>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"? >From: aa...@NOSPAM.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (James Wood) >Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 08:45 EST >Message-id: <3456eb22.7464...@news.sk.sympatico.ca>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On 28 Oct 1997 07:27:10 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) >wrote:
>>> What you are >>>observing in the church today is their MISSED WITHHOLD as we >on ARS are >>>"PULLING"
>>The only thing you are "pulling" is your own pud.
>Now THAT is one high-toned post there, Russ. What a nice bunch >of posts in one group.
So glad you liked them, James.
> And absolutely no comm in any of it.
Re-read them all, James. There is lots of comm. Exactly the comm I intended. Really.
> You >managed to avoid any real discussion about your "religion". Well >done. Are you on some sort of amends project?
I have no intention of "debating my religion" with you or anyone else here.
There is no possible benefit to what passes here for "discussion". And no - I am not on any kind of amends project.
>Tell me something. Do you think it was ethically correct for >Scientology to move into Clearwater, Florida under the guise of >United Churches of Florida and Southern Land Development and >Leasing to prevent people from knowing who they really were?
I will tell you something, James. It is common practice for really large corporations to buy real estate anonymously. Same with other investments. They can usually buy it on better terms that way. And it is not considered "unethical" in any of the 50 states in the United States.
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"? >From: z_tho...@ix.netcom.com (Zane) >Date: Tue, Oct 28, 1997 02:38 EST >Message-id: <34b59631.388421...@snews.zippo.com>
>On 28 Oct 1997 07:33:59 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>Has Grady gotten ~everyone~ here to fixate on this sort of thing?
>Would you rather direct your attention to ...
<Zane's poor manners snip>
This may come as a bit of a shock to you Zane - but I direct my attention where *I* want it. You are free, of course, to have ~yours~ directed (or in this case, STUCK).
> Can mental mass cause a difference in body weight - yes.
It had BETTER. That's the basis for lots of things, including NOTs 22, "ANATEN". That's the one which explains that body thetan mental masses can physically impinge upon nerves, cutting them off and causing deafness, blindness, and catatonia. It goes on to explain how to use E-Meter auditing to diagnose, treat, and cure these conditions. NOTs 22 is available on the Internet, and people can see that is what it says for themselves.
If the theory of mental mass is wrong, then NOTs 22 is wrong, and a LOT of other things are wrong, like the explanation of how the E-Meter works. On the other hand, Hubbard says conclusive tests have already been made, that people have been weighed on actual scales. This is great, because if this is fact, then NOTs 22 is fact and it proves that, despite what the FDA says, the E-Meter can be used to help diagnose, treat, and cure physical diseases like blindness, deafness, and catatonia!
THE E-METER DIET
Lose up to 30 pounds through E-Meter auditing! People would flock to Scientology in droves, to get the deafness, blindness and catatonia cures, and to lose weight. All the thriving cult of greed and power has to do is show the disbelievers once and for all that mental mass is real. This should be easy. Do it in public, and the money and converts will flow. Scientology's golden age will finally begin. -Mike
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:41:47 -0800, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote: >WONDERFULR wrote: >> Does it *ever* occur to loons like you that people who ~do~ >> things in life don't have the time or interest in "debate" that >>you and the other arsholes have?
---del
>Debate is part and parcel of Usenet, like it or not. This is not >AOL, where you can have a "Big Wins[tm]" message group >containing nothing of substance, and have that enforced by >Big Brother. If you post here, it is assumed that you are >prepared to defend your words and your views. >If you choose not to do that, you lose--it's that simple.
Paul's convertible debating philosophy. Its pretty handy. He just puts the top up when it rains.
============================================== I rarely get involved in Usenet conflicts because 99.9% of the time, it's a complete waste of time. On the other hand, I don't have any problem with those that choose to engage themselves that way. Anyone who thinks those kinds of debates are a waste of time can simply choose to refrain from entering into the debate in the first place.
On 29 Oct 1997 06:13:02 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
><Zane's poor manners snip>
LOL! Are you related to Scarff?
>This may come as a bit of a shock to you Zane - but I direct my attention where > *I* want it. You are free, of course, to have ~yours~ directed (or in this > case, STUCK).
Really?
So when it's pointed out to you over and over again that hubbard was lying, that he wasn't a nuclear scientist, war hero, or blood-brother (as just a few of the many whoppers told by El Wrong), you simply pay no attention at all? That would account for your apparent inability to confront the obvious contradictions between what scientology says about hubbard, and what the record says about him.
On 29 Oct 1997 06:17:48 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
><Zane's poor upbringing again snipped>
Heh, asking you to discuss know facts about El Wrong is poor upbringing? At Ignoramus U I guess.
>>Please try to say something, anything, to demonstrate that >>Scientologists are willing to confront <snip>
>Hello Zane. Hope all is well with you and yours. Take care, buddy.
Uh, I was refering to the actual Hubbard --- as opposed to the one that lives in your fantasy world. Guess you really can't confront the truth, eh buddy?
>Subject: Re: COS's "Original Overt"? >From: z_tho...@ix.netcom.com (Zane) >Date: Wed, Oct 29, 1997 01:18 EST >Message-id: <34bfd4b6.469962...@snews.zippo.com>
>On 29 Oct 1997 06:13:02 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>><Zane's poor manners snip>
>LOL! Are you related to Scarff?
No. Are you related to the Thomas family in Edmonton? I have so many questions on who is related to who (and I can see you do also) that you may want to start some kind of chart or web page diagraming the who thing.
>>This may come as a bit of a shock to you Zane - but I direct my attention >where >> *I* want it. You are free, of course, to have ~yours~ directed (or in this >> case, STUCK).
>Really?
Yes, Zane, really.
>So when it's pointed out to you over and over again that Hubbard was
<Zane's poor manners snip> you simply pay
>no attention at all?
That's right, Zane. I ignore most everything here. Wild, huh? I'm sure I'd be a lot happier if I were to pattern my life after you - but for now, I'm so damn happy doing it the way I've been doing it - I'm going to stick with that for a while longer.
But do keep in touch. It's always nice to hear from an old friend.
