§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

From: martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: kids
Date: 1 Nov 2003 16:52:47 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 223
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0311011652.4b85dd7c@posting.google.com>
References: <bn95g001mr4@drn.newsguy.com> <bndb8q02bs1 @drn.newsguy.com> <HE71R10537920.1760069444@anonymous.poster> < 1q8npv8mvjbeqmqu2in7cog3i0t5eu87ks@4ax.com> <71d327bb.0310260548.245385df@posting.google.com> < kamnpv0bg5vnruui79jfdouq1p0t0nqs34@4ax.com> <71d327bb.0310261359.44b0497@posting.google.com> < jq2vpv8kr04s9c5ffns35uesk4vtfob65d@4ax.com> <71d327bb.0310301352.2b8913e5@posting.google.com> <71d327bb.0310311502.438782a3@posting.google.com> <igq7qvgpfctfmsgfr5qn8k2kh9tij23b6r@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1067734367 1370 (2 Nov 2003 00:52:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 00:52:47 +0000 (UTC)
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!priapus.visi.com!news- out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!nnxp1.twtelecom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu! news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653874

Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news: <igq7qvgpfctfmsgfr5qn8k2kh9tij23b6r@4ax.com>...

> >> It depends if these people are connected to Scientology and their
> >> allegations are part of an OSA operation.
> You are attempting to redefine English words in order to make your
> false assertions be right. I don't accept that type of illogic, nor
> argument by redefinition of words.

I never defined words as such. Instead I *used* the word *connected*
in a certain way that would reflect my idea of *being connected to the
Scientology organization*. I thought it was evident to a fairly
intelligent man of what I actually meant.

> First you defined "connected" as the level of " connection" you
> yourself had to Scientology prior to July 1992.

I didn't define anything. I *explained* to you of how I see myself
having been *connected* to the Scientology organization. That's all.

> For the purposes of
> discussion, I accepted that defintion. It is a spurious definition,
> but, as I say, since you insisted and for discussion purposes only, I
> accepted it.

I never insisted on anything.

> Presumably you were a "Scientologist in good standing"
> before July 1992; so that is the level or form of "connection" we're
> talking about.

No, this is the form that you are talking about right now in order to
turn the discussion.

> If you now are changing what you mean by "connection" you should say
> so. Otherwise you're engaging in dishonest communication techniques.

"Dishonest"! I am not changing anything. Have you ever thought about
the idea that you simply misunderstood me?

> But I'll still assume that by "connection" to Scientology you mean the
> level or form of "connection" you had prior to July 1992; that is, to
> be "connected" one would be a "Scientologist in good standing."

Completely wrong. Why would I then use Minton as an example of someone
being connected to the Scientology organization?

> You also state in your imposed conditions by which you determine
> whether someone could serve Scientology's malevolent purposes that
> their "allegations" must be "part of an OSA operation."
> You don't define "operation," so I'll both ask you what you mean, and
> assume that you mean a program, project or mission, written, approved
> and issued that specifically directs the specific attackers to make
> such "allegations." Is this correct?

Not necessarily, but as programs are usually the basis for any
organized Scientology activity, I would assume that 99% of
*operations* of OSA are based on programs. For example:

- Attorney X contacts PI Y in order to investigate Scientology critic

- Scientologist A, who poses as a Scientology critic in his leisure
time, gives OSA employee B, a row of photos he secretely had made at a
gathering of Scientology critics.

And to make it clear: Connected to the Scientology organization in the
context I have used it since the beginning of this discussion means
not only being a member of the IAS, or being a staff member of any
Scientology organization but it can also mean being knowingly involved
in a financial relationship with the organization or with one of its
representatives or being knowingly involved in any activity of any
organized Scientology activity.

> It is absolutely clear that if you employ your redefinition of what it
> means "to serve some group's purposes" then yes, you can be right. But
> that is not at all what it means to serve a group's purposes. So what
> on earth is so important about being right about this that you would
> so wildly redefine a common phrase to make it nonsensical?

> For someone to serve an organization's purposes, it does not require
> membership or employment in that organization, and it does not require
> that actions that serve the organization's purposes be part of an
> operation scripted by the organization. These are bogus criteria. And
> you are being dishonest in your efforts to fob off these bogus
> criteria on me and on your innocent readers.

See my above definition for being *connected* to Scientology in this

I am not dishonest, I just stated my fucking opinion. What are you so
upset about that you cannot accept a different opinion. Maybe it would
be wise if you would rethink your own concept and see how *successful*
it is. Instead of concentrating on the real important aspects in your
litigation, you are forced to roam the Internet each day in search of
the newest postings of Kady O'Malley because you erroneously think
they are part of the "depopularization" activity of OSA and therefore
of any value for your legal counter efforts.

> Let's consider a shooting war with live ammunition. Let's say the
> Allies are fighting the Axis powers. If a soldier on the side of the
> Allies shoots another soldier on the Allies' side, the shooter serves
> the Axis' purposes.


I won't even read these kind of comparisons. You better concentrate on

> You might recall that one of the people whose posts appear on the GOoN
> sQUaD FOLLIES page in an attack on me claimed that Scientology is not
> at war. Scientology is, of course, very much at war. Hubbard says
> they're at war, and they know they're at war. Scientology, for obvious
> reasons, doesn't publicly admit that it's at war, and doesn't want the
> wog world® to wake up to the fact that Scientology is at war.
> Therefore the person, professing to be a critic, who insists that
> Scientology is not at war, is serving Scientology's purposes. You do
> agree that Scientology is at war, right?

It depends on if this person is *connected* or not. For example if
she/he was paid 50 bucks in a dark alley to post this on ars, he/she
is serving Scientology's purposes. If he/she states the above opinion
because of her/his own ideas, it has nothing to do with Scientology's

> Let's take another historical example closer to present time. Let's
> say that one day in Chemnitz Werner figures he'll get Schmidt, because
> Schmidt is a decent guy and Werner just hates decent guys. Werner
> learns that Schmidt is actually working for the west; or maybe he
> actually isn't. In either case, Werner writes an anonymous letter to
> the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit telling them all about Schmidt.
> Schmidt is picked up, tortured and shot. Werner, of course, is *not* a
> Stasi member in good standing, and his "allegation" is *not* part of a
> specific Stasi operation. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Werner
> serves the Stasi's malevolent purposes toward its opposition by doing
> what he did.

Wrong example. Werner is connected to the Stasi, because he knowingly
and intentionally writes letters to them. Do you have any proof that
any of the people mentioned on your *blinking* OSA page put their
postings on the Internet in order to intentionally and knowingly alert
and feed the "Office of Special Affairs"? I doubt that.

> Your conditions for what you insist must be present for someone to
> serve Scientology's purposes are false.

> Al Qaeda hijacks some planes, destroys the WTC and kills 2700 people.
> Many Americans decide not to fly and the airline industry is harmed.
> None of the Americans terrorized into not flying are Al Qaeda members
> in good standing, and none are working off an Al Qaeda operation. But
> all of them serve Al Qaeda's purposes, because Al Qaeda's purpose is
> to terrorize Americans and disrupt their regular routines. [...]

Why do you find it necessary to present me all the time
non-Scientology examples, if you think that I am wrong. Prove me wrong
with Scientology examples! Prove me wrong with examples from
Scientology history!

> How about the "religious experts" who write articles extolling the
> cult's religiosity? How about Besier? He isn't a Scientologist in good
> standing. Does he serve the cult's purposes? Of course he does.

I used Minton as an example in my last posting. Isn't it obvious that
being *connected* meant something else than being an IAS member in
good standing??

> Wouldn't the cult dearly love to have the world believe the false
> datum that the only people who can serve its malevolent purposes are
> those people who are Scientologists in good standing and part of an
> OSA operation? And, of course, would never say "Xenu."

I don't know, and honestly, I don't care if they love it or hate it. I
think and I state what I want. I left my mental straightjacket more
than 10 years ago that had dictated me how to think and act in order
to serve Scientology.

> >And just to make sure that I understand you correctly, here is an
> >example where your theory doesn't match mine:
> There is no theory involved. It is a simple matter of the definition
> or redefinition of terms. You are redefining terms into something
> nonsensical. What is so important that you do this?

I haven't defined anything until this posting. I have stated
*opinions*, and have given you *examples* in order to make you
understand them. What is so fucking difficult to understand them?? You
are so consumed about definitions and re-definitions.

> >In this case I argue that Minton's allegation didn't serve
> >Scientology's malevolent purposes, instead he was merely following his
> >own twisted but purely personal purposes, as at that time Minton was
> >certainly not *connected* to Scientology.
> Again, your defintion for what it means to serve Scientology's
> purposes is false. Scientology employs people dramatizing their own
> twisted personal purposes to serve Scientology's malevolent purposes.
> And people not formally employed but dramatizing their own personal
> purposes *can* serve Scientology's purposes. It is actually ridiculous
> to continue to argue otherwise.

"Dramatizing their own personal purposes": Could you please explain
that in normal English what that means?

> If you do not rethink your bogus redefining of what it means to serve
> Scientology's purposes, and continue to insist that your false
> definition is true, then you will likewise be doing more to serve the
> cult's purposes.

I am glad that this is only *your* opinion.

> Let's say that someone said, for example: [...]

I am tired of your hypothetical examples. Show me examples of real
events in Scientology history that prove me wrong!

> Don't you think it would be a good idea to rethink your proffered
> understanding of what it means to serve an organization's purposes,
> and honestly acknowledge that the actions of people not formally
> employed by Scientology and not even necessarily aware of OSA
> operations very well can and at times in fact do serve the cult's
> malevolent purposes toward its opponents?

Why is it so important for you that I change my opinion on this?





§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §