LizzyApple: What, Faux? FauxReal59: Thought I'd send a courteous greeting and attempt some COMM FauxReal59: Whacha doin'? LizzyApple: reading the boards and posting. By the way...were you a Scientologist at one time? FauxReal59: Still am according to the Church rosters. LizzyApple: What happened....if I may be so blunt? FauxReal59: Found out I was being lied to, documented the lies, and wrote and published a story about in in Spy Magazine titled, DO YOU WANT TO BUY A BRIDGE? LizzyApple: Oh? I see. Was there anyone in particular who lied to you or...? FauxReal59: Yes the lies began at the Dianetics Center on Hollywood Boulevard. Then they continued throughout my study at the Hubbard Dianetics Foundation, and culminated into the biggest lies at the Celebrity Center. Started with recruiters, ended with regs. LizzyApple: I see. Gee, I am sorry to hear that it went that way. As you know, I've had the opposite experience. The things I post really are true for me, Faux. FauxReal59: I believe you. LizzyApple: Great. I'm doing two things at once here. How's everything else with you? FauxReal59: My goal is not to attack you or your religion. My goals are simply to point out injustice as it surfaces within Scientology; to point out when the boards are being used for commercial PR purposes; to help those who want to get out by serving as an "Exit Counselor." FauxReal59: Everything else is fine. Thank you. FauxReal59: My experience prepping for the "purif" was horrific... LizzyApple: Like what? FauxReal59: The reg at CC immediately started making a play for my credit cards -- in fact she facilitated a credit increase.... FauxReal59: Then... FauxReal59: She told me that radiation would be emitted from my system - neglecting to explain that skin flushing was a result of Niacin intake.... FauxReal59: Then she remanded me to a Scientologist physician rather than my personal doctor I requested.... FauxReal59: Then I went to the doctor.... FauxReal59: My background: I am an ex-drug addict/alcoholic who - in the past - suffered liver and heart damage as the result of my abuse.... LizzyApple: I see. I've helped in those cases. FauxReal59: The doctor - Anju Mather MD - actually recommended the purif for me without cautioning me about the effects of Niacin on the liver and sauna on the heart.... FauxReal59: Then... FauxReal59: She insisted that - given my background - I submit to an AIDS test because - and I quote - "you will be sweating with others in the sauna" - as if AIDS can be transmitted that way! FauxReal59: I should have had this "doctor" brought up on charges. She got off easy. I merely exposed her in my story... LizzyApple: I see. Is that where you decided not to do any more Scientology? FauxReal59: In my research, I met a fellowship of hundreds of ex-Scientologists... FauxReal59: Some of the names you will recognize... FauxReal59: That was where I made my decision, yes. FauxReal59: Are you waiting for me to mention names, or are you preparing a rebuttal? LizzyApple: I did not know if you had finished. FauxReal59: That's about it. You know what gives me pleasure? LizzyApple: What? FauxReal59: Getting letters from parents who have long been disconnected (yes, per the disconnect order/policy) from their children. Parents who have taken my article and xeroxed it, and distributed it around college campuses. It helps them, and no, I don't bring them up on copyright violations. FauxReal59: What also helps me is to see the color, the glow return to the faces of those who I have successfully counseled out of the organization. LizzyApple: I see. I got what you said about that. I know Scientology derailed for you at the Purif. stage, but, it does stay on track for some of us a long time...take me for instance...30 years on track and no bad experiences, not a one. LizzyApple: I see so many religions out there, they serve a good purpose. To each his own. Do you have a religion? FauxReal59: That's beautiful. (not being facetious) -- But you must understand that you are not considering the fate of others. They are all deemed SPs and Critics. With all your posts, it is clear that the "doctrine over mind" effect has ocurred with you. You can attack psychiatry in your postings, but you do not even address the Lisa McPherson tragedy. FauxReal59: I have a spiritual program that is freely given to me that ARCRP chose to disgrace in the Scientology folder. LizzyApple: Which is that? FauxReal59: <snip> LizzyApple: Gee. There's certainly nothing wrong with that organization. I've seen some very good results with <snip>. LizzyApple: I actually have a Scientology friend who went through the program, and still helps with the local group on an ongoing basis. There's nothing wrong with <snip> if it works for you. FauxReal59: I refer you to ARCRP posting about "programs that defer to the disease concept of alcoholism and addiction." He basically said that these spiritually-based programs do not work, and then made a pitch for Narconon. FauxReal59: Also, Lizzy... FauxReal59: I sincerely want to know why it is okay for you to post on the "evils" of psychiatry, etc. -- even referring to NEWS articles, and then - the way Xact7888 told me in a COMM - that you won't comment on the Lisa McPherson tragedy because it hasn't been resolved in a court of law yet. LizzyApple: Let me ask you, do you think ECT is really OK? FauxReal59: Lizzy. I have seen ECT effective as a last resort, yes. Also, my significant other's very life was saved by Prozac. FauxReal59: Is ETC okay? I am really not qualified to make that opinion, but One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is not where my opinions are formed. LizzyApple: I have studied the long term effects of ECT and that type drug for years, I understand if you think a drug handled a friend and you have no other recourse, but, well, having seen Dianetics and Scientology work...really work...each time, so that the person doesn't need to use drugs...well, it kinda changes your viewpoint a lot. FauxReal59: You believe Pyshiatrists are evil. I recognize them as licensed professionals (MDs) bound by the Hippocratic Oath to save lives. FauxReal59: Scientology has NO BUSINESS trying to handle clinical mental illness. FauxReal59: I gotta say, Lizzy. I find the fact that you have twice deflected the Lisa McPherson issue rather troubling. LizzyApple: I don't have any real info on the Lisa thing. Only what I've heard from you and the others on the boards.....I can't make a statement from that. FauxReal59: Yes, but not in total. FauxReal59: Why is that? Has it been declared "entheta" to read or watch the volumes of news reports on it? Network, St. Petersburg Times, Newsweek for god's sake? Hello???? LizzyApple: No. Just haven't seen it. FauxReal59: Come on Lizzy. What a cop out. If you have heard that one of your own had died at The Fort Harrison Hotel under Scientological care -- you would not choose to investigate that? LizzyApple: No, really never did see it. FauxReal59: Is your interest not piqued now that you have "heard" about it? FauxReal59: Is your interest not piqued now that you have "heard" about it? LizzyApple: Knowing what I personally know about Flag and the Church..after 30 years experience.....having stayed at Flag many times myself, I just can't believe what been said on the boards. FauxReal59: This is not FROM the boards. This is from international news reports as well as from a surmounting CRIMINAL wrongful death investigation. Stop backpedaling Lizzy. It doesn't look good on you. LizzyApple: Well, then I guess it doesn't look good on me from your viewpoint and you certainly are entitled to that. FauxReal59: Not my point. My point is the conspiracy of silence on the widely known topic of Lisa McPherson's death from all who post continual "theta" On the Scientology Boards. FauxReal59: That is unconscionable. FauxReal59: And ignorance is no excuse. LizzyApple: I got what you're saying. I don't want to see any person die, be it of AIDs, War, or old age, or anything. LizzyApple: I like people too much to want to see that. FauxReal59: You can do something about it. Close to home in fact. You can broach the subject of Lisa McPherson's tragic death at your org and demand an explanation. With 30 years in Scientology, you have the power to help insure that another wrongful death does not occur. LizzyApple: Well, thank you for letting me know. I was actually under the impression that things were being handled in the courts and by law. In Scientology we agree to obey the law of the land. This is true. FauxReal59: That "agreement" has been broached by Scientologists so many times I've almost lost track. FauxReal59: Operation Snow White? Miscavige ducking subpoenas? Frivolous litigation run amuk? Come on. Lizzy, these are not conspiracy theories here. LizzyApple: Once again, never in any area that I've been aware, or around, or near. FauxReal59: Lizzy. Where were you hiding when Mary Sue Hubbard and Scientology officials broke into Government offices? There were convictions. LizzyApple: That doesn't even make sense. I never am hiding. LizzyApple: Certainly wasn't hiding then either. Silly question. FauxReal59: You wanna know my version of a Bridge to Freedom? FauxReal59: When you are wrong, promptly admit it. Do not blame your perceived "attacker." LizzyApple: I can agree that that is a good philosophy...one I adhere to myself. FauxReal59: Stop making claims of "perfection." Admit where and when LRH was wrong. Scientology can actually flourish from that standpoint. LizzyApple: Hmmmm. I don't disagree with you. FauxReal59: Apply a philosophy of "live and let live" in all of your affairs... Do not attack "psychs." Be of service. LizzyApple: Great. FauxReal59: Then we can agree to agree and disagree on many points. LizzyApple: Hmmm. I guess you *could* say that. FauxReal59: I just did say that. LizzyApple: So you did. FauxReal59: Look. Isn't direct COMM better than you going
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 18:32:32 GMT, refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a >>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>>It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
>Does that mean that personal chats on AOL should not be afforded >the same rights as conversations using other media?
ROFLMAO!
You really, really need to rent a sense of humor Diane. Don't you know that AOL is a common butt of net.jabs?
Also you really, really, really need to rent a clue:
>Your comment may have been made in jest, but it says far more about >your mindset than you realize.
Actually it says far more about _your_ mindset than you realize.
I posted that message specifically for you Diane. I knew you'd bite, taking the opportunity to paint me as some sort of "AOL Bigot!" <snicker> or make some other dumbass remark. Gotcha on both points.
Now you may recall that you weasled out of the "Faith & Belief" thread saying something about not talking to me anymore. I think it's pretty much a certainty that you've been reading my messages, just waiting for something to pounce on with your catty little claws.
You'd best stick to fetching books for your "Nobel prize-winner" buddies Diane, you're not ready to play with the grown-ups.
YHBT, HAND, (oh, btw, thought you knew better than to judge a book by its cover <snicker>),
zane@die_spammers.mabry.com
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there, here's the email addresses of the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello: jque...@fcc.gov Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 20:57:47 GMT, refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Of course I do, Zane. You still haven't answered my questions, >however.
Bwaahahahaha! Just make up whatever old answer suits your purpose Diane, it'll be easier that way.
>Not at all, Zane. You still haven't addressed the questions I've >asked.
Sure I have, you just don't like the answer you got. Now don't go playing cross-examiner with me here, I'll answer your stupid questions with the sort of answer I feel they deserve.
>>Now you may recall that you weasled out of the "Faith & Belief" thread >>saying something about not talking to me anymore.
>What did I say about not talking to you anymore, Zane. Care to quote >it?
Go look it up yourself, you're the Mistress of DejaNews aren't you?
>I do not have claws, Zane.
That's a pretty damned literal reading Diane. Looks like you need to work on your imagination some too.
>Zane, anyone who spends the amount of time you've spent trading >insults with Garry Scarff can't possibly talk about being "grown-up" >with a straight face.
See what I mean about judging a book by its cover? Guess not, you just don't geddit.
>I haven't been trolled, Zane.
Sure have, I got exactly the response I was expecting out of you.
Now I admit there's room for interpretation here, specifically "Did he _really_ troll Diane, or was it simply an extremely clever come-back"? I believe whoever reads this thread can come to whatever conclusion they like. I've formed a couple of hypotheses about you (see below), but can't quite figure out how to choose one as the most likely, and I'm not sure I really care.
You know it's kind of disappointing really. I doubt you'll believe this but when I originally engaged you in the "Question For Diane" thread I did so with an open mind. And when you engaged in a civil conversation I said "hmmm", and when you admitted a Mistake ... well I took that as an indicator that maybe you weren't as bad as some people say. I'm still not convinced you're as bad as _some_ people say, but I've played with you long enough to be convinced that either a) you're intentionally dishonest or b) you need to take a break.
>You've been exposed for the fool you really are.
Ninner, ninner, your mama wears army boots.
>Why not go back to telling a PWA to have a short life?
I see you're not above adopting any old moron's pathetic whining if it suits your purpose. That's an instance of what I mean when I say you're being dishonest. If you applied some carefull reading and analysis to my use of "Have a short life" you'd know it wasn't because the dimwit has AIDS, but because I consider him beneath contempt. But you didn't do that, you just picked up some dirt and tossed it my way in the desperate hope that some of it would turn to mud and stick.
>You're much better at that sort of thing.
Pot-kettle-black darling.
zane@die_spammers.mabry.com
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there, here's the email addresses of the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello: jque...@fcc.gov Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
>>>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a >>>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>>>It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
>>Does that mean that personal chats on AOL should not be afforded >>the same rights as conversations using other media?
>ROFLMAO!
>You really, really need to rent a sense of humor Diane. Don't you >know that AOL is a common butt of net.jabs?
Of course I do, Zane. You still haven't answered my questions, however.
>Also you really, really, really need to rent a clue: >>Your comment may have been made in jest, but it says far more about >>your mindset than you realize.
>Actually it says far more about _your_ mindset than you realize.
Not at all, Zane. You still haven't addressed the questions I've asked.
>I posted that message specifically for you Diane. I knew you'd bite, >taking the opportunity to paint me as some sort of "AOL Bigot!" ><snicker> or make some other dumbass remark. Gotcha on both points.
I did not make a dumbass remark, Zane. I asked if you believed AOL posters should not be afforded the same rights as others. I also asked if you felt that Scientologists[tm] should not be afforded the same rights as others. Do you?
>Now you may recall that you weasled out of the "Faith & Belief" thread >saying something about not talking to me anymore.
What did I say about not talking to you anymore, Zane. Care to quote it?
> I think it's pretty >much a certainty that you've been reading my messages, just waiting >for something to pounce on with your catty little claws.
I do not have claws, Zane. That's how you'd like to see me, but it does not represent me at all. Loaded language doesn't work too well for you, Zane.
>You'd best stick to fetching books for your "Nobel prize-winner" >buddies Diane, you're not ready to play with the grown-ups.
Zane, anyone who spends the amount of time you've spent trading insults with Garry Scarff can't possibly talk about being "grown-up" with a straight face.
I'll take my discussions with Nobel prize winners over your "intellectual dialogues" with Scarff any day of the week.
>YHBT, HAND, (oh, btw, thought you knew better than to judge a book by >its cover <snicker>),
I haven't been trolled, Zane. You've been exposed for the fool you really are. Why not go back to telling a PWA to have a short life? You're much better at that sort of thing.
>So there ought to be *some* discretion about posting logs; >it's very much a grey area.
Goodness. A gray area! Back when I did it, I got screamed at from all sides. The near-universal judgement was NO ONE, EVER, IS ALLOWED TO POST LOGS.
Hmm. Mirele? Anybody else who jumped down my throat gonna jump down Mark's? If I were really in a bad mood, I'd post those channel logs where y'all screamed your heads off about the sanctity of logs.
I guess it's "you may never post logs of conversations with our friends, but do as you will with logs of people we want to jeer at." Or perhaps "you may post logs if we like you, but if we are arguing with you, it is immoral to post logs."
Fairness must be a habit few practice enough to get good at it.
judith "and you can change the name of this place to Benny's World of Blood!"
rkel...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote: >Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote: >: This thread related to an AOL private chat. Diane raised an oft-repeated >: question relating to the acceptability of posting chat logs to ars. >: >: Zane turns it into a personal attack on her and raises issues from other >: threads to illustrate his points.
>My view is that you should take into account anybody who could be logging >your conversation. Don't say anything you will regret.
I agree that this is the best approach to take. However, that doesn't make the action of the poster any more defensible than say - posting somebody's auditing files onto a newsgroup.
But then perhaps someone might argue that anyone who tells anything *they* consider confidential to the loony clam cult after being familiar with the works of ElRon deserves anything *they* get as well?
