without even trying, you have "dramatized" the Scientology script. 

   Duh.  

>If you are acting outside the official Church, your natural role is 
>termed "suppressive" because it acts as a counter-attest against the 
>Scientology brand of final solution. Anti- and ex- Scientologists have
>been cast as irredeemable villains who attempt to bar the bridge to a 
>supposedly better world. 
>
>I should put the question to those on the "outside": Is this what you 
>want? --- to play the villain? Strangely, one might think you villains
>enjoyed playing your scripted role, for many of you are fighting to 
>retain it. You struggle to maintain the status quo, you attack the 
>wrong target --- all without so much as a single cue from your OSA 
>handlers. Isn't that amazing? So true to form you villains are.
>Well.... I can't argue with a preference. And I could never win a
>battle with your instincts. If being a villain is your calling, and
>it satisfies you more than anything else, you certainly have no need
>for me. You  know your place in life. You are in the diminutive 
>Scientology play to stay. For you, there's no escape. You wouldn't
>ever dream of rising above it.  

   Two paragraphs of scienobabble.

>Now, I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that there may be more than a 
>few people who have grown weary of being cast as "suppressive" 
>villains. At a vulnerable time in their lives, the sticky Scientology
>trap caught their interest. However, they don't wish to remain caught for a
>lifetime. They're wise enough to know that cursing and disparaging 
>the trap doesn't work; it merely confirms their "suppressive" role in 
>the Scientology story. It's for these people that I offer an
>alternative. 

   Ah, the "offer."

>The alternative involves a study of the covertly artful devices that H
>applied to his subjects. It involves a great deal of thinking, a bit
>of experimenting, and some practice. It's not unlike acting school. The 
>curriculum is a regurgitation of the training H and I received at the 
>hands of our mentors. The protagonist side of the larger play is not 
>open to everyone --- only actors with proper training. With it, you 
>may take up the artful devices of Scientology and turn them back on 
>Scientology itself. The antagonist side --- made up of S-play 
>"suppressives", "PTS's", "free-zoners", in addition to the few 
>Scientologists in good standing --- resists, while the protagonist
>side plays out simple, Old Testament justice. You know? Sort of a tit for 
>tat, an eye for an eye kind of thing. 

   Acting school.  Learn to act like a scieno.

>As I stated in my introduction, the casting decisions are entirely 
>yours, but I must admit to some surprise at finding so many on ARS 
>wanting to cling to their instinctual, familiar "suppressive" roles. 
>Instinct is very powerful, isn't it? 
>
>So far the battle reminds me of American natives (Indians) fighting a 
>European invasion with bows and arrows. You "suppressives" and 
>"PTS's" are the Indians. You fight amongst yourselves; you fight 
>those who should rightly be recognized as your allies. You fall for 
>European tricks and temptations with only the vaguest idea of what 
>you're really doing. You're woefully unable to wisely differentiate 
>friend from foe. Suddenly, a new character arrives on the scene. He 
>offers you guns and the knowledge you need to use them. Naturally 
>you think he's come to harm you; he's of European descent and armed 
>to the hilt. His kind has tricked you before. But he knows a lot about
>European strategy and can help you to beat it. 

   You will make us savages civilized.  Now I get it.

   <maybe I'll get time to answer the rest>

   Rev Dennis Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
           <inForm@primenet.com>
            <inForm@newsguy.com>