How original.

The tendency to use name calling or to ~demonize~ entire groups through
derisive verbal attacks speaks volumes about the people using the tactic
and says nothing about the target of their anger.

It's certainly possible. The math here is pretty straight forward. I
might suggest you wipe up the spittle from your keyboard and apply what
skills you might possess to do the numbers.

An interesting exchange. First you attack using the clam-meme and then
upon reflection, you consider, accurately, that I might have meant 'born
and raised', which I did. Yet you chose to keep the attack in the post.
Keep at it Nico, you're begininng to show early signs of actual critical
thinking.

This goes way off-topic and is actually better suited to philosophy or
religious debates. I think you'd agree (if you 'd just calm down and
think about it) that most religions or idealogies require that members
adapt a reality that serves the purpose of the group itself. That
Hubbard phrased it the way he did is what seems to upset you. But, for
the record, the idea of ~true for you~ is more a part of the selling of
Scientology than it is a LIE, as you put it. The key to the problem with
Scientology is not lying or criminal behaviour as most Scientologists
are no more liars than are Muslims, Mormans or Democrats. The fact is
that actual number of active members may be disputed, but the majority
of Scientologists (or Muslims for that matter) are law-abiding and
wholesome people. At least in their view.

TR's do cause a certain level of intensity. But then, have you ever had
an insurance salesman get a death-grip on you?

She was upset. It's obvious (if his friends who posted here are to be
believed) now that P.Gale didn't make his decision based upon either ars
or CofS.

Whether that's the purpose of all of the more frequent and vocal posters
on ars remains to be seen. ARS for some is more about self-promotion and
occupying the time that an affluent society has rewarded us with. As for
the freedom to speak - we already have that. It's not likely that CofS
will be able to accomplish what other, more powerful groups have already
failed at doing.

You are the victim of a partial history and personal blindess when it
comes to the effects ARS has actually had on CofS. Cheap is relative in
the instances of both Erlich and Wollersheim. ARS readers of years past
may well recall my thoughts concerning them both. Needless to say, CofS
can easily afford to keep any larger number of lawsuits rolling.

As for confidentiality: the truth is that every OT level easily made
it's way into the field as early as 1968. All one had to do was ask. As
I predicted in 95, CofS realized that it could not keep the more
theatrical aspects of OT3 lore off the net and so began a campaign of
advertising within the group that gently revealed all but the specific
details. The expected shock and loss to CofS from internet publication
never occured except in the egos of the ars clam-meme brood. This, btw,
is what ars'ers so knowledgably refer to DA'ing.

I'm not sure how you earn a living Nico, but if you happen to be a
stockbroker let me know what you're buying so I can sell it short.

One final point. During every major public attack on CofS, be it the
early 60's raids on the DC org for emeters or the 70's raid in Hollywood
or more localized attacks, the claims of the attackers have always been
that membership is falling at an alarming rate. This is merely pr in the
same sense that CofS uses pr when they claim their membership at 8
million. The only thing that really matters here is actual facts and
numbers, which neither you or I or anyone here has. But the CofS does
have those numbers. That's why I think most of this is humorous and
somewhat silly. Pretty much any claim an attacker cares to make
concerning membership will almost certainly be incorrect, so it's an
area of weakness for you folks, not strength.

But then, what's true for you is true for you. Eh Nico?

Wolf