http://www.google.com/groups?selm=p0n2gvs22epdeu5jicg4aauhi7cko50m7i% 404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: "Fair Game" continues
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:45:01 +0200
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 421
Message-ID: <p0n2gvs22epdeu5jicg4aauhi7cko50m7i@4ax.com>
References: <3efa8929.246516@news2.lightlink.com> <RYBLZV1C37800.2177662037@Gilgamesh-frog.org> <bdj3oo0ul6@drn.newsguy.com> <lf6rfv0ssqi9aesh1lpvjkp76t3dthl7go @4ax.com> <a0dtfvci0aulagksnir0b6q6fvqs6h2s7k@4ax.com> < vh0ufvsoh7u6931oio5k57c6dscp49jlen@4ax.com> <nklvfv0itllifno0jah0c2n8i69qnvoero@4ax.com> < c9uvfvohqb9fdolrvkf8c1ehea793q05og@4ax.com> <1q00gv8vlgml5c2l7dta95qm8mgjhlf6ck@4ax.com> < v1h1gvsbj58a22t9rd0pne41g5n1t85766@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.16.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.228.191.44
X-Original-Trace: 1 Jul 2003 07:45:06 -0400, 217.228.191.44

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:27:53 +0200, Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<mikeNO@SPAMwhyaretheydead.net> wrote:

>In article <1q00gv8vlgml5c2l7dta95qm8mgjhlf6ck@4ax.com> , Gerry Armstrong
><gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>Yes. It is a horrible policy. And we both agree that particular policy
>>>>>was cancelled.
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't agree that policy was cancelled. You misunderstood what I
>>>>wrote. Technically and factually a "policy" is not a "policy
>>>>*letter.*" A "policy letter" can be cancelled, and the "policy" that
>>>>the "policy letter" instructs or elucidates *not* cancelled. This is
>>>>the case with the fair game *policy.* A policy letter, or PL, may have
>>>>been cancelled, but the fair game *policy* has never been cancelled.
>>>>
>>>>When the fair game policy is cancelled, there will be a revolution in
>>>>Scientology. It will be the end of Scientology as we know it;
>>>>certainly the end of the threat to good people that the cult with its
>>>>fair game policy continues to be.
>>>
>>>Okay, I would catagorize that as the fair game practice rather than police
>>>because it can be confussing.
>>
>>The policy and practice are inseverable.
>
>I don't agree. In my opinion the practice is an accumulation of all the
>horrible policy letters/directives etc.

No, the practice is more like the accumulation of all the horrible
actions taken pursuant to the policy, which is articulated in the
Policy Letters, EDs, etc.

> The PLs are the bricks and the
>practice the house.

In that case they would be inseverable. If you took away the bricks
you'd take away the house.

It is possible to take away a few bricks and still have a house, but
it would be a few bricks short of a house. -(((():-)

Keep in mind, however, that although the Policy Letters all may be
cancelled, fair game is still the *policy*. Policy may or may not
reflect what's in the PLs. There may even be a policy of issuing PLs
containing false statement of "policy." That, in fact, is the
Scientology cult's practice. Issuing false statements as to what is or
is not the cult's policy and practice is part of the fair game
doctrine, or policy.

The doctrine is the set of governing rules or concepts that flow from
the Scientology philosophy. The philosophy includes, for example, the
ideas that Scientologists are superior, in knowledge, ethics, ability,
etc. to wogs (R); that people who criticize Scientology are criminals;
and that "the whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman
and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions
of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology."
These ideas may appear in Policy Letters, but are not really "policy."
They are philosophy.

From this philosophy, accepted as true, comes the fair game policy,
what is to be done to anyone who opposes or even criticizes
Scientology. The most basic of what is to be done, of what will be the
policy, is given by Hubbard in his PL "Battle Tactics."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/pl-battle-tactics.html
Scientologists are to make *War* on the "enemy;" i.e., the good people
who oppose or criticize Scientology. Fair game is war. A military at
war fair games the enemy.

One of the PR carriers for this war principle is Hubbard's dictum,
which now appears in almost all Scientology magazines, "The Price of
Freedom: Constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back.
There is no other price."

In his "Battle Tactics" PL Hubbard orders a number of other policies,
which are really sub-policies to the basic policy of "War!" E.g., "You
preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the
image of the enemy to beast level;" and "Never treat a war like a
skirmish. Treat all skirmishes like wars."

These policies are then put into practice. What we see are actions,
which together form a practice, and demonstrate the policy, which may
or not be articulated in PLs, EDs, etc. In this case, we are fortunate
to have the Confidential PL "Battle Tactics," which lays out the
policies that Scientologists execute, or put into practice.

>
>>Policy and practice are
>>severable when one or the other is false. E.g., Scientology has a
>>policy "Deliver what we promise." But the cult has a practice of not
>>delivering on its promises. It could be said, of course, that the cult
>>has an actual policy "Don't deliver what we promise," in order to have
>>the policy align with the practice, but that isn't quite right.
>>
>>In the case of fair game, the cult has a philosophy, policy and
>>practice that are all in agreement. Scientologists, naturally, deny
>>the existence of the philosphy, policy and practice. But the only way
>>for one of three concepts to end is for them all to end. Ending the
>>practice requires ending the policy and philosophy. If Scientologists
>>stop all attacks, all lies, all theft, all suits, all trickery, all
>>injuring and all destruction, they necessarily will have adopted a
>>different philosophy, and from that different philosophy created
>>different policies.
>>
>>>
>>>>>I don't know how wide the cancel was distributed or whether the cancel was
>>>>>cancelled, but I do notice that scientology has used it last year:
>>>>>
>>>>>Plaintiff's objections to evidence offered post trial in Dandar's closing
>>>>>brief -- 13 September 2002
>>>>>
>>>>>"142 Pltf's Ex. 165 before Judge Schaeffer, HCO Policy Letter of 18
>>>>>October 1967, Penalties for Lower Conditions.ENEMY - SP Oder [sic]. Fair
>>>>>game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any
>>>>>Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be
>>>>>tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. o Hearsay.o Hearsay within
>>>>>hearsay.o Irrelevant and immaterial.o Not offered.o Not authenticated.o
>>>>>Not admitted.o Excluded (8/29 Tr., at p. 255).Completeness
>>>>>Designation:This policy was cancelled in 1970 by HCO Policy Letter of 6
>>>>>October 1970, Issue III (Ex. 31 hereto)."
>>>>>
>>>>>http: //whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/dc020913b.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The policy or doctrine is really one of opportunistic hatred.
>>>>>>Scientologists do toward the "enemy" what they have an opportunity to
>>>>>>do, and what they can get away with. For many people in the cult this
>>>>>>entails *creating* opportunities to attack the " enemy." See, e.g.,
>>>>>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/juggernaut- eval.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[Quote]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Whoever regards Intelligence solely as " Information
>>>>>>Gathering" has not moved with the times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Japanese disturbed all this with the Intelligence
>>>>>>creation of "incidents" then exploited by PR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Russians use this (from the Japs) continually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "incident" brought about behind the scenes is then
>>>>>>pitilessly exploited by PR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To reverse this PR then Intelligence, is out of sequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With knowledge, incident and technique, Intelligence
>>>>>>properly causes first in any sequence of events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[End Quote]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Fair game is not just a policy, it is also a philosophy and practice.
>>>>>>On the cult's "Admin Scale," above " policy" is "purposes," and above
>>>>>>"purposes" is "goals." Fair game is in alignment with, and is,
>>>>>>Scientology's purpose and goal. It is basic to Scientology, and
>>>>>>Scientology would not be Scientology without it. It is the philosophy
>>>>>>of Scientology that underlies and justifies every attack of every
>>>>>>description.
>>>>>
>>>>><cut -- you can put that all on a web page but I am not going to read it>
>>>>
>>>>That's fine. Web pages are made of course not to be read. But I really
>>>>was writing for other people on a.r.s. who might not know all this
>>>>already.
>>>
>>>Save your sarcasm for someone else who can appreciate it. I decide how to
>>>spend my time and am being honest when I say I don't read it.
>>
>>I understood what you said. It's just about as insulting as you be on
>>this newsgroup. I am so unworthy that you would snip what I write
>>without reading it, and then take the time to tell me and everyone
>>else you did so? Don't you think my tiny touch of sarcasm was well
>>deserved?
>
>I found you rude to assume I would be interested in your christian
>inspired text that go - for my taste - off the deep end.

Well, it couldn't have gone off the deep end for you, because you
didn't read it.

But it wasn't Christian inspired text. It was fair game inspired
text. It was in fact text which was inspired by your own text about
fair game. You inspired me to write what I wrote.

> I'd say the same
>to anyone else.

Why? If you think someone assumes you would be interested in what they
have to say you call them rude? That's a very unusual standard for
human interactions. It would make people very careful not to
communicate to you, I'd think.

What have you found to be the benefits of such a policy, as opposed,
e.g., to a policy of being grateful to someone who thought you might
be interested in his reasoned thoughts in response to the issue you
raised?

> If someone asks the time and I have given it to him, I
>don't expect a christian gospel and stuff about "extension of love". I am
>not interested.

Well, of course. But nobody asked you the time, and you certainly
didn't give me the time. You wrote about fair game. Fair game is a
basic Scientology concept, a manifestation of the philosophy. As such
it is properly compared and contrasted with other philosophies,
policies and practices. In my opinion, an excellent set of factors
with which to contrast fair game, and a set with which I have some
experience and understanding, are in Christian teachings, in Christian
philosophy, policy and practice.

How on earth was I to know you weren't interested in learning about
fair game through what I had to offer about fair game, when you were
discussing fair game, and had an obvious misunderstanding about the
"policy" and the "policy letters" of fair game. Doesn't it make sense
to provide some understanding of the relationship between the
philosophy, policy and practice? And aren't comparing and contrasting
concepts with other concepts generally accepted and acceptable
reasoning and communication tools for conveying or arriving at
understanding?

How was I to know that there was this one concept or philosophy that
was for some not visible reason taboo in comparing and contrasting
when discussing Scientology with you? There is no way usually to
predict that someone will be closed-minded on some subject, and I
think it would have been rude if I had treated you as if you were
closed-minded beforehand.

You probably were not aware, if you never read anything relating to
Christianity on a.r.s., that Scientology is specifically
anti-Christian. The cult is not specifically anti-Buddhism, or
anti-Judaism, or anti-Hinduism, but is specifically anti-Christian.
You won't hear Hubbard saying "The man under the bodhi tree. There was
no Buddha." In my opinion, Scientology's specific anti-Christian
teachings that, in addition to Christianity's obvious use in contrast
to fair game, makes it a specifically on-topic religion for a.r.s. Why
would you want to avoid anything to do with Christianity if you want
to understand all you can about Scientology?

"Extension of love," by the way is a psychological concept, which is
the alternative psychological response to "projection." It really
isn't all that frightening.

Here's part of what I wrote about projection, by the way, that you
snipped and didn't read, as rude and off the deep end:

"If an individual practices only projection he is a sociopath. If he
doesn't limit his projection to what is within the law, he is commonly
classified as a psychopath. Obviously the law allows anyone to project
all day long and to be a sociopath his whole life. If people organize
to put projection into practice, however, such an organization can
very easily become a criminal conspiracy. And that is what fair game
is."

>
>But next time I'll just skip the stuff instead and you can remain happy in
>the illusion that I cared for a good religious speech.

I had and have no such illusion. I thought you had an appreciation for
people communicating with reason. You still could.

>
>
>>>>>I do however not agree that 'fair game' is its purpose and goal. Its goal
>>>>>is power and ruining 'enemies' is just something that has to be done in
>>>>>the process. Ruining people costs resources they rather spend on
>>>>>expansion. Imho.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't one thing or the other. They don't do only what they'd rather
>>>>do.
>>>
>>>I don't say so either. They do ruin people. They do harass children of
>>>'enemies'. I know that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But I think you don't understand the cult's "admin scale." There is
>>>>alignment top to bottom on the scale. Scientology and Scientologists
>>>>cannot have a purpose "to forgive," as Christians can have.
>>>
>>>Yah, you lost me again..
>>
>>I understand. Are you familiar with Scientology's "admin scale? "
>
>
>Yep, and that is not what lost me. Where I got fed up is your insistance
>again to insert your new found religion. I am here for Scientology.

Well sure, and who or what isn't?

But how on earth can you discuss Scientology without access to
anything else with which to compare or contrast it?

If, for example, a psychologist showed up on a.r.s, and in a
discussion of Scientology mentioned psychology or psychological
concepts or Freud or Jung, would you get fed up because he inserted
another, or even his new found, mental therapy?

And since this newsgroup is alt.*religion*.scientology, and not
alt.*mentaltherapy*.scientology, wouldn't that make "religion" even
more on topic than "psychology" in discussing Scientology?

Do you get fed up when Jeff Jacobsen inserts Gandhi Tech as an
alternative to fair game?

Or is your getting fed up limited only to me? Or only to persons with
the nerve to contrast Christianity and Christian concepts and
philosophy to Scientology and Scientology's concepts in their
discussions?

Scientology claims to be compatible with Christianity, and
Scientology's claimed compatibility with Christianity is often
discussed here. Do you think that this is off topic? And how so?

How can anyone rationally criticize Scientology and not mention
something that is not Scientology? Immediately a person says that
something in Scientology is bad he posits that something else is
better. But if he can't consider anything that is not Scientology in
his discussion, he really cannot discuss much that is Scientology.

What is the real difference between a Christian using his Christian's
experiences, knowledge and philosophy in his discussion of
Scientology, and a logger using his logger's experiences, knowledge
and philosphy in a discussion of Scientology? In reality wouldn't the
Christian experience likely to be more on topic and related to the
Scientology "religion" than the logger experience? Would you snip
whatever someone wrote about his logging experience, in relation to,
e.g., Hubbard's logging "experience," because you're here for
Scientology, and not Hubbard's logging "experience" or anyone else's?

I would think, by the way, that all of us who claim to oppose
Scientology would go the extra step to understand and be tolerant of
religious beliefs, philosophies and practices, and to even advocate
discussions of such things, if only because we opponents are attacked
by the cult as closed-minded, intolerant, and bigotted. What do you
think?

>
>
>Anyway, to show you I do know the 'admin scale'. From MMTD:
>
>ADMIN SCALE, I have developed a scale for use
>which gives a sequence (and relative seniority) of subjects
>relating to organization:
>
> goals
> purposes
> policy
> plans
> programs
> projects
> orders
> ideal scenes
> stats
> valuable final products.
>
>This scale is worked up and worked down until it is (each item) in
>full agreement with the remaining items. In short, for success all
>these items in the scale must agree with all other items in the
>scale on the same subject. (HCO PL 6 Dec 70) See SCALE OF
>IMPORTANCE.

And that is why fair game exists at every point in Scientology's admin
scale. And why forgiveness, which is fair game's opposite, exists
nowhere on the scale.

Gerry

>
>====
>
>
>>Gerry
>>
>>>
>>>>they have a goal of total forgiveness. They can profess a goal like
>>>>"total freedom," but that is just a lie to cover their actual goal,
>>>>which aligns with fair game. They seek power not to be able to
>>>>forgive, but to be in a position to better fair game. They fair game
>>>>as a manifestation and demonstration of power. There is alignment from
>>>>bottom to top of the admin scale, and fair game is in and key to every
>>>>point on the scale.
>>>>
>>>>Gerry
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Gormez
>>>>>
>>>>>- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
>>>>>- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
>>>>>- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
>>>>>- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
>>>>
>>>>© Gerry Armstrong
>>>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike Gormez
>>>
>>>- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
>>>- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
>>>- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
>>>- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
>>
>>© Gerry Armstrong
>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>
>
>
>Mike Gormez
>
>- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
>- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
>- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
>- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Thread