Is Scientology.org down?

[alex]

I think the post was well made. It gave information that was useful and clearly labeled links that were disturbing and I did not want to get into.
It does point out the flaws in their plans, such as the fact that most small orgs don't have a computer to piss on. And especially not in the front desk, and wireless??? pleaaase.
And any addresses are stored in thousands of paper folders in a basement somewhere. Emails in the HGO which should not be easy to get to. And the direct link to the scientology intranet, no idea about that.

But if the plan is to send disturbing emails to subscribers, then they are going to piss a lot of people off, including myself who still get spam from SH, Flag and Plymouth even though I have repeatedly asked them to take me off their lists.

Thankyou!

It is nice to be duplicated.

alex

 

[alex]

My emphasis - is that what you are trying to prove?

That seems to be the intent of your posts. Prove all critics are crazy as claimed by posting some hacker game plans and then see who agrees? Politely done of course.

I just doubt your motives here.

If I thought all critics were crazy, I wouldnt waste my time being here.

I am on this board as it is the largest collection of people in the world with similar experiences to mine. It is a place where people at least understand what I am saying alot of the time, and where I can say pretty much anything I choose.

When I say that some people ally themselves with the anons, maybe I should also say that perhaps they do not see that in themselves. It is not as if they come out and say "go for it" to them, but in subtle ways forward the anon intent.

I dont think any regular on this board agrees with the illegal aspects of their plans.

But many seem to feel "eye for an eye".

That is what I think needs to be examined.

I would encourage you to doubt my motives, as what you conceive them to be is not what I see them as.


alex

 

[lionheart]

If I thought all critics were crazy, I wouldnt waste my time being here.

I am on this board as it is the largest collection of people in the world with similar experiences to mine. It is a place where people at least understand what I am saying alot of the time, and where I can say pretty much anything I choose.

When I say that some people ally themselves with the anons, maybe I should also say that perhaps they do not see that in themselves. It is not as if they come out and say "go for it" to them, but in subtle ways forward the anon intent.

I dont think any regular on this board agrees with the illegal aspects of their plans.

But many seem to feel "eye for an eye".

That is what I think needs to be examined.

I would encourage you to doubt my motives, as what you conceive them to be is not what I see them as.


alex

I wonder if you imply that I believe in an "eye for an eye" as I qouted "he who lives by the sword.."

The point I was making is more subtle than that! I meant that the CofS believes in such things (Overt/Motivator sequence, pulling it in, etc) As an aside, I reject the concept entirely.

But the CofS believes in this stuff - that's the point. LRH and his disciples believed in SPs. Now the CofS has got them! They created them.

They believe that bad actions pull in bad things - they are now going to experience whatever these anonymous SPs do to them.

From a scientological point of view you could even say that LRH and his slaves have pushed and pushed with all this suppressive, abusive behaviour in order for someone in the world at large to come forward and prevent them.

Maybe it is now happening.

 

[alex]

I wonder if you imply that I believe in an "eye for an eye" as I qouted "he who lives by the sword.."

The point I was making is more subtle than that! I meant that the CofS believes in such things (Overt/Motivator sequence, pulling it in, etc) As an aside, I reject the concept entirely.

But the CofS believes in this stuff - that's the point. LRH and his disciples believed in SPs. Now the CofS has got them! They created them.

They believe that bad actions pull in bad things - they are now going to experience whatever these anonymous SPs do to them.

From a scientological point of view you could even say that LRH and his slaves have pushed and pushed with all this suppressive, abusive behaviour in order for someone in the world at large to come forward and prevent them.

Maybe it is now happening.

Yes I beleive that ones overts, (mine for instance) create motivators. (That is the overt motivator cycle, it begins with creation not effect, it begins with the overt not the motivator)

Telepathically, or karma or whatever.

I have had it demonstrated to me time after time in life.

I commit an "overt" and life puts in the balance.

At one time freeing people from suppressive valances was the work the work of scientology. Sadly it seems that to a large degree we (scientologists) are dramatizing what we resisted.

How to break the cycle.......?

Perhaps "be able to experience anything".

alex

 

[lionheart]

Yes I beleive that ones overts, (mine for instance) create motivators. (That is the overt motivator cycle, it begins with creation not effect, it begins with the overt not the motivator)

Telepathically, or karma or whatever.

I have had it demonstrated to me time after time in life.

I commit an "overt" and life puts in the balance.

At one time freeing people from suppressive valances was the work the work of scientology. Sadly it seems that to a large degree we (scientologists) are dramatizing what we resisted.

How to break the cycle.......?

Perhaps "be able to experience anything".

alex

Exactly!

Scientologists believe these things, so they create them.

The CofS created SPs, so they have them.

They have abused for decades, so they have created the abuse they are now getting.

The only point of divergence between us is that you believe "life" (whatever that is) puts in the balance, whereas I would say that the person themself does this, if they believe in things like overt/motivator sequence or in "pulling it in".

Ron created this belief in his followers as a control mechanism on them.

As a logical question to break this belief, you can ask yourself "how can one create an overt, unless the person recieving it has already created an overt for which this is now their motivator? So how can the overt always come first?"

This is why Scientologists get trapped into looking for earlier overts to explain motivators that they are receiving. It's an illogical mind-spin!

Another question: do you think the CofS is able to "experience anything"?

 

[Div6]

One of the GPM's installed as a part of R6 contains not only the belief of the O-M sequence, it dramatizes it so that it is APPARENTLY true.

Once you get all the charge off of it, and the incipient O\W's of enforcing it on others (this is mentioned in the first Australian ACC...."the basic overt is making another guilty of overts") you can walk away from the O/W sequence. Hubbard mentioned this in the HCOB "O-W A limited theory". O\W only comes into existence when one can no longer HELP: ie: provide pro-survival assistance.

Life becomes so much simpler without all of that crap around. Unfortunately, on this planet, people have an engram instead of a 4th dynamic...and they dramatize it over, and over, and over....

 

[alex]

One of the GPM's installed as a part of R6 contains not only the belief of the O-M sequence, it dramatizes it so that it is APPARENTLY true.

Once you get all the charge off of it, and the incipient O\W's of enforcing it on others (this is mentioned in the first Australian ACC...."the basic overt is making another guilty of overts") you can walk away from the O/W sequence. Hubbard mentioned this in the HCOB "O-W A limited theory". O\W only comes into existence when one can no longer HELP: ie: provide pro-survival assistance.

Life becomes so much simpler without all of that crap around. Unfortunately, on this planet, people have an engram instead of a 4th dynamic...and they dramatize it over, and over, and over....

"the basic overt is making another guilty of overts" in other words not be able to experience anything.

Sure exterior to the context in which we seem to live the o/w phenomenon can be irrelevant.

But if I were to start saying that there really is not good or evil outside my own and others considerations, I would surely be jumped upon as a scientologist justifying, rather than making an interesting philisopical point.

I am an existentialist.

And you can probably do that math.


alex

 

[alex]

Exactly!

Scientologists believe these things, so they create them.

The CofS created SPs, so they have them.

They have abused for decades, so they have created the abuse they are now getting.

The only point of divergence between us is that you believe "life" (whatever that is) puts in the balance, whereas I would say that the person themself does this, if they believe in things like overt/motivator sequence or in "pulling it in".

Ron created this belief in his followers as a control mechanism on them.

As a logical question to break this belief, you can ask yourself "how can one create an overt, unless the person recieving it has already created an overt for which this is now their motivator? So how can the overt always come first?"

This is why Scientologists get trapped into looking for earlier overts to explain motivators that they are receiving. It's an illogical mind-spin!

Another question: do you think the CofS is able to "experience anything"?

I believe that the o/w phenomenon is observable in life. It exists in the context we mostly live, whether by implant or whatever. I dont agree that Ron invented it to trap people. He observed it. People trap themselves by not also observting and acting in a manner not to be effect.

Obviously the church is not able to experience anything, the "church" being a loose collection of individuals.

But then providing an opposing terminal is to be stuck in the same game, different role.

That ironically is how I can remain in the church and not get expelled. I just dont mock up being an opterm. Interestingly most scientologists dont seem to be able to read my mind. And the ones that can, understand.

alex

 

[alex]

By the way www.scientology.org is now loading faster than before the attacks.

alex

 

[Tanstaafl]

By the way www.scientology.org is now loading faster than before the attacks.

alex

True. The Empire Strikes Back!

 

[Zinjifar]

That ironically is how I can remain in the church and not get expelled. I just dont mock up being an opterm. Interestingly most scientologists dont seem to be able to read my mind. And the ones that can, understand.

alex

Uh huh. You can post here, be 'on course' and even have the 'Church' know about it, including your numerous posts about the evils of 'current management' because you're not 'mocking up being an OPterm'

Riiiiiiiiight...

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

Uh huh. You can post here, be 'on course' and even have the 'Church' know about it, including your numerous posts about the evils of 'current management' because you're not 'mocking up being an OPterm'

Riiiiiiiiight...

Zinj

Zinj, would you mind explaining to this "slippery sucker" what your problem is with Alex? Just curious, is all.

 

[Zinjifar]

Zinj, would you mind explaining to this "slippery sucker" what your problem is with Alex? Just curious, is all.

I don't have a problem with Alex; I just don't buy his 'cover story'. And, for the most part, his 'cover story' is itself the message; i.e. that one can be an 'independent thinking Scientologist' within the 'Church'.

Beyond that obvious 'out point', there are other less obvious ones, such as ongoing attacks against *specific* individuals (on ARS, on ESMB Alex is more the happy-face) and occassional 'special op', like doing his best to 'associate' ESMB with illegality, I dont' have any problems with Alex at all.

He seems like a nice guy; or, at least he plays one for the most part.

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

I don't have a problem with Alex; I just don't buy his 'cover story'. And, for the most part, his 'cover story' is itself the message; i.e. that one can be an 'independent thinking Scientologist' within the 'Church'.

Beyond that obvious 'out point', there are other less obvious ones, such as ongoing attacks against *specific* individuals (on ARS, on ESMB Alex is more the happy-face) and occassional 'special op', like doing his best to 'associate' ESMB with illegality, I dont' have any problems with Alex at all.

He seems like a nice guy; or, at least he plays one for the most part.

Zinj

Thanks Zinj. As I said, I was just curious.

 

[alex]

I don't have a problem with Alex; I just don't buy his 'cover story'. And, for the most part, his 'cover story' is itself the message; i.e. that one can be an 'independent thinking Scientologist' within the 'Church'.

Beyond that obvious 'out point', there are other less obvious ones, such as ongoing attacks against *specific* individuals (on ARS, on ESMB Alex is more the happy-face) and occassional 'special op', like doing his best to 'associate' ESMB with illegality, I dont' have any problems with Alex at all.

He seems like a nice guy; or, at least he plays one for the most part.

Zinj

The only real problem I have with the above is the implication that I intended to associate esmb with illegality.

While I can see how Emma may have seen it that way, and of course you, I was just sloppy, not devious.

Ironically my "cover story" and "meta message" are unintentional. Most all the details I have posted about myself are true and accurate. The name Alex is the biggest "lie". (actually it is a name from a previous life, that I still have family connections too so it is not as much a lie as it could be. I answer to it in my head and memories).

Zinj, you would be surprised what some scientologist believe yet still stay with the church.

But I do appreciate that you are honest about how you see me.

It amuses me.


alex

 

[Zinjifar]

Zinj, you would be surprised what some scientologist believe yet still stay with the church.

But I do appreciate that you are honest about how you see me.

It amuses me.


alex

Alex, niether what some Scientologists 'believe' nor the fact that they remain in the 'Church' tends to surprise me, much

What I find incredible is that a Scientologist could say what you do about the 'current management' and Davey himself, and, have the 'Church' aware of it, and still remain in the 'Church' (and, on course) unless the 'Church' actually wanted to get exactly that message out.

And, I think you're too intelligent to be an unwitting pawn in such a deliberate bit of disinfo.

Actually, it's not even a new message. The 'Church' has been sending it for years now, apparently having despaired of convincing the broad public or wogs that the 'Church' itself is a benign entity. Rightly so

It seems to serve at least two purposes; first, to lull the suspicions of the 'Say Xenu!' crowd, and, second, to serve as a deliberate bit of 'third partying' to divide the 'Tech Good!' crowd from the 'Tech not good' bunch.

I do think you'd be able to do your job better if they didn't keep 'all handsing' you into the more 'direct' type personal DA ops.

Zinj

 

[Pascal]

Yawn!

Alex is a cowardly wretch. Hiding behind a false name. Shows he or she is afraid, hence quite low on the bridge or low on theta. I think both. A typical product of DM's.

 

[alex]

Alex, niether what some Scientologists 'believe' nor the fact that they remain in the 'Church' tends to surprise me, much

What I find incredible is that a Scientologist could say what you do about the 'current management' and Davey himself, and, have the 'Church' aware of it, and still remain in the 'Church' (and, on course) unless the 'Church' actually wanted to get exactly that message out.

And, I think you're too intelligent to be an unwitting pawn in such a deliberate bit of disinfo.

Actually, it's not even a new message. The 'Church' has been sending it for years now, apparently having despaired of convincing the broad public or wogs that the 'Church' itself is a benign entity. Rightly so

It seems to serve at least two purposes; first, to lull the suspicions of the 'Say Xenu!' crowd, and, second, to serve as a deliberate bit of 'third partying' to divide the 'Tech Good!' crowd from the 'Tech not good' bunch.

I do think you'd be able to do your job better if they didn't keep 'all handsing' you into the more 'direct' type personal DA ops.

Zinj

Sorry zinj, but child molestors deserve my attention. Keith is too smart to be so "innocent".


a

 

[Zinjifar]

Sorry zinj, but child molestors deserve my attention. Keith is too smart to be so "innocent".


a

Silly Alex. Even ignoring the current version of 'guilty by Internet', Keith Henson was on your 'attack list' long before, despite the transparent perversion of justice inherent of a conviction for 'interfering with a religion' for walking the public road outside of 'Gold Base' in Gilman Hot Springs carrying a sign...

But wait! There's More!

He's not the only person on your list. There's also Tory Christman and Phil Scott and some others I can't remember immediately who have achieved an amazing level of personal venom from you, despite your here-demonstrated exalted 'spiritual state'.

Naturally, there are also questionable elements to your support for an organization that programmatically *covers up* child molestation, which would, of itself, not be unique, but, does so as a matter of *religious dogma*!!

No Alex; at the very least you're a hypocrite, but, I suspect you are more of a 'true believer' whose concept of 'Ethics' is firmly grounded in Ron's own.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

Silly Alex. Even ignoring the current version of 'guilty by Internet', Keith Henson was on your 'attack list' long before, despite the transparent perversion of justice inherent of a conviction for 'interfering with a religion' for walking the public road outside of 'Gold Base' in Gilman Hot Springs carrying a sign...

But wait! There's More!

He's not the only person on your list. There's also Tory Christman and Phil Scott and some others I can't remember immediately who have achieved an amazing level of personal venom from you, despite your here-demonstrated exalted 'spiritual state'.

Naturally, there are also questionable elements to your support for an organization that programmatically *covers up* child molestation, which would, of itself, not be unique, but, does so as a matter of *religious dogma*!!

No Alex; at the very least you're a hypocrite, but, I suspect you are more of a 'true believer' whose concept of 'Ethics' is firmly grounded in Ron's own.

Zinj

Zinj raises an awful interesting point, Alex.

I have seen first hand the sexual molestation that your Church hides from the authorities, and have reported on it here and elsewhere.

Never once did you ever act like you cared at all about what I had to say.

And yet here you say:

Sorry zinj, but child molestors deserve my attention. Keith is too smart to be so "innocent".

How do you explain the apparent contradiction between your actions and your words?

What are you doing to ensure that the Church of Scientology stops covering up for child molesters in their ranks?