"cult (kÅ­lt) n.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest."

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

So, basically a cult is a derogatory term for anyone committed to anything that anyone doesn't like. So everyone who has ever been committed to anything is in a "cult." Just thought you guys might want to know what a "cult" is since you like using the term so much.

Dear Fellow Cult Member,

Cult is an all inclusive term, although popular usage since Jonestown, ec. defines a cult as something destructive.

Therefore, not to confuse, it is a good idea when speaking about the COS and other "destructive cults" to call them "destructive cults". Real religions unless they have leaders who are turning them into "destructive cults" are benign cults.
Many people consider the Mormons, J.W.'s and even Catholoics as "cults' but they learn more to the benign side of the scale than to the destructive side.

HTH

Tigger

I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.
-Albert Einstein

One for seriousness
"Oderint, dum metuant" Cicero
Let them hate, as long as they fear.

I think CoS is working hard on this one.

And one for fun! The one that made me laugh really really hard for quite a while. You do need a couple of courses (remembered) in calc
to really see the humor.


Excerpted from Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Tape #58
[some text dropped]
"Rate of change is this mathematics known as Calculus. Calculus, it's a very interesting thing, is divided into two classes -- there's Differential Calculus and Integral Calculus. The Differential Calculus is in the first part of the textbook on Calculus, and Integral Calculus is in the second part of the textbook on Calculus. As you look through the book, you'll find in the early part of the book on Calculus, "dx" over "dy", a little "dx", and a little "dy" -- and one's above the other on a line -- predominates in the front part of the book, but as you get to the end of the book you find these "dx" and "dy"s preceded by a summation sign, or are equating to a summation sign, and the presence of this shows that we are in the field of Integral Calculus.
Now I hope you understand this, because I've never been able to make head nor tail of it. It must be some sort of a Black Magic operation, started out by the Luce cult -- some immoral people who are operating up in New York City, Rockefeller Plaza -- been thoroughly condemned by the whole society. Anyway, their rate-of-change theory -- I've never seen any use for that mathematics, by the way -- I love that mathematics, because it -- I asked an engineer, one time, who was in his 6th year of engineering, if he'd ever used Calculus, and he told me yeah, once, once I did, he said. When did you use it? And he said I used it once. Let me see, what did you use it on? Oh yeah. Something on the rate-of-change of steam particles in boilers. And then we went out and tested it and found the answer was wrong.

Calculus -- if you want to know -- there is room there for a mathematics which is a good mathematics. And it would be the rate of co-change, or the rate of change when something else was changing, so that you could establish existing rates of change in relationship to each other, and for lack of that mathematics, nobody has been able to understand present time -- you just can't sum it up easily -- or let us say, for lack of an understanding of what present time was, nobody could formulate that mathematics. So, actually there's a big hole there that could be filled -- a thing called calculus is trying to fill that hole, right now, and it can't.

But the rates of change -- it comes closest to it. I think it was one of Newton's practical jokes. Here we have Calculus, and it's trying to measure a rate of change. Well, if we had something that was really workable and simple, it would be formed on this basis. The present time, and gradients of time were gradients of havingness, and as one havingness changed, you could establish a constancy of change for other related havingnesses. But because the basic unit of the universe is two, you would have to have a rate of change known and measured for every rate of change then estimated. The mathematics won't operate in this universe unless it has simultaneous equations. If you have two variables, you must have two equations with which to solve those two variables. In other words you have to compare one to the other simultaneously. Otherwise you just get another variable. Of course, people laughingly do this. They take an equation with two variables, and then they solve it. And then you say "What have you got?" And the fellow says "K". And you say now just a minute -- you got "K", huh? Well, what is "K"? Well "K", we have established arbitrarily as being -- well, say, why did you work the equation out in the first place? You had "K", didn't you?"

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
- R.A. Heinlein

Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent.
R.A. Heinlein

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

George Orwell

"Although the world is full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it."
-Helen Keller


"Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen."
-Maimonides

"I am responsible for everything... except my very responsibility."
- Jean-Paul Sartre


"The cruelest lies are often told in silence."
- Robert Louis Stevenson


"You can corrupt men but you cannot corrupt innocence."
- Frank Black (Millennium)

Show me an OT, and what he does right now to help mankind.

Put all the OT's in one place at one time against something evil and let us see what can done about it. (this is called greatest good)

In "86", senior c/s fso put out an order to all the OT to stop a hurricane from racking clearwater, it didn't happen

"Sea Org training techniques intentionally bypassed the mind's protection and made robots. Consider, for example, the early FEBC (Flag Executive Briefing Course) students studying with poor food and sleep in a dangerous environment (Ethics etc.) under heavy time and peer pressure with literal minded instructors and occasional bouts of physical duress ( "run around the deck 10 times" ). Listening to the course tapes in a reasonable environment, you might actually learn something from them. But most of the original students came back crazy as loons and acted like dramatizing psychotics."

The Pilot

People don't change because they see the light;they change because they feel the heat...

(Let's hope CO$ feels some of that heat to change because I don't think they will ever see the light)

Diane

"Rondroids" Graphitti spray painted on the back of the AOLA Scientology building circa 1990.

The Ten Types of Newsgroup/MB Users

The Lurker -- Never posts, never replys just observes.

The Vulture -- Never posts, but ready and waiting to point out any fault in your post.

The Knit Picker -- Never posts but will break down, question and analize your post until it is no longer funny.

The Poacher -- Never posts, but will reply to another post with a better or different punchline, stealing the laugh.

The Flame Fodder -- Usually a newbie who asked a lame question, usually in the wrong group. No mercy is shown.

The News Cop -- Only ever post to tell people they are in the wrong group or to stop spamming etc.

The Wacko -- Will often post a message or joke which makes no sense. The wacko will never post again. Strange.

The Spammer -- we all HATE the spammer!!!!

The Stealth Spammer -- Post Spams that need to be read before you can tell its a spam.

The Hero -- This brave person often posts at the mercy of the Vultures, knit pickers and the pouchers.


Which are you?

The Seven Stages of a Usenet Poster,
with illustrative Examples

1. Innocence

HI. I AM NEW HERE. WHY DO THEY CALL THIS TALK.BIZARRE? I THINK THAT THIS NEWSGROUP (OOPS, NEWSFROUP -- HEE, HEE) STUFF IS REAL NEAT. <-- MY FIRST SMILEY; DO YOU HAVE INTERESTING ONES? PLEASE POST SOME; I THINK THAT THEIR COOL. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY BIZARRE DEAD BABY JOKES?

2. Enthusiasm

Wow! This stuff is great! But one thing I've noticed is that everytime
someone tries to tell a dead baby jokes, everyone says that they don't want
to hear them. This really sucks; there are a lot of us who *like* dead
baby jokes. Therefore, I propose that we create the newsgroup:

rec.humor.dead.babes

specifically for those of us who like these jokes. Can anyone tell me how
to create a newsgroup?

3. Arrogance

In message (3.14159@BAR), FOO@BAR.BITNET says:

> [dead chicken joke deleted]

This sort of joke DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Can't you read the rules? Gene Spafford "a clearly" states in the List of Newsgroups:

rec.humor.dead.babes Dead Baby joke swapping

Simple enough for you? It's not enough that the creature be dead, it
*must* be a baby -- capeesh?

This person is clearly scum -- they're even hiding behind a pseudonym. I
mean, what kind of a name is FOO, anyway? I am writing to the sysadmin at
BAR.BITNET requesting that this person's net access be revoked immediately.
If said sysadmin does not comply, they are obviously in on it -- I will
urge that their feeds cut them off post-haste, so that they cannot spread
this kind of $#!T over the net.

4. Disgust

In message (102938363617@Wumpus), James_The_Giant_Killer@Wumpus writes:

> Q: How do you fit 54 dead babies in a Tupperware bowl?
> ^L
> A: La Machine! HAHAHA!

Are you people completely devoid of imagination? We've heard this joke *at least* 20 times, in the past three months alone!

When we first started this newsgroup, it was dynamic and innovative. We would trade dead baby jokes that were truly fresh; ones that no one had heard before. Half the jokes were *completely* original to this group. Now, all we have are hacks who want to hear themselves speak. You people are dull as dishwater. I give up; I'm unsubscribing, as of now. You can have your stupid arguments without Me. Goodbye!

5. Resignation

In message (12345@wildebeest) wildman@wildebeest complains:
>In message (2@newsite) newby@newsite (Jim Newbs) writes:
>
>> How do you stuff 500 dead babies in a garbage can?
>> With a Cuisinart!
>
> ARRGGHH! We went out and created rec.humor.dead.babes.new specifically
> to keep this sort of ANCIENT jokes out! Go away and stick with
> r.h.d.b until you manage to come up with an imagination, okay?

Hey, wildman, chill out. When you've been around as long as I have, you'll come to understand that twits are a part of life on the net. Look at it this way: at least they haven't overwhelmed us yet. Most of the jokes in rec.humor.dead.babes.new are still fresh and interesting. We can hope that people like newby above will go lurk until they understand the subtleties of dead baby joke creation, but we should bear with them if they don't. Keep your cool, and don't let it bug you.

6. Ossification

In message (6:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
> In message (2374373@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quatermass Public) writes:
>> In message (5:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>> In message (2364821@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quatermass Public) writes:
>>>> In message (4:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>>>> Therefore, I propose the creation of rec.humor.dead.chicken.
>>>> Before they go asking for this newsgroup, I point out that they
>>>> should follow the rules. The guidelines clearly state that you
>>>> should be able to prove sufficient volume for this group. I have
>>>> heard no such volume in rec.humor.dead.babes, so I must conclude
>>>> that this proposal is a sham, and a fraud on the face of it.
>>> The last time we tried to post a dead chicken joke to r.h.d.b, we
>>> were yelled at to keep out! How DARE you accuse us of not having
>>> the volume, you TURD?
>> This sort of ad hominem attack is uncalled for. My point is simply
>> this: if there were interest in telling jokes about dead chickens,
>> then we surely would have heard some jokes about dead *baby* chickens
>> in r.h.d.b. We haven't heard any such jokes, so it is obvious that
>> there is no interest in chicken jokes.
> That doesn't even make sense! Your logic is completely flawed. Think aIt should be clear to people by now that this Cluckhead is full of it. There is no interest in rec.humor.dead.chicken, so it should not be created.

People like this really burn me. Doesn't he realize that it will just take a few more newsgroups to bring this whole house of cards down around us? First, we get rec.humor.dead.chicken (and undoubtedly, rec.humor.dead.chicken.new). Next, they'll be asking for rec.humor.ethnic. Then, rec.humor.newfy. By that time, all of the news admins in the world will have decided to drop us completely. Is that what you want, Cluck? To bring about the end of Usenet? Humph!

I urge everyone to vote against this proposal. The current system works, and we shouldn't push at it, lest it break.

7. Nostalgia

Well, they've just created rec.humor.ethnic.newfoundland.bizarre. My, how things have grown. It seems like such a short time ago that I first joined this net. At the time, there were only two newsgroups under the humorous banner: rec.humor and rec.humor.funny. I'm amazed at how things have split. Nowadays, you have to have twenty newsgroups in your sequencer just to keep up with the *new* jokes. Ah, for the good old days, when we could read about it all in one place...

-----

Mark Waks, Justin du Coeur <justin@inmet.UUCP> [rec.humor.funny.reruns]

"The one man in the world who doesn't beleive beleive himself to be mad is a madman."

- L. Ron Hubbard.