§  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: Martin Ottmann -- Request for clarification of term
Date: 5 Nov 2003 03:27:57 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0311050327.6bb45706@posting.google.com>
References: <3ps9qvkm8ou68e4lsotg3b5vd5re3ka3jm@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.0.94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068031677 4248 127.0.0.1 (5 Nov 2003 11:27:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:27:57 +0000 (UTC)


Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:< 3ps9qvkm8ou68e4lsotg3b5vd5re3ka3jm@4ax.com>...

> So, Martin, I say that a person *can* serve Scientology's purposes
> without being employed by, under orders from or otherwise *officially*
> connected to the cult.
>
> You say that it is only possible for a person who is connected to
> Scientology and whose actions are part of a Scientology operation to
> serve the cult's purposes.
> Message-ID: <71d327bb.0310311502.438782a3@posting.google.com>
>
> You said that for "connection" you meant the manner or form in which
> you were *connected* to the cult prior to July 1992.
> Message-ID: <71d327bb.0310261359.44b0497@posting.google.com>

I never said that. And I don't want to repeat myself a thousand times.
I simply gave you an example for my *own* connection. As I used Minton
as an example for someone who has been connected since March 2002, it
should have been obvious that I meant not only people who are official
members of the organization.

> You now state that being "connected" to the cult means:
>
> [Quote[
>
> 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.
>
> [End Quote]
> Message-ID: <71d327bb.0311011652.4b85dd7c@posting.google.com>
>
> And, as I have been saying, no matter what definition you use for
> "connection" to Scientology, it is not necessary for a person to be so
> "connected" to serve the cult's purposes.
>
> In order to make your assertion be true that to serve Scientology's
> purposes a person would have to be "connected" to the cult, you must
> redefine, as you are doing, what it means to serve the cult's purposes
> to include your qualifier as a necessary part of the defintion.

How about that: Knowingly participating in the activities of the
Scientology organization and its various suborganizations that are
covered by programs, orders, etc.

> You then say:
>
> [Quote]
>
> Prove me wrong with Scientology examples! Prove me wrong with examples
> from Scientology history!
>
> [End Quote]
> Message-ID: <71d327bb.0311011652.4b85dd7c@posting.google.com>
>
> It's extremely easy to do. But it's ridiculous for me to give you
> examples unless we agree regarding the meaning of terms we're using
> for the concept for which you're demanding the examples.

OK, I am waiting for your examples.

> Thus it would be impossible for any example I can give you -- and I
> can give you many, indeed have given you many -- to be acceptable to
> you because you have redefined the concept so as to eliminate by
> definition all such examples.

Name me just three.

> Jeff goes on to say, essentially, that "Truthseeker," for whom there's
> no proof that he's employed by, under orders from or otherwise
> officially connected to Scientology, and actions by other so-called
> "critics," serve that purpose.

"Truthseeker" could be a loonie whose hobby it is to make just this
newsgroup unreadable. So what? Look at other newsgroups, there are
loonies as well, who make other newsgroups unreadable as well.

> I am sure that I've also heard from Jeff, and others, that if a
> picketer, a professed "critic," not employed by, not under orders
> from or not otherwise officially connected to Scientology, initiated a
> fight with some Scientology staff member, or pushed a woman to the
> ground, or some such silly or violent action, it serves the cult's
> purposes. The cult has a purpose of portraying picketers as violent.
> By being peaceful, picketers do not serve that purpose. By being
> violent, picketers *do* serve the cult's purpose. They need not be
> employed by, under orders from or otherwise officially connected to
> Scientology in order to serve the cult's purposes. In fact, if a
> person is discovered to be employed by, under orders from or otherwise
> officially connected to Scientology and is engaged in violent acts,
> his actions can serve the opposition's purpose, since the opposition
> has a purpose of bringing to light the cult's violence.

Using that logic you are bound to claim that the waitress in a
restaurant who serves Michael Rinder lunch while he has a business
meeting with some private investigators, is serving the organizations'
malevolent purposes.

You would also claim that the postman who is delivering the
Scientology mailings to private households is serving the
organization's purposes.

You would claim that the cow that is butchered and lands finally on
the plates of Sea Org personnel is serving the organization's
purposes.

You would claim that the air of Los Angeles that is keeping Michael
Rinder alive is serving the organization's purposes.

You would then "logically" claim, as you are religious, that God is
serving the organization's malevolent purposes, because he lets them
still exist. Or in other words, using your logic, you are saying that
God is an OSA whore.

 

 
 

Thread

 

 

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