What's all this crap about a "truce" for Christmas?  I thought the cult of
$ignitallaway teaches that Christ was an implant, not a living being born in a
stable some 2000 years ago?  Never mind meaningless truces - now is the ideal
time of year to preach the gospel of what that disgusting organisation really
thinks about Christianity and what it does to people.

To all those tempted by their olive branch - as you sit at the table for your
Christmas dinner, please spare a thought for the families who'll be gazing
sorrowfully at an empty chair.

Dave SP1

Absolutely.

These people don't want a 'truce' in any case--they want us all to be
SILENT. Preferably forever.

Never give the Devil a break, folks. He's not in the business of playing
fair.

We should be kinder to the poor deluded souls caught in this mess called
Scientology, however. I think 'screw the truce' is a bit nicer. I do
appreciate the feeling.

Kat

It's not that THESE people want a truce.  Just a few mentioned it.
Apparently Sassie10 and Russ. But neither are post here much so a
general truce is not something they should be designing, unless
they take their compatriots, Gertie, MikeSmith3, RonsAmigo on board first.

Otherwise it is just a nice little gesture on part of two scientologists,
a bit naive and not exactly something really likely to fly.
And of course the harrassemnt machine off stage is in high gear against
Minton, Henson et al.

Making their attempts ever that less useful in reality.

The embarressing of the cult continues.

For them to ask for a truce would be like a company of an
invading army to mention a truce to a few enemy troops
dug in in opposing trenches. Naive. Pointless.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!

        [snip]
|> The Church of $cientology and its agents have no credibility.  In fact,
|> they have proven again and again that their intentions are not honorable,
|> and that they cannot be trusted to do what they say or to follow the
|> principles to which they give lip service.  
        [snip]

        Well said, and true.  I rarely forget it.

        Merry Christmas,

        Steve Whitlatch
        swhit...@primenet.com

--
Honesty cures scientology, but lions lie with lambs only after
both have fed on heroes and shepherds.

It was pointed out to me this evening that the concept of a false truce is
included in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", which is required reading for
$cientology's secret service.  The idea is to make one's opponent back off
from the fight, lose intensity, and fool him into thinking that you intend
to do the same.  While I have not yet attempted to find the particular
passage which documents this in the book, I find the hypothesis to be
valid, and I believe that this is the real motive behind the proposed
a.r.s "truce".  

The Church of $cientology and its agents have no credibility.  In fact,
they have proven again and again that their intentions are not honorable,
and that they cannot be trusted to do what they say or to follow the
principles to which they give lip service.  Those who have proposed this
truce will consider it a "win" if they cause some of the a.r.s activists
to cease their vigilance and their participation, even for a short span.

I consider it a transparent and pathetic ploy, and I, for one, will not
cooperate with it.

--
Mark Dallara                    
mdall...@kcii.com                    
http://www2.kcii.com/users/dallara/

Another Sun Tzu reader, Chairman Mao, said that if your opponent offers
talks you should always agree, not only for the above reasons but
because not to do so gives him a patch of moral high ground. The North
Vietnamese followed his advice to good effect against both French and
Americans.
In Northern Ireland this strategy is known as the 'Ballot Box and
Armalite'.

The important thing to realise is that you and your opponent have
different objectives - this is not a zero-sum game.
Thus the objective of the IRA is _not_ peace, it is a united Ireland.
The objective of the British government is _not_ a partitioned Ireland,
it is to end the Troubles.

 The objective of the CoS is _not_ to destroy it's critics, it is to
clear the planet. The objective of the critics is _not_ to destroy
scientology, but to stop the abuses of the CoS as presently constituted.

If you realise this but your opponent doesn't, then you have the
advantage.

What is interesting though is that Mao was speaking from his experience
of having the weaker military force. Surely the CoS doesn't thing it's
losing? <g>

--
Hartley Patterson
Home Page: http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
featuring News from Bree, medieval economics
and an elderly universe

 The goal of $cientology is very much to destroy it's critics. How else could
they get the ethics in to clear the planet? These later-day priests of pure
power want very much to grind their opponets into the dirt and exult in it. It
is the intoxication of pure power.
   As a critic it is my goal to destroy $cientology root and branch. To say
that it could be reformed somehow is absurd. To do that you would have to
eliminate a very large part of the writings of LRH. And also dismantle the Sea
Snots, his pet creation.
   The idea of reforming $cientology has been talked about before but it always
falls short when you consider that the very basis of it is evil. Hubbard was a
cruel man, a petty sadist who betryaed friends and persecuted his enimies. Few
redeeming qualities are to be found in his life. The "religion" that he
invented is very much a reflection of himself.
   The only way to reform $cientology is to close it down.

  The Exile

    "James Stewart has been put in a Condition of Doubt for having [epileptic]
seizures in public and thus invalidating Scientology."   -posted on the notice
board, Edinburgh Org., cited by Jon Atack, pg. 184.