The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out.  They are doing
everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
from reading these messages, AND the web pages.

You can be pretty damn sure that the ONLY Scientologists posting here are
doing so with express permission from OSA.  And why would they get this
permission?  Because they're part of the "Handle ARS" project.  (Hello
Whippersnapper!)

Anyone remember the innocent-sounding "Put Scientology On Internet"
campaign?

In article <6n5eb2$v5...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM says...

   On the other hand, I do believe there is at least on Scientologist who
isn't hatted for here, and that is Claire...suffice it to say that I've
talked with her and believe her.

  Maybe another too, but I cannot prove it...

--
  Bright Blessings,

 Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke

I'd guess Whippersnapper does what he does of his own initiative, though I
suspect CoS _likes_ what he does -- and finds it suits their purposes here --
or they'd "suggest" he do something else.

It does, however, leave some interesting questions for the folks like
Whippersnapper:  are they part of the Scientologists Online campaign, and if so
why not; and are they using the CoS big brother software, and if so why not?
And if not, what do they think of this attempt to filter members' internet use,
apparently without warning them of all the specifics and implications in
advance, either?

Inquiringly,

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 <6n5eb2$v5...@basement.replay.com>,

The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
materials.  Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
believe that or approve of it.

I was asked not to post.  Gently, twice, over the course of several
conversations with an OSA director I know personally.  I was never "told"
to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
interest.

You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but I
have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
tactic WRT a.r.s.  Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.

Given who and what I know and what I have seen, and regardless of some
enormous egos hereabouts, it appears to me that a.r.s is regarded with a
shrug for the most part by the Church; with the important exception of the
abuse of the Advanced Courses materials.

I probably cement your fears with a denial, so I'll issue it for my own
amusement and in hopes you sleep fitfully:  I am no part of any "campaign"
or organized effort of any kind to deal with this newsgroup or its motley
denizens.  Nor does one exist to my knowledge, outside the known persons
and issues surrounding the well-known lawsuits.

- Whippersnapper

"Quiet down or you'll give away my position."  -- Calvin

In article <6n5sd4$...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whips...@cris.com

this doesn't make sense, whip. why would they be protecting their own
membership from their own materials? and at that... why would they not
trust their own membership to make appropriate choices on their own, as to
what to read or not read?

no, i would think it's the "entheta" thing. not to have the memebership
read anything that might upset or put into question the reality the
organization is trying to instil.

ef

I approve of it -- if it means that when Clearwater, Florida, changes
its name to include some advanced materials, perhaps to Xenu City,
Scientology will protect Scientologists by moving to another city!

Think for yourself...until you encounter the advanced materials, then
run, run away!
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California

Of course, these filters only work on PCs.  Folks posting from Macs or
Unix accounts would not be nannified.

For example, netcom.com is Unix (although ix.netcom.com is another
matter).

--
                             non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP

Me and my trenchant mouth.                        --Homer Simpson

: In article <6n5eb2$v5...@basement.replay.com>,
: >The next time you see a post saying "I've been a Scientologist for over 20
: >years," or "I'm just here to correct the lies," remember the filter
: >program they install on PCs to block this newsgroup out.  They are doing
: >everything they possibly can to keep their own membership from reading
: >this newsgroup, including the use of censorship software to prevent them
: >from reading these messages, AND the web pages.

: The reason for that, insofar as it is done, is the Advanced Courses
: materials.  Their secrecy is taken utterly seriously, whether or not you
: believe that or approve of it.

[clip]

Then could you explain why the net-nanny blocks out names of known critics?
That sounds fairly unrelated to the Advanced Courses materials.

Perhaps I'm missing something?  To me it seems like they protecting
their members from hearing un-good vies of Scientology.

Mark

On 28 Jun 1998 12:52:52 EDT, Whips...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

Lie. I have seen the net filter at work. It filters out specific
critics names  (i.e. Jon Atac, Keith Wollersheim , Ron Newman, etc. It
also blocks out sites that *don't* have secret scriputres but merely
criticize scientology (an example site would be
www.scientology-kills.net) . It clearly is a form of thought control,
levied upon members to create blind deluded adherence to an
organization that can't take criticism or having its own members
witness alternative pts of view .  The "Bridge To Freedom" indeed.
Another lie spouted out by the COS.  Maybe if the "Secret Upper
Scriptures" can't stand the light of day, they are worthless and
finding out about them prematurely ruins the pyramid scheme aspects of
the group (i..e the not knowing what comes next so i am going to stay
in it and find out and spend more money ! ) . That is my impression.
Feedback is welcome . :-)

actually I think Whip is correct - you are obviously not an ex-scientologist or
you would, I think, see the point he is making. You may find the OT levels
laughable bad sci-fi rubbish but scientologists by and large take them very
seriously indeed.
  I realize that this flies against the "they all know its scam" routine but
that will just have to be borne. Scientologists believe that a) the OT levels
are valid and b) that if they read them before they should they will screw
themselves up royally.
  As a matter of respect - not for the materials, not for Hubbard but for the
people who genuinely believe in it why try and mock them with it? Catholics
genuinely believe they are eating flesh and blood during the communion which is
not much more bizarre or worrying.
  If a scientologist is "exposed" to OT3 materials then they, thereafter, can
only be audited by someone OT 3 and above - most scientologists who are below
that level would a) rather avoid being "enturbulated" and b) avoid the hassle.
  The trouble is that there are no critics - at least none that I have seen -
who seem to be willing to deal with Scientologists at least with respect to
their religious beliefs.
  Scientologists believe in this stuff - if you ever want to have a dialogue
with them then you need to acknowledge that simple fact.
++++++++++++
Cavaliers - wrong but wromantic
Roundheads - right but repulsive