In article <6ns25k$27...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says...
> And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort, > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M. > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing, and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions, I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't like it.
>
> jana
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort, perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M. Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
jana
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> In article <6ns25k$27...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says... > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of > > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort, > > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies > > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems > > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are > > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT > > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M. > > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
> My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that > they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them > being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
> I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is > the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is > the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing, > and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
> The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are > willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs > support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much > rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in > communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and > indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions, > I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't > like it.
> > jana
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
In article <6ns25k$27...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net wrote: > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort, > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M. > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
What guess? The Swazeys strike me as sincere, even if misguided and somewhat unaware of the true nature of the organization they are defending.
> In article <MPG.100b630518d65331989...@nntp.lightlink.com>, > starshad...@mindless.com says...
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that > >they are lying. Just my guess.
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are > >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs > >support.
> The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years. > There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies > regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making > the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely > honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a > member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability > to spot BS.
> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game > here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member > to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much of > the BS.
> > In article <6ns25k$27...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says... > > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of > > > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort, > > > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies > > > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems > > > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are > > > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT > > > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M. > > > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that > > they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them > > being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
> > I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is > > the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is > > the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing, > > and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are > > willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs > > support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much > > rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in > > communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and > > indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions, > > I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't > > like it.
> > > jana
> > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > > > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> > -- > > Bright Blessings,
> > Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
> Thanks.
> John S.
You're welcome. I don't think this is the moral high ground here. To me this phone number thing isn't a lot different than the bigot leaflets that show up in neighborhoods.
>> And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of >> the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort, >> perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies >> are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems >> between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are >> BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT >> dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M. >> Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
>What guess? The Swazeys strike me as sincere, even if misguided and >somewhat unaware of the true nature of the organization they are defending.
One of the Swazeys (John, I believe) had mischaracterized my questions as being "concerned with their posting to ars". I replied that I was not concerned, and that if I was concerned, I would have already contacted the DSA Seattle. But I really do support freedom of speech, and I am not into turning Scienos in to Scientology's OSA or "ethics section" because they post here. I'll leave the "ratting" and "handling" duties to the little tattletales (Scienos).
Jana used the word "guess" (in quotes) because I did not *guess* where the Swazeys are "on lines". There was no "guessing" involved -- just *real* "OT abilities". <nyuk nyuk nyuk...> ;-)
>> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that >> >they are lying. Just my guess.
>> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are >> >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs >> >support.
>> The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years. >> There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies >> regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making >> the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
>> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely >> honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a >> member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability >> to spot BS.
>> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game >> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member >> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
>> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much of >> the BS.
> But still, Warrior, what does their phone number have to do with this, >if true?
Nothing. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Some individuals had speculated that the Swazeys were trolls. If someone wanted to, he/she could easily call the Swazeys. Their phone number is public information, but even still, I never posted it.
In article <MPG.100bce9c2ed27ca7989...@nntp.lightlink.com>, starshad...@mindless.com says...
>I don't think this is the moral high ground here. To me this phone >number thing isn't a lot different than the bigot leaflets that >show up in neighborhoods.
Calling someone up to chat in person is very much different from anonymously smearing someone's reputation through the spreading of lies, half-truths and innuendo. One is simple communication; the other is harrassment.
In <6nsfu7$...@drn.newsguy.com>, Warrior <wasrr...@entheta.net> wrote:
>The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years. >There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies >regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making >the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
>With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely >honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a >member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability >to spot BS.
Relax. Yes, some of what they said has no connection to the actual reality. It is wishful thinking, double-think, "lying into your own pocket", etc. But consider yourself while you were a member - you would have defended scientology the same way, i.e. making up explanations (like Claire about disconnection) in the hope of proving that a disgusting policy is actually not disgusting.
