From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry @gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: kids
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 18:29:30 +0100
Message-ID: <igq7qvgpfctfmsgfr5qn8k2kh9tij23b6r@4ax.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>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.224.14
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.224.14
X-Trace: 1 Nov 2003 12:29:47 -0500, 217.88.224.14
X-Original-Trace: 1 Nov 2003 12:29:47 -0500, 217.88.224.14
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 391
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653738

On 31 Oct 2003 15:02:45 -0800, martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin
Ottmann) wrote:

>martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann) wrote in message news:< 71d327bb.0310301352.2b8913e5@posting.google.com>...
>
>> > And I say that in their totality and in specifics they serve
>> > Scientology's malevolent purposes.
>> >
>> > Let's go back to the Bob Minton example. No, let's choose someone who
>> > is in a more equivalent position or status to me in relation to
>> > Scientology, for example, Ken Dandar. Dandar is engaged in a huge
>> > on-going case against the cult. So am I. Dandar is an attorney. I am
>> > my own attorney. So there's a reasonable parallel between us in our
>> > relation to Scientology, at least in the legal area.
>> >
>> > Now let's say that a group of people made two hundred ninety or so
>> > posts in which they accused Dandar of being, among other nasty lies, a
>> > coward, insane, a kook, a despicable liar, a fake Christian,
>> > anti-Semitic, a true moron, a brainwashed zombie, a leader of
>> > sycophants, a cultist, dull and simple, delusional, cynical and
>> > dishonest, and they charged that what Dandar's doing constitutes hate,
>> > that he's a down and out celebrity seeker, that the authorities should
>> > be alerted about his travels, that his "logic" meets none of the
>> > minimal standards to so qualify, that he writes demented nut rants,
>> > that he's quite a pro when it comes to chomping and swallowing, that
>> > the Lisa McPherson website is no more than a product of Dandar's
>> > fertile paranoia, that his writing sounds like he's syphilitic, that
>> > if in a cubicle with Dandar and someone else it would be best to
>> > choose Dandar and then shoot him, and that the solution for Dandar is
>> > a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on his head at the nearest
>> > sewage facility. Would you say it's complete bullshit that these
>> > statements could serve the cult's malevolent purposes toward Ken
>> > Dandar?
>>
>> 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.

First you defined "connected" as the level of " connection" you
yourself had to Scientology prior to July 1992. 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. Presumably you were a "Scientologist in good standing"
before July 1992; so that is the level or form of "connection" we're
talking about.

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

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."

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?

If it is, I must say it's BS. As you know, the cult has a long term
vital target given by Hubbard in 1969, on which the cult has been
operating ever since, of "depopularizing the enemy to a point of total
obliteration." HCO Policy Letter of 16 February, 1969, "Targets,
Defense."

[Quote]

The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:

T1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.

[End Quote]
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/english/targets.html

Therefore, actions that "depopularize the enemy," among whose numbers
I do include myself, serve the cult's malevolent purposes toward its
"enemy," regardless of whether the depopularizers doing the
depopularizing are Scientologists in good standing, whether they are
doing their depopularizing as "part of an OSA operation," or whether
they are even aware that in their depopularizing of the "enemy" they
are serving the cult's purposes.

Serving an entity's purposes has to do with the form, content and
intent of action taken, and may be unrelated to the relationship
between the actor and the entity whose purposes are being served. You
are attempting to define the serving of the entity's purposes solely
by the relationship between the actor and entity. This is not honest.

Indeed, a formally employed OSA operative, in fact one assigned to an
OSA mission with a stated purpose of destroying a cult's opponent,
can, by his actions, serve the opponent's purposes. He might, for
example, leave his MOs lying around to be found and filed in court
exposing the mission and the malevolent purpose. See, e.g.,
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/osa-msn-ord-1984-05-28.html

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.

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.

If instead of shooting his fellow soldier, the man on the Allies'
side gave him ammunition, fed him, encouraged him in battle, etc. he
would not be serving the Axis' purposes.

Even if the soldier on the Allies' side didn't shoot his fellow
soldier, but simply spread lies and black PR about him to the rest of
the troops, the liar would be serving the Axis' purposes. The liar
would be serving the function of undermining morale as the Tokyo Roses
and the Lord Ha-Has did.

It is obvious that the Allied soldier who shoots his fellow soldiers
does not have to be an Axis agent in good standing and part of an Axis
operation in order to serve Axis purposes. In this case, if the
shooter's aim is conscious, he knowingly serves the Axis purposes.
Most, certainly, of the people who inhabit the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page
are knowingly on notice, and I believe are conscious of their serving
Scientology's malevolent puposes.

As for the fact that a.r.s. isn't WW II, yes, but it's an irrelevancy.
WW II is a usable paradigm for a rational discussion of the meaning of
the concept of serving an organization's, or army's, or side's
purposes.

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?

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.

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.

"Insurgents," still loyal to Saddam, get together for the purpose of
creating chaos and instilling fear in the occupying American troops.
Al Qaeda, loyal to Osama, begins operating in Iraq. Al Qaeda
operatives, not Iraqi insurgents in good standing, and not working off
Saddam loyalist mission orders or operations targets, attack a U.S.
convoy. Even though they have their own purposes, these Al Qaeda
operatives are also serving the Iraqi insurgents' purposes. This same
attack can even serve the purposes of people in the U.S. Government
who may be seeking more money or more troops to combat the insurgency.

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.

Whether the serving of the cult's purposes is knowing or unknowing is
irrelevant. In fact, having someone "unknowingly" serve the cult's
purposes can itself serve the cult's purposes.

You yourself, in your effort here to redefine terms into something
nonsensical, can be serving the cult's purposes. Your unawareness of
what you're doing, whether or not your unawarness is pretended, can
serve the cult's purposes, because one of the cult's purposes is to
keep people unaware.

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."

>> Here is a nice example for
>> that, where Dandar just fits in:
>>
>> SP Times from April 20th, 2002:] [...] On Friday, Minton, one of
>> Scientology's most vocal critics, sat in court and testified for the
>> church in a related case. "Mr. Dandar is a lying thief," Minton said,
>> hitting his fist on the witness box. [...]
>>
>> In this case I totally agree with you: Minton is serving OSA's
>> purposes. I assume, per your logic, you agree with me on this one,
>> correct?
>
>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?

>
>De: Bob Minton (bob@minton.org)
>Objet: Re: Bob Minton's expenditure - open contest
>Groupes de discussion: alt.religion.scientology
>Date: 1999/09/27
>
>On 27 Sep 1999 16:01:29 -0400, Karl Kluge
><kckluge@yarf.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>>Bob Minton <bob@minton.org> writes:
>>
>>> When you walk like an OSA Whore, talk like an OSA Whore and act
>>> like an OSA Whore, Diane, don't be surprised that many believe you
>>> are indeed an OSA Whore.
>>
>>You know, you throw the word "whore" around with suprising casualness
>for a
>>man who was screwing the current love of his life while you were both
>married
>>to other people.
>
>Speaking of an OSA Whore, Mr. Kluge arrives! You're one of the
>"Loyalists"
>who pretended to be a disaffected Scientologist and along with Rinder
>and a few
>other OSA whores approached Gerry Armstrong for help in fucking
>Miscavige. Was
>that in 1990, in Griffith's Park while Gene Ingram videotaped the
>whole sorid
>affair over several weeks? Do I have the right OSA Whore Kluge?
>
>I thought so.
>
>Bob Minton [end of post]
>
>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.

If Bob Minton mistook Karl Kluge for David Kluge, the amount of damage
done serving Scientology's purposes is minimal. It is present, because
it is certainly a purpose of Scientology to get its opponents making
false accusations.

I acted to minimize any damage that served Scientology's purposes by
correcting Bob's mistake. If Bob had continued to insist that Karl
Kluge was really the OSA agent Dave Kluge who worked to entrap me,
then Bob would have been doing more to serve the cult's malevolent
purposes.

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. You most definitely can serve Scientology's purposes
in your present status or "connection" or "non-connection" to the
cult, whatever that status or "connection" or "non- connection" is.

>
>But according to your own standards you will tell me in your next
>reply that such "an unmerited attack by someone who professes to be a
>critic" (Minton) against an "opponent of Scientology" (Karl Kluge) did
>indeed "serve the organization's malevolent purposes", correct?

Well there you go.

>
>Please note that in this case Minton did not state a mere opinion but
>an actual *claim* that was utterly false and that was proven wrong by
>no other person than you:

Well there you go again.

That one assertion is claimed to be an "opinion" and another is
claimed to be a "claim" does not make the "opinion" exempt or immune
from examination. Let's say that someone said, for example: "My
opinion is that Martin is still a Scientology operative, and that his
leaving Scientology was faked and his posting of a few of the cult's
documents that were already available was just to get accepted into
the opposition where he could spread disinformation and continue to
serve the cult's purposes." Would you say that such an " opinion" has
to be left alone, and that it would be wrong to insist on evidence to
support the "opinion" because it's an "opinion?"

How about if someone said, for example: "My opinion is that it's an
absolute fact demonstrated with overwhelming evidence and beyond any
argument that when Martin filed his complaint targeting Bob Minton he
was not only working for Miscavige but that OSA's lawyers actually
wrote the complaint?" Is that a mere "opinion" because it says the
magic word "opinion?" And if so, is it just fine, and really doesn't
call into question your actions, motives and connections because it's
a mere opinion?

How about if someone in response to this "opinion" says: " Well as
anyone but his own braindead sycophants knows, Martin is a despicable
liar. So that proves it for me."

How about if someone else pipes up: "I don't think he's doing it
because he's a kook. He's actually cynical and dishonest."

How about if a dozen people start calling you a coward, a thief,
demented, insane, a paranoiac, and suggest you deserve to be killed
and dumped in a sewer? How about if you really had not faked your
leaving Scientology, and really had not posted the cult's documents
just to ingratiate yourself with the opposition you were trying to
infiltrate, and really weren't a coward, a thief, demented, insane or
paranoid; but, because of all these "opinions" posted over and over,
everyone on a.r.s., or even the rest of the world, was turned totally
against you, lost all trust in you, and joined in the attack on you?
Would that serve Scientology's purpose of depopularizing you to the
point of total obliteration?

You know that a lawyer can serve Scientology's purposes, without being
a Scientologist in good standing, right? Did you realize too that a
law can serve Scientology's purposes? Did you realize that a building
can serve Scientology's purposes? Did you realize that the Internet
can serve Scientology's purposes? Well so can a.r.s. And so can posts
made to a.r.s.

>
>De: gerry armstrong (armstrong@dowco.com)
>Objet: Re: Bob Minton's expenditure - open contest
>Groupes de discussion: alt.religion.scientology
>Date: 1999/09/28
>
>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:14:45 -0400, Bob Minton <bob@minton.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Speaking of an OSA Whore, Mr. Kluge arrives! You're one of the
>"Loyalists"
>>who pretended to be a disaffected Scientologist and along with Rinder
>and a few
>>other OSA whores approached Gerry Armstrong for help in fucking
>Miscavige.
>
>That OSA whore was Dave Kluge.
>
>>Was
>>that in 1990, in Griffith's Park while Gene Ingram videotaped the
>whole sorid
>>affair over several weeks?
>
>That was in November, 1984 in Griffith Park in LA.
>
>>Do I have the right OSA Whore Kluge?
>
>I think this Karl Kluge is not Dave Kluge. And my guess is Karl is not
>a $cientologist. Karl has made a few posts recently to ars. Perhaps he
>will tell us all about himself.
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong [end of post]

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?

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

Thread