Thanks, guys. Look at how Delphian vaguely and condescendingly describes its graduates - QUOTE:
The Delphi curriculum is designed to provide a student with the tools necessary to take him or her to the next step in life. Students learn how to identify their goals, do the planning required to achieve those goals, correct situations when those plans go awry and continually improve their own life condition. When they leave Delphi, our graduates are truly ready for their next big step, whatever that may be. END QUOTE from
http://www.delphian.org/delgrads/index.html

My comment: Nothing about Delphian grads going to college AT ALL. Compare to another West Coast private school, Marin Catholic High School of Kentfield, Calif.
QUOTE:
Once again Marin Catholic is proud to report that all of our graduates from the class of 2002 will attend college. 90% will attend a four-year college or university. END QUOTE from
http://www.marincatholic.org/matriculation.html

Which school is better preparing its students for a better life than flipping burgers (or cleaning Scientology Celebrity Centre toilets)?

Addendum to what I posted earlier:

Recently (within the past few years) while I was visiting Portland, Oregon on business, I drove out to Sheridan and up the hill to Delphi. I met a young man who kindly offered to give me a tour and show me the changes that had been made since I attended many years ago. He was to graduate that spring and attend college on the east coast that fall.

So some Delphi graduates DO go to college. I went to college myself after attending Delphi and Apple schools. But you are right that actual statistics are not provided.

On a related note, I once read a document somewhere on the internet (I think one of Mike Gormez's sites) by Delphi founder Alan Larsen bemoaning the hostile attitude many Scientlogists have toward higher education. This is based partly on sneering comments LRH occasionally made about universities. But my parents did not subscribe to this point of view, and I don't think the managememt of Delphi ever did either.

The differing attitudes toward higher education is an interesting schism within the Scientology culture.

Mike

Thanks, Mike. I'm glad that you and some other Delphian grads did go to college. I can see Delphian wanted to avoid the whole topic of how many of their grads went the higher-ed route. If their website admitted that, say, only 20% of graduates went to college, that would repel the non-Scientology parents who are shopping for a private school for their kids. For the hard-core Scientologist parents, they might feel uneasy that their little drug-free darling is going to be pals with any kids who are going to a university to learn about psychology and medicine advances beyond Scientology.

Moving on to Bernie's page on sporgeries. Bernie says there's no proof CoS is behind the sporgeries, and links here. A further link to eleven legal cases is an irelevant argument on a.r.s. about whether CoS or critics have won more court cases. Bernie claims critics on that "eleven legal cases" say Scientologists posted pro-Nazi statement. But nobody on that page says anything about pro-Nazi statements. Bernie has his links lost or mixed up, and the "eleven legal cases" page is not only irrelevant, it is five years out of date!
The other links on that page are circular, going back to the original sporgies page. Bernie needs to clean up these time-wasting circular links.

Bernie thinks the sporgeries are cute; he says "here are some wise words : "The raindrop weakly kicks to the pathetic forest..."

He links to the holysmoke page on sporgeries but doesn't seem to have read it!
http://www.holysmoke.org/forgeries/noring.htm
This page is fairly calm and factual. Notice that the author says he suspects CoS, but (at that time) he cannot prove the sporgeries were from CoS. At least this critic was careful with his words.

Bernie wished that everyone on a.r.s. would avoid the spam (using his how-to methods), then quietly accept illegal forgeries of people's internet identities. But circumstantial evidence, even if not permissable in a court of law, is permissable to TALK about. For example, if a car was stolen from a locked lot, and only one person had the key, it would be good citizenship for people to point to that person and ask authorities to investigate him. The actual trial would require proof. It is illogical that critics would waste hours to destroy their favorite critical site, so who else besides CoS is a suspect?

Even though Bernie linked to the holysmoke page on Sporgeries which clearly stated that Tory had helped CoS do the Sporgeries, Bernie again seems not to have read it. Since Tory can prove CoS was behind the sporgeries, Bernie should erase his bald claim that CoS "isn't" behind the sporgeries.

Been on a 2 week journey. But so glad to see this thread moving on.

Don Carlo,
You're do'n great on this topic! Keep up the fine work.

Mike D'W,
Your contributions are quite worthy of
valid considerations/examinations.

U-Mike,
Keep up the Agent Provacatuer gig, It's so you! ....and so OSA!

Having 2 children who endured Delphi
like schools (regretfully) this sub-topic extracted here needs LOTS of attention and exposure.

tp

Next Bernie page is about a critic webpage [url=http://bernie.cncfamily.com/irc_intro.htm"What is Scientology?"]What is Scientology?[/url]

The first excerpt is from a bunch of jokers and degraders - QUOTE:
<Tomomi>: hey! can I ask you "scientologists" a question?
if you dont mind of course

<D> sure. But we have to remove your brain first.
don't worry, we'll give you a receipt.
...
<Zinjifar> It's a squirrel world after all.
END QUOTE
This thread makes jokes but has several quite factual statements. I don't see how it establishes any myth other than that <D> and <Zinjifar> are smartasses.

The next section, about Xenu, is taken by Bernie as proof that critics think the Xenu myth is the core. I have already proved above that Bernie is partly right, to CoS, the Xenu myth is a core fact.

Bernie pounces on the line that "what we say is 100% true" as if the whole thread wasn't a wisecracking joke. The line that "Hubbard took dope and pulled it out of his ass this is called research" is obviously untrue. These guys are not making depositions in court cases. They are making jokes and throwing out sound bites that are their personal beliefs about CoS. I again state that any critic is both oversimplifying AND understating the truth about CoS. This happens in regular history class, too, which simplifies the incredibly complicated story of Richard III of England. The whole truth about every wrong, from forced abortions to Lisa McPherson, would take ten books to fully explain. On a usenet discussion, people HAVE to simplify the arguments. AND they can't list every wrong. So on each argument, CoS loses a little slack (through simplification) and wins a little slack (through there being too many crimes to easily list).

Bernie has ONE example to prove that at least one Scientologist can post on line, namely Enzo Piccone, here Yet, if you read Enzo, you'll see he is VERY careful to only criticize CoS in the most vague way. I would be interested in what would happen to Enzo if he criticized an issue that CoS was touchy about.

Bernie feels sorry for poor Scientologists, QUOTE:
When they do not fit the low picture critics would like them to be but try to communicate nevertheless, they are accused of being secret agent ("OSA') posters or have one or another hidden motive. The myth of "Scientologists are not allowed here (by COS) " fits at the same time 1) the picture of a totalitarian cult that forces its members away from outside criticism, 2) the justification as to why Scientologists don't usually come in these foums, and 3) dismissal of those who do come and make saillant points 'in spite" of being Scientologists.

In answer to (1):The critics are not saying that CoS doesn't allow any criticism; they are saying that CoS doesn't allow its members to come onto a.r.s. There have been a number of stories of people thrown out of CoS when their a.r.s. activity was discovered. So (1) is a Bernie overstatement.

In answer to (2): Bernie is sooo smug about how Scientologists come here, are appalled, and leave (probably for Freezone). Bernie calls himself an "indie" Scientologist and seems to see himself as a shepherd and wise counselor to ex-Scientologists, advising them to stay away from those mean a.r.s. posters and snarky OCMB critics. Bernie hurriedly shows them carefully selected "mean critic" posts and tut-tuts about how the ex-Scientologists should just rely on nice balanced Bernie for their understanding of CoS. Then Bernie pats himself on the back for having another "ally" in the anti-a.r.s., anti-OCMB camp.

I wish instead of carefully selecting "mean critics" sample, Bernie would decide in advance to pick a week, say November 10-17, 2003, and copy over to his own computer EVERY post made on a.r.s. and on OCMB that week. Then he could analyze it, counting every post where critics act superior to Scientology defenders, AND count every post where Scientology defenders act superior to critics. You'd find that belittling goes two ways on this message board.
Then, Bernie can count every post where critics are polite and non-superior, and where Scientology defenders are polite and non-superior. And then Bernie would show THAT week's worth of posts to new ex-Scientologists, and let them make a decision over that information. Bernie talks about being distorted, but is happy to whittle a.r.s. and OCMB down to a few pages where critics overstate their case in front of a Bernie who mildly talks about a "spiritual page" but has a secret, preachy, hypocritical agenda of gathering material for his website.

You have to look at the overall tone of the message board. A few snarky jokes do not contaminate an entire message board for a decade.

In answer to (3) Bernie should re-examine these "salient points" that Scientology defenders are making. Some of them are conceited and downright insulting. Critics are human and get sore when personally insulted. In addition, some of the points, even though they are "true" for the Scientology defender, are not "true" in the sense of objective reality. The critics do jump on mistakes, and they should. Bernie has so much pity for the misunderstood "moderate critics" (and so little pity for Lisa McPherson). Why not be grown-ups and stand up to a tough argument?

Christine Bailey
Next Bernie gives an example of a "moderate critic" who is jumped on,Christine Bailey
bailey: I have been lurking around here for about a 18 months and I have a question. Do you people ever do anything constructive like inform and educate or do you just like to see who can bitch the loudest and longest?

Lima bean: Tell us your crimes, fucker.
How do you feel about Safe being fucked over by Co$ management? Does your ethics officer know you read this entheta forum? Do the goddamn formula and get the fuck out.

Hartley Patterson: There are thousands of newgroups out there, millions of Web Pages, lots of mailing lists, IRC etc etc. And here you are reading a newsgroup you don't like for 18 months? And after that time all you can do is come out with a silly comment?
Nope. You are a troll most likely, employed by the CoS. What crimes have you comitted? END A.R.S. QUOTE

Now what might have irritated Lima bean and Hartley Patterson enough to insult tender Miss Bailey? Let’s list them.
1. She’s been lurking for about 18 months, and SHE’S asking them if they do anything constructive?
2. She uses the extremely impolite “you people.” Gotcha there, Bailey. QUOTE: it is politically incorrect to hate certain things, like minorities, or even to suggest such emotions by, say, telling ethnic jokes or referring to the NAACP, collectively, as Ross Perot once did, as "you people."

3. She uses the bitch word to summary what “you people” do.

Summary: Bailey is setting a trap to see who will insult her back, preferably with swear words. She is immediately rewarded with one obscene post and then someone who calls here a troll. Bernie is so careful to explain Bailey’s posts in ANOTHER newsgroup as being a member of another religion. How the hell were Lima bean and Harltey Patterson to know about her identity on other newsgroups? If she HAD been 100% lurking, they would have had NO WAY to gauge Bailey’s philosophy except by the insulting post above.

But even Hartley said “You are a troll most likely” meaning that her post was trying to provoke a fight for (1) her own amusement and sense of superiority or (2) to make the a.r.s. community look bad. Hartley qualified his remark by saying "most likely," which seems reasonable to me.

Bernie KNOWS that a favorite line of OSA trolls is "what crimes have you committed?" If Bailey WERE an OSA troll, she might have been one of those annoying people saying that phrase. Lima bean and Hartley were both testing to see if Bailey would reply back something like "YOU'RE the ones with crimes." That would just about cinch it that Bailey was OSA. However, the test didn't work, since Bailey apparently wasn't OSA.

My conclusion is that Bernie just grabbed this thread as an example of critics insulting a counter-critic, without really reading the Bailey’s counter-critic statement to see what taunts it contained.

Overall, I return to my earlier argument. Since a.r.s. cannot stop anybody from changing their nickname and coming back under a new name, anybody can just say an annoying or insulting thing, hoping some critics will reply thoughtlessly, whereupon someone else can insult back, and so. With anonymity, these arguments are just sideshow entertainment to the real job of posting facts. The true identities are simply unverifiable, so you can’t use them to prove all trolls=critics and therefore critics=bigots.

Back to the "What is Scientology" webpage Look at Zinjifar's thoughtful reply to tomomi

QUOTE:
<tomomi> Sheep

<Zinjifar> : no tomomi
dupes yes
victims yes
hypnotic rondroids yes
but in general well meaning and intelligent people
who got scammed
END QUOTE
Hey, sounds pretty kind to me!
RPF
The RPF has already been discussed, that Bernie never addressed the troubling situation in Gold. These guys are wrong to claim Clearwater is RPF central. I think they are confusing the Lisa McPherson story with the RPF. With well-heeled public flying in for courses, CoS can't do intense RPF punishment in Clearwater, at least not at the Fort Harrison. But Gold, with that razor wire around it, and people who have not been heard from for years... it is worth talking about. RPF is not a myth; CoS admits to it. Whether the RPF at Gold is a prison camp is a troubling mystery. It's wrong to muzzle conversation about it when lives might be in danger.
Back to What is Scientology?
Now the old jokers and degraders say goodbye to the newbie totomi:
<D>: You can have your brain back now.

Then Bernie hops in and asks permission to re-post this conversation. I don't see where he actually got permission from anyone but Tashkent and (reluctantly) Zinjifar. N was adamant about not being quoted. I would like to see the posts where Tomomi, N, and D gave their permission. Otherwise again Bernie is again demonstrating inability to read.

Here Bernie shows no sense of humor or flow of conversation. He ignores <D>'s joke: QUOTE We left out the bit about E-meter nipple clamps. Darn! END QUOTE

The end of this page is the height of mealy-mouth hypocrisy. Bernie labels as "chilling" the above joke-fest Then he says it is "neither my goal nor my interest is to judge who is a "bigot".
Yet here are direct insults ON THIS PAGE by Bernie against critics of Scientology:

cultish
sinister
paranoia and cult phobia
sometimes turn out to be an even bigger danger than cults themselves.

AND his website has an entire section devoted to "Bigotry"

What this page has done is make me want to meet D and N and Zinjifar. They're like a great comedy team!

Sorry I'm new to this cat Bernie...but he sure reminds me of Bill Yaude. I know, I know..he SAYS he's an X. However, what X-Scientologist would
~totally~leave out what I have written about
OSA and how we opened up the phony accounts?

"Bernie" not only leaves ALL of what I've said out, he "Confirms" there's no proof. HA!

Hi Bill...nice try. And an entire Web site to 'Prove" there is "no proof"? Jeesh..that'd be funny, if it wasn't so Sick. Just who do I know who would be SO interested in "Proving" There is NO proof in the OSA Int Internet Top Secret Mafia actions? Ya....right. How long has that been around? Anyone know?

Well Don Carlo... what you've said is very good.

Has anyone met this supposed "Bernie", in person?

Please let me know.

Thanks

Tory/Magoo!

Ah Don-Carlo, thank you for that!

At the beginning of a sunny day and a few hours to spend on one of my favorite hobbies/interests/passions, it's heaven reading your posts re "Bernies" website.

Though the original challenge was abandoned, you're continuing to honor your part of the bargain, remain true to your commitment, and once again provide new posters with crucial information re the cult of scientology.

Do I dare say ARC to you? Or should that be ACK? Hee hee.

Keep it coming.

Thanks, Tory. Bernie indirectly links to your story, through the holysmoke link.
http://www.holysmoke.org/forgeries/forged.htm
Bernie should READ his own links, so he doesn't contradict himself.

I'm still giving Umike 24 hours between posts, but he's been gone for a few days. I'm going to keep going: Bernie's website is ripe with footbullets.

Anyone know what the standard RPF sentence is for not handling critics and SP's?
Maybe we will just have to see when Umike gets back.

Hi Don. Let me make a couple points here.

1. Analysis on my part about the forgeries/sporgeries is a daunting task. Why? Because they did happen. And critics also did same to make things appear worse than they were as did some hackers.
I have no idea which acts were committed by CoS.
No One Does,including Bernie.

2. I would like to talk about Tory Bezazians activity when she briefly worked for OSA. If you bring up some specific things she did, I will gladly comment. But, just reading Torys story and trying to garner facts,dates,sequence of events and precisely what she did and did not do
isn't easy. It is written in random blog style with no beginning or end.

There is another critical problem with discussing Torys past. She admits thruout her story that she was not quite sure what she actually did for Bill Yaude and Gavino Idda.
In my personal opinion she only knew what she was doing on a small scale. Im not trying to be insulting here but it's pretty ovious that was one reason she was chosen. She was nearly 100% computer illerate at the time.
It's not my style to comment without a solid reference. It's not fair to Tory.

Anyone who wants to debate about Tory will have to spend some time reading her various blog pages. It takes about 30-60 minutes to do that. She has, maybe a hundred pages? But they are very short. She should post the url again.

Umike

You're suddenly all concerned about being fair to Tory, Umike? Well, that's certainly a laudable, though inexplicable, change. How sweet...

I need some information as well. I'd like to know exactly when she started working with these guys. From memory...it started in 1998? unsure. What she exactly did...and a timeline of events would be helpful.

If she can't say what she did, and with what identities, that's a problem.

Umike


I try to be fair with everyone (scientologists included)
and you too TT.

Hrmmm... Yes, your behavior has certainly shown you to be entirely impartial, hasn't it? LOL

TT. I can't believe you even went there. I could make a career out of posting about your impartiality. But lets not.

Umike