|
|
 Up |
|
  |
|
|
|
Author: FappafappashoopshoopFappafappashoopshoop Date: Feb 26, 2008 02:51
>
> "barb" netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3aGwj.4227$QC.1101@newsfe20.lga...>> Nelson wrote:
>>> gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:da406038-05d5-46ce-831a-5d455ca62b9b@p43g2000hsc...
|
| Show full article (5.15Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: barbbarb Date: Feb 26, 2008 02:58
Fappafappashoopshoop wrote:
>> "barb" netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:3aGwj.4227$QC.1101@newsfe20.lga...>>> Nelson wrote:
>>>> gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:da406038-05d5-46ce-831a->>>> m...
>>>>> On Feb 25, 3:37 pm, "Nelson" wrote:
>>>>>> "Magoo" charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:e4Fwj.22$Mn7.6@newsfe06.lga...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RR (a Scientologist over on OCMB) says:
>>>>>>> "Simple fact. Children or any person can and have been ...
|
| Show full article (5.66Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: NelsonNelson Date: Feb 26, 2008 03:00
"Seebs" seebs.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfs6jak.811.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net...> On 2008-02-25, Nelson wrote:
>> Now now Tory, you know better than to write when you are angry. There is
>> no
>> liar lying like an angry man (or woman).
>
> I am obliged to agree that she cannot hold a candle to your dishonesty.
>
>
> Why would anyone want to go to a site run by the Church of Scientology
> that
> deceptively claims to be involved in "religious freedom", but in fact,
> does
> nothing but spread negative claims (some of them libel, it seems) about
> critics of the Church of Scientology?
>
> The URL alone is enough to tell us the whole story. Tory is by no means ...
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SkipperSkipper Date: Feb 26, 2008 04:08
In article read1.cgocable.net>, Nelson
wrote:
> "Skipper" wrote in message
> news:250220081549200427%%dadwriter@gmail.not...
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SeebsSeebs Date: Feb 26, 2008 04:20
On 2008-02-26, Nelson wrote:
> (snip) Seebs, I stopped and thunk when I was a teen.
And have you done so since?
> At that time I
> decided to take a path away from anything psychology, psychiatry or social
> work. Not because I did not want to work in any helping profession but
> because I did. I just did not see those professions helping. And that was
> BEFORE Scientology for me. Get over it.
Well, what decade are we talking about here?
If your argument is that some teenager somewhere concluded that he knew better
than anyone in the entire world on an issue he was utterly unqualified to even
speculate on, well, I must admit that you've totally convinced me. I think
that's exactly what happened.
|
| Show full article (2.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SeebsSeebs Date: Feb 26, 2008 04:22
On 2008-02-26, Nelson wrote:
> There are plenty of anti-psychiatry psychiatrists more than willing to
> expose all and that have done so. I look to them for "credibility" and back
> up of what LRH and CCHR has been telling us all along.
Could you name a few? Ideally, ones which are not funded by or having their
families threatened by the Church of Scientology?
Perhaps you could quote some primary sources, and show us some quotes that
aren't obvious quote-mining.
I've seen lots of psychologists argue for a need for improvement in
psychiatric care. What I've never seen, except for a small group of
"anti-psych" movements mostly bankrolled by the CoS, is anyone arguing that
the field as a whole is worse than nothing, or even just worthless.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SeebsSeebs Date: Feb 26, 2008 04:35
On 2008-02-26, Nelson wrote:
> Bullshit to "Is benzedrine a "psych drug"? It's used in
> Scientology to make people receptive to auditing" That's total bullshit.
Really?
Maybe I've been misinformed.
I was told that people sometimes used "Guk Bombs", described as a cocktail of
benzedrine, vitamins, and glutamic acid. See also Dianazene.
Could you confirm that, in fact, Hubbard never suggested or described these?
> If on the remote chance it is ever used for anyone under special
> circumstances it would be done through the persons medical doctor in
> cooperation with the C/S though I cant believe it is ever used.
Well, "can't believe" is uninformative. I'm not asking just about your
beliefs, but your *basis* for them. Do you have complete writings of Hubbard
available, and if so, have you gone through them for references? (I don't
just mean published works, but also memos and such; for instance, his
communications with Veterans' Affairs, etc.)
|
| Show full article (5.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SeebsSeebs Date: Feb 26, 2008 04:36
On 2008-02-26, Nelson wrote:
> Dont waste my time with your black PR doublespeak games. Nelson
Hang on!
Weren't you just accusing us of being unwilling to face things?
You've got the books, right? Go read the document cited. Surely, given
that it's LRH's writing directly on the matter of the tech, you have access
to it, right? So you should be able to *prove* that it's untrue, if it's
actually untrue.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: SeebsSeebs Date: Feb 26, 2008 04:37
On 2008-02-26, Nelson wrote:
> Seebs, sigh, I am already expelled, I don't have to blow.
Okay.
In that case, why are you referring people to a site maintained by the CoS,
and known to contain lies, fabrications, and deceptive material?
> And I dont have to join the anti-scientology cult.
I would hope not!
But there are a lot of options other than being in a cult on *either* side.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
