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

 
 
 
 

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Martin Ottmann -- Request for clarification of term
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:37:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3ps9qvkm8ou68e4lsotg3b5vd5re3ka3jm@4ax.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: 217.228.181.70
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.228.181.70
X-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 15:38:11 -0500, 217.228.181.70
X-Original-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 15:38:11 -0500, 217.228.181.70
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 150
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654215

It has been observed over the past several years that Scientology's
purposes for its actions regarding a.r.s. include making the newsgroup
unreadable, turning the cult's opponents on each other, shuddering the
opponents in silence, and destroying participation.

I believe that it is helpful that those who form the opposition
recognize these actions and the cult's malevolent purposes toward the
opponents. I also believe that it is helpful to expose and oppose
these actions and to do what is reasonable to prevent the cult's
forward progress along these purpose lines.

That is why I am taking the time to address and attempt to resolve the
issue of so-called opponents by their actions serving the cult's
purposes. I believe that to accept the false idea being proffered that
it is impossible for so-called opponents to serve Scientology's
purposes, unless they are employed by, under orders from, or
otherwise officially connected to Scientology, does not do the
opposition any good but in fact is disinformation that serves the
cult's purposes.

That is why I am continuing to try to get Martin to clarify his terms,
and to demonstrate that the limitation or qualifier he is seeking to
impose on what the phrase or concept "to serve an oragnization's
purposes" means is spurious.

*****

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>

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.

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.

Do you agree that for someone "to serve an organization's purposes"
that person need not be employed by, under orders from or otherwise
officially connected to that organization?

In order to prove you wrong, of course, it is only necessary to get
you to agree to this understanding for the concept "to serve an
organization's purposes."

You are insisting on your redefinition of the phrase and concept "to
serve an organization's purposes" in which, in order "to serve an
organization's purposes," a person would have to be employed by, under
orders from or otherwise officially connected to that organization.

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.

If we didn't first agree to the meaning of this term "to serve some
organization's purpose," I would give you an example of some action by
someone, not employed by, not under orders from and not otherwise
officially connected to Scientology that serves the cult's purposes.
And then you would say, no, that can't serve the cult's purposes
because, pursuant to your defintion, the person doing the serving
isn't employed by, under orders from or otherwise officially connected
to Scientology.

Jeff Jacobsen writes in a recent post:

[Quote]

Scientology wants this newsgroup to be unappetizing to readers who are
looking for information about Scientology.

[End Quote]
Message-ID: <vpg2ou3v7c8l58@corp.supernews.com>

In other words, the cult has a *purpose* of making this newsgroup be
unappetizing to readers who are looking for information about
Scientology.

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.

Jeff appears to be under no delusion that in order to serve the cult's
purposes a person would have to be employed by, under orders from or
otherwise officially connected to Scientology.

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.

So, let's go back to seeing if we can reach an agreement on a
definition for the phrase and concept "to serve a purpose of some
organization and entity." The usual, standard, accepted understanding
and meaning of the phrase or concept is unrelated to the actor's
"connection" to the organization whose purposes he might serve. Can we
agree on that?

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

 

 
 

Thread

 

 

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