It's a subtle but interesting point.

First, I'd like to point out that some of those who first jumped on this thread
are some of the "critics" who I would say are least hostile minded in any way,
so you might want to qualify your generalization.

Second, if this point is really important to you, then you should also be
taking it up with the CoS operatives who post here, especially the rabid
attack-dog types.  I'd certainly say that Russ Shaw and his
onofficial-but-undoubtedly-approved "bigots" site represent a prime example of
CoS resorting to the sort of covert hostility you refer to.  Worst yet, the
CoS, it's operatives and members, are _supposed to have a "tech" that should
make them aware of what you are referring to.

Are you willing to stand up for the principle, or is your agenda here one
sided?

I.

SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG

                                   Induct YourSELF into new realities

Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths

In article <199810102305.BAA12...@replay.com>, Anonymous

   Hmm. Me thinks your subconscious has been at work here.
   Care to change your rant?

   You denounce my non violence as violence simply because
my information is more accurate than yours, and conflicts
with the information you have received and accepted.
Information which is detrimental to the veracity of your
cherished Co$ and its Founder.

   I have a proposition for you.
   Read the Justice Latey Decision.
   Have you never heard of it?
   Perhaps not.
   To sum it up Justice Latey presided over
a custody battle in a divorce in Britain.
   The truth or fraud of Scientology became
a key factor. The father had disconnected from the
mother who had left the Co$, IIRC.
   In the end the Co$ was intimately examined
by the court to see if it would be a safe or
dangerous environment for a child.
(The mother felt it was detrimental.)
   Hubbards lies, cheating and preposterous
pseudo-scientific 'teachings' (locomotives on venus!?)
were examined at length with the full attention of
Co$ lawyers trying to prove how 'wonderful'
Hubbard and therefore  the Co$, his creation, was.

   Justice Latey was fair in his examination and
allowed wide lattitude to the Co$ to prove themselves.
They failed miserably in a truthful fair examination.
The transcripts are extant and may even be found
on the web somewhere.
Justice Latey was scathing of the Co$ and
Hubbard and states why in his Decision.
   Many of the detrimental things said so oft here
of Hubbard (conman, swindler, thief, bigot,
self aggrandising liar and braggart etc.) were
factually proven with the aid of Hubbards own
documents and other existing records.

   You, yourself, can independently verify many
of the records and documents which show the
truthful average and less than average life
of Hubbard and his feet of clay.
   The least it proves is that Hubbard was a monumental
liar and yes, a somewhat imaginative one too.

   Now either you accept the preposterous idea that in the
50s there was a world wide conspiracy to replace all
of Hubbards war, court and family records with perfect
forgeries and Hubbard himself unwittingly wrote bad
checks and married one woman while still married
to another and on more than one occasion was able
to defy the physical laws of the Universe, perhaps
with the aid of his documented occult studies; or
you accept Hubbard, when it suited his purpose,
would lie, cheat, deceive and prevaricate.  ("Control
people with lies.")

If you accept the former, then there *is* a world conspiracy,
to this day, to keep Scientology from taking over and
saving the world by preparing everyone sufficiently
before outer space invaders , attack. This also
means that the modern sciences of geology, paleontology,
archeology, biology and neurology, amongst others,
are all frauds and are part of the conspiracy as well.

Or, if the latter, then one must ask oneself if Hubbard did
not just make all of the Tech up from an admittedly
active imagination. Which of course means you are
caught in the deluded imaginings of a megalomaniac.

You may believe either, but not both, as they conflict.

And you have still failed to demonstrate how any valid
criticism of the Co$ or of Hubbard, based on existing
records,( some of which are Hubbards own and
admitted or stipulated to in courts), and existing
scienctific expertise, are 'violence'.

   I hand out legally factual flyers and post similarly to
ARS and send factual truthful letters to the various levels of
government concerning the Criminally Convicted Business/Cult
called the Co$. I *do not* shout into the face of
Co$ staff or publics, but do enjoy, upon occasion quiet,
if spirited, conversations, which *they* initiate.

   When I picket, it is to provide truthful factual
verifiable information. Not innuendo, libels,
slanders, distortions or outright lies. I do not desire
to be sued or arrested for prosthelytising 'hate speech'.
   And I picket a public place of business. Not a private
residence of someone who voices an opinion contrary
to my own backed up with facts I refuse to consider.
   Now, unless you believe any communication
of an opinion no matter how factual, which contradicts
Source and the Co$ is automatically violent, ( which
would make you a appear somewhat lunatic)
then explain to me how these peaceful non-inciteful
communications (free speech) are in any way 'violent'
in the real world.

HATD

---
["You know, people die if they criticize scientology -
      I should take care if I were you."
-Marcus Nyman, OSA (former GO), $cio-org, Stockholm, Sweden.]

 Gregg Hagglund SP5
 Rendered Net Invisible to
 Participating Victims of Co$.

Toronto Picket Reports now at:
<http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/8412/>

If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there
own game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?

Besides the fact that it would be illegal, immoral, and completely
unjustified, "capping" a $cientologist would land you in jail and give
the CO$ some very strong ammunition in their portrayal of critics as
just a bunch of hateful, violent, criminal bigots. In other words, as
silly and cold blooded as your "suggestion" is, it would not be
practical.  Most $cieno's are unsuspecting victims of a cruel hoax
called $cientology. They act on orders from higher-level management
which should be exposed by any means for any and all crimes they commit.
When the CO$ is exposed and/or prosecuted enough for all crimes
committed, they will lose "raw meat" and many members will "blow" At
that point, the CO$ will be forced to either reform or cease and desist.

Bobby

Good idea:

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
______________________________________________________________
1. strong, damaging force.
2. an act that causes injury or harm.
3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:
______________________________________________________________

Webster's Revised Unabridged:
______________________________________________________________

Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]

1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action,
whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.

2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or
observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.

3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to
murder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence
to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness;
eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression;
oppression.
______________________________________________________________

Your OT Powerz are most astounding.

Sayz who?

All you need in order to be a critic is to have an opinion. That's
hardly something difficult or remarkable.

heil...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote:

What word don't you understand?

Do you think so, Inducto?

Well, not really - a generalization is to address the situation in
general. I am only willing to exclude exceptions where they arise. I
think that you are one of these very few exceptions.

No - the principle applies to both sides, but it's the violence of
critics that I am addressing here, and their hypocritical stand
against "non-violence".

I think what he's saying is that you've redefined 'violence' to include not
only acts of violence, but the 'encouraging' of violence through 'hateful
propaganada' which you call 'a form of violence' in itself - a description,
btw, that to my mind belittles the actual meaning of the word itself.

I can call FREEDOM Magazine 'hateful propaganda' - does that mean that I can
claim tht it, too, is 'another form of violence?

Then you move on from merely redefining the word 'violence', and demonstrate
the amazing psychic abilities that allow you to determine that some critics'
*minds* are 'awfully violent', which, in the askew logic of which your initial
claim was such a sterling example, translates into proof of your claim that
critics *themselves* are 'violent'.

In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what
critics post is 'hate propaganda, b) link that 'hate propaganda' with
still-to-be-specified acts of 'violence' by critics and c) double-curved back
to accuse critics of 'hypocrisy', based on your own reinterpretation of the
facts as they stand today. Pretty impressive for a less-than-ten line post.

K

On 11 Oct 1998 00:41:16 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:

I wish you'd reply to my other reply to one of your messages, you
know, the one about how, Scientology aside, one would go about
deciding whether or not a minor religion movement was "bad",
"detrimental" so on and so on...but oh well. When you ask "What word
don't you understand" you miss a fundamental facet of language - that
in most cases the meaning of a sentence is distributed among the words
of a sentence...that languages generally can't be fully understood
reductionalistically. What I've misunderstood is not one word, but
rather your argument as a whole, which seems to me invalid - it seems
to me that you are in fact _equating_ verbal violence (force of ideas
or what have you) with physical violence (guns, knifes, clubs made of
stronger stuff than balsa wood). Something that's missed by those who
over-rely on dictionary definitions is that words have shades of
meaning...simply because two ideas are embodied in the same word does
not mean that those two ideas are automatically equal. When one refers
to non-violent techniques one is generally talking about avoiding
physical violence - a cue to this is the use of the word "techniques"
or similar words which point to real-world manifestations of whatever
they refer to. Looking back to the civil rights movement, one sees
that to certain groups the ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. were rather
violent...I mean, imagine what the "I Have a Dream" speech would have
read like to certain southerner whites of the day...to them they saw
that MLK Jr. was advocating the complete dismantling of a social
structure they had come to expect and rely upon - a rather violent
idea, to their eyes. Despite this, this Ghandi-inspired movement is
held up as a shining example of non-violent protest. Do you see? When
one is protesting something one generally has a set of forceful ideas:
"We are all equal" "We deserve more pay for our work" "We cannot let
people be bilked by this fraud religion". One may call these ideas
violent, and even find backing in Merriam-Webster for such -
nevertheless, if the protesters aren't physically attacking those they
are protesting against it is a non-violent protest. Perhaps you could
wordclear that, hm? Don't some dictionaries have entries for common
phrases such as "non-violent protest"? Anyway, food for thought. The
idea of non-violent protest is a rather subtle one, I think...it takes
much self-restraint to apply and took a fair bit of genius to think
up, since these two ideas are not intuitively joined.
---
Ben Allen,
Of course, it has to be *Kevin's* dead cat to count.
heil...@wport.com
Lame stuff is fun.
remove e and l to e-mail

Check the definition I posted in answer to another poster. I am not
the one redefining the word. It just means more than just physical
violence.

Of course - if it indulge in the same type of behavior most critics
like to engage into.

Eh - I don't need any psychic abilities for that - just observing
critics in this newsgroup.

Of course they are. Not all of them, but the exceptions are few.

That's my opinion. Of course it's arbitrary, like every opinion.

Hehe - isn't it? But it's all in your mind, Kady. What I say is more
simple and straightforward than that :-)

heil...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote: