One opened, more to come!
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:52 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:44 pm
Posts: 800
Quote:
Look at all of the idiots going into agreement: Itsaline, Patti P, juju. etc. A big freakin idiot club. It is easy to say, "Ooooh we're so much better than everyone else at Clambake!" but all you guys are really doing is engaging in is a big self-congratulatory circle jerk. I can hardly wait for the X-Rated video where Patti P. uses a strap-on on Itsaline and then they get married and live happily ever after in a trailer park in Hemet.

Hey! Patti P! Since when is SPECULATION off limits? You lived with and obeyed all of LRH's fake science SPECULATIONS for 27 years and paid big money for them. You pay nothing here at OCMB for SPECULATION and have to obey none of the dreaded SPECULATION.

You get to speak your mind here and there are no KR's and Comm Ev's. OCMB is a better deal than what you had for those 27 years when you were a slave and a fool, so why attack OCMB and its members for the freedom we have to SPECULATE and to PRESENT FACTS and to EXPOSE SCIENTOLOGY? Do you gripe because you can take the girl out of Scientology but you can't take the Scientology out of the girl? Still feel a need to DA people huh? Just a force of habit? Can we get you back on the meter to see what your motivators are? Just for one session? Please? :)


Mwahahahaha! The unintentional irony in this post is nearly killing me. Image

_________________
I can’t imagine I’m the only one thinking clearly about this. Sometimes I think I’m taking crazy pills.
- Phil Plait


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10199
Location: Los Feliz, California
Ball of Fluff: Thanks for your preaching and dull platitudes. It is Sunday and we needed a good moralistic sermon. When you were scolding me, however, I wish you had included some references to Hell and Satan and maybe quoted LRH. I am sitting here in one of the pews in the First Church of Fluff if you wish to continue preaching.

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:50 am
Posts: 452
J. Swift wrote:
I can hardly wait for the X-Rated video where Patti P. uses a strap-on on Itsaline and then they get married and live happily ever after in a trailer park in Hemet.


Tsk, tsk, J. NotsoSwift this is clambake message board, not some kind of off beat message board where you can communicate your sexual fantasies.

Please try to stay on topic. We are discussing the poor quality of Scn criticism and you have already given plenty of examples of that without resorting to this sex crap in your post.



J. Swift wrote:
Hey! Patti P! Since when is SPECULATION off limits?


Speculate all you want, just label it as such. Don't try to con people as if you are in the KNOW, because it's quite obvious to anyone that was in Scn that you are full of hot air.


J. Swift wrote:
You lived with and obeyed all of LRH's fake science SPECULATIONS for 27 years and paid big money for them. You pay nothing here at OCMB for SPECULATION and have to obey none of the dreaded SPECULATION.


You are making absolutely NO sense. Just because I put up with the insanity of Scn and all their speculation for 27 years does not mean I want to put up with it here and with all your speculation. That is my
POINT. Scn is full of speculation and stuff that can't be proved. Why would anyone want to continue with that kind of insane thinking. Why would you defend it and continue to promote it.


J. Swift wrote:
You get to speak your mind here and there are no KR's and Comm Ev's. OCMB is a better deal than what you had for those 27 years when you were a slave and a fool, so why attack OCMB and its members for the freedom we have to SPECULATE and to PRESENT FACTS and to EXPOSE SCIENTOLOGY?


You have all the freedom you want to speculate, but don't get upset when I point out that it is in fact speculation and half truths and sometimes downright lies, which is what Scientologists have been putting up with and dealing with while in Scn. They don't want to come here and get MORE of it from people who are supposed to be providing accurate information to help them out of the cult or educate others who have never been in.



J. Swift wrote:
Do you gripe because you can take the girl out of Scientology but you can't take the Scientology out of the girl? Still feel a need to DA people huh? Just a force of habit? Can we get you back on the meter to see what your motivators are? Just for one session? Please? :smile:


The only ones that do any DAing around here are you and the few critics that don't like being disagreed with. Hubbard had a similar problem.

Patty P

_________________
Education is not a hate crime.
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/pieniadz1.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10199
Location: Los Feliz, California
Patty: I labeled my work on Mark Foley as rumor and speculation from the very beginning. The misunderstandings occur when people like you come in and pick up on SuzanneMarie's lies and don't read my work for yourself. If I got into a flame war mode it is because SuzanneMarie, juju, and others turned this into a flame war and so I simply match their tone. This is an unmoderated board and there is nothing that can be done about it.

BTW, Patty, I am very glad that you left Scientology and went public. It takes a lot of guts to do what you did. However, I don't completely understand your story. I read all of your initial posts and then you dropped off my radar. I have no idea where you presently stand in relationship to Scientology.

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:12 pm
Posts: 466
Location: London, UK
Hello Kent,

my haven't you evolved during your year and a half at Clambake! Once upon a time you spoke the praises of David Miscavige and had a wonderful exterior viewpoint on Scientology,.....

.....and now you are a full blown critic who was allegedly a full on Scio, though I am more into the idea that you have acquired enough data here to eventually pass yourself off as one.

Maybe it's time to avail yourself of Teril's services?

from,

Juju


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:53 pm
Posts: 819
Location: Sydney, Australia
J. Swift wrote:
Patty: I labeled my work on Mark Foley as rumor and speculation from the very beginning.


Do you really repeat all your inconsistent statements with a straight face? The first post you made on this thread alone has been a list of labels, and sprinkled with "Of course" "will not". There was never any direct labeling as rumour and speculation from any beginning whatsoever.

Here's your first post. Have fun editing it to include your nonexistent disclaimers.

Quote:
The misunderstandings occur when people like you come in and pick up on SuzanneMarie's lies and don't read my work for yourself. If I got into a flame war mode it is because SuzanneMarie, juju, and others turned this into a flame war and so I simply match their tone.


Of course, blame everyone else for shooting one of your fecal flingings down. You and roan also seem to continually insist that I am a Scieno too, on top of it: when neither of you have any proof, and neither did mate when he did the "oh I know you..." stupidity he pulled.
As far as suzannemaries lies go, why is it that when she says something it's a lie and when you're saying something it's "speculation"?

Quote:
This is an unmoderated board and there is nothing that can be done about it.


That's right folks! There's nothing that can be done about his having to react violently to any poster who dares disagree with him - I mean, it's their fault! Am I the only one who is seeing the patterns of the blame game that occurrs on domestic violence here? "It's her fault! She made me drink! She made me get angry, so angry, I didn't mean to..."

Quote:
BTW, Patty, I am very glad that you left Scientology and went public. It takes a lot of guts to do what you did. However, I don't completely understand your story. I read all of your initial posts and then you dropped off my radar. I have no idea where you presently stand in relationship to Scientology.


What a nice roundabout way of saying "I don't believe your shore story", and "I think my explosive posts were warranted because you're not as firmly branded to be a critic yet".

In all your platitudes and "sensible" remarks, you still haven't apologised to Patty. In fact, it seems some people on OCMB have a positive allergy to admitting that they're wrong, and apologising. Why do you paint yourself into a label whilst freely flinging labels at everyone else?

_________________
That's what you get when you bring Postulation into a MEST fight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:00 am
Posts: 790
J. Swift wrote:
Patty: I labeled my work on Mark Foley as rumor and speculation from the very beginning. The misunderstandings occur when people like you come in and pick up on SuzanneMarie's lies and don't read my work for yourself. If I got into a flame war mode it is because SuzanneMarie, juju, and others turned this into a flame war and so I simply match their tone. This is an unmoderated board and there is nothing that can be done about it.


Hey, Swift.. Trementina called. They noticed the shit ponds are a few gallons low and they want it back. So be a sport and give it up. You're backpedalling like a madman because the tide of poular opinion, not to mention your own actions, have painted ya into a corner. What's with this crap about "nothing can be done about it"?? Are you irreparably retarded? It's simple, man... Just don't go there. You seem to want to lash out at *everyone*, but not wanna take it, and it's making you look like a total freak-out case. Seriously. Not to mention you remain blatantly unapologetic for insulting, what, 4 or 5 people outright with your frothings about strap-ons, lezzie marriage and trailer parks, but expect some sort of "tea and sympathy" scenario in the process.

I think you owe a few people something here after that shitstorm.

You rant, rave... I can almost see the flecks of spittle on the screen, the little beads of sweat and the eyes rolling madly in their sockets on your end... It's almost funny... almost. No KR's heere? How about the backchannels being ablaze? Comm Ev's? Happens every time somone posts up something you don't like; you become judge, jury and executioner, rolled into one. There are parallels here to be sure, bud, and when you have a monolithic shit fit the way you did, you just etch it in stone....

J. Swift wrote:
BTW, Patty, I am very glad that you left Scientology and went public. It takes a lot of guts to do what you did. However, I don't completely understand your story. I read all of your initial posts and then you dropped off my radar. I have no idea where you presently stand in relationship to Scientology.


Oh, what's this now... I can almost see you backing up slowly, trying not to make eye contact while making what you hope are soothing cooing noises. One thing I'll say for ya, Swift... You are actually one of the more "visually engaging" posters I've seen here in some time, and I'm not talking about your "magnus opus" work of the Illustrated OT III. You know, the height of your popularity?

As far as I know, Patty's story is pretty much out there for all to see... that is, if they can be bothered to do their friggin homework and actually connect the dots. She never dropped off your radar, Swift, she was never on it in the first place until it became necessary for her to be there so you could sound all compassionate and caring... all the while, of course, letting her know in your own *special* way that you think she's still full of shit with the "I have no idea where you presently stand in relationship to Scientology." modifier as a convinient portable hole you can throw on the ground and scramble down if it gets too hot for ya.

Way to leave yerself an out, man...

_________________
S toboi ostatsa dol'she


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:44 pm
Posts: 800
J. Swift wrote:
BTW, Patty, I am very glad that you left Scientology and went public. It takes a lot of guts to do what you did. However, I don't completely understand your story. I read all of your initial posts and then you dropped off my radar. I have no idea where you presently stand in relationship to Scientology.


Seeing as you how tried to invalidate (in the non-scientological sense) some posters here as newbies (who disagreed with you and were therefore, obviously, clueless) because of their low number of posts, well, I know Patty Pieniadz has got her own entry on the religiousfreedomwatch-website, but where is your's?

And who is the more "important critic"? :roll:

_________________
I can’t imagine I’m the only one thinking clearly about this. Sometimes I think I’m taking crazy pills.
- Phil Plait


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 12:51 pm
Posts: 1353
RIPODB wrote:
Do you have any stories to share or info re politicians while you were "in"?


Well, one of them was this little drama. Remember this?

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/cultgate.html



First Lewinsky. Now Clinton, Cultgate and John Travolta

Has President Clinton made a deal with the Scientology cult in exchange for a more respectable portrayal in an upcoming feature film? Actor John Travolta is playing a fictional alter-ego of Clinton in the new film Primary Colors and reportedly will portray the president very positively. Meanwhile, according to Travolta, Scientologist and celebrity spokesman for the cult, Clinton has agreed to help out Scientology in Germany by naming his national security advisor as Scientology point man.

Primary Colors is due out in March. It is based on a best-selling novel by Joe Klein which depicts a southern governor, who is actually modeled after Clinton. In the book, the governor lies and seduces women, and is running for president. According to George Magazine, the film is much more sympathetic to the Clinton character than the book is. The New York Post quoted Travolta as saying, "You have to be dead not see that the film favors Clinton: More than anything, it promotes what a decent person he is." [2/12/98, Travolta Admits Bill Used Sects Appeal to Woo Him].

George says in its March issue that manipulating Travolta was part of Clinton's efforts to soften his portrayal in the film. Travolta went to Washington to promote Scientology just before Primary Colors began filming, reported George. Travolta told the magazine, "The next day, I met with Clinton. He told me: "Your program sounds great. More than that, I'd really love to help you with your issue over in Germany with Scientology." I was waiting for the seduction that I had heard so much about. I thought, "Well, how could he ever seduce me? And after we talked, I thought, Bingo! He did it. Scientology is the one issue that really matters to me."

Germany considers Scientology an anti-democratic cult that cheats members out of huge amounts of money and harasses critics and ex-members in a Mafia-like manner. For these reasons, Germany refuses to recognize Scientology as a religion. Travolta and other Hollywood Scientologists have petitioned the U.S. government claiming that Scientologists in Germany face religious persecution.

According to George, "[Clinton] went to the extraordinary length of assigning his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to be the administration's Scientology point man." Berger even briefed Travolta as would a senior senator, George reports.

George Magazine was first to report the incident and its implications. Since then, the story has been brought up in White House press conferences and widely distributed by media. Meet the Press on February 15th questioned national security advisor Sandy Berger on the issue. Tim Russert asked Berger, "Did you or the president hope to influence Mr. Travolta, and make Primary Colors more favorable to the president?" and "But isn't it unusual for the national security advisor to brief an actor from Hollywood?" Berger told Russert, "Uh, it sounds to me, Tim, like you're getting, you're getting uh, developing your own conspiracy theories here."

Today's Washington Post prints a syndicated column by Mary McGrory on the op-ed page called, "Amid the Monica uproar, a call to arms." In the column McGrory states: "Hollywood pretty much has the run of the Clinton White House, even we have learned lately, the National Security Council. National security adviser Sandy Berger parlayed with actor John Travolta on the matter of the Germans being less beastly to the Church of Scientology, of which John Travolta is a member. The Germans say that Scientology is not a religion but a cult, a position that was long held by our government. Time magazine called Scientology "a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner" Embarrassed, overworked White House spinners explain that Clinton is a bear for religious freedom. They are shocked that anyone would think there was any quid pro quo in the equation, even if Travolta plays Clinton in a forthcoming movie, Primary Colors...."

Is this kind of quid-pro-quo something Clinton might engage in? A critic on the Internet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology points out that, "Clinton has done most of his politicking in Arkansas. This is one of several states in the US that is often spoken of as an "I've got a brother-in-law state" - meaning the business of government gets done by secretive friendships, business relationships and kinships to a large extent. It's an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" type of place. Concisely, it's government-for-sale where Clinton comes from."

Has Clinton assisted Scientology in other matters? Scientology was recently given a billion-dollar tax break and a private religious education deduction by the IRS not extended to other religions. Did the Clinton White House have anything to do with this extraordinary benefit given only to Scientology?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 6:24 pm
Posts: 2995
Location: Pacific Northwest
J. Swift wrote:
Look at all of the idiots going into agreement: Itsaline, Patti P, juju. etc. A big freakin idiot club. It is easy to say, "Ooooh we're so much better than everyone else at Clambake!" but all you guys are really doing is engaging in is a big self-congratulatory circle jerk. I can hardly wait for the X-Rated video where Patti P. uses a strap-on on Itsaline and then they get married and live happily ever after in a trailer park in Hemet.



Swift,

Are you deliberately trying to get this thread dustbinned because it has
taken such an embarassing turn for you?

Perhaps you're not capable of such a calculating move?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:23 pm
Posts: 2261
Location: Denmark
For everyones information (Even though I think most people here already know). It -IS- policy in Cof$ to enlist Opinion Leaders to the cause. All part of the PR series of PL's.

In the case of Foley it certainly looks like the cult did 'enlist' him some way or other. Maybe they judged him an Opinion Leader... Maybe they knew about his 'preferences' before they 'enlisted' him. That's also policy... To investigate and find out all about him.. And to have leverage on such an 'ally' is only prudent.

Hmmm... Opinion Leaders are the people who decides what public opinion is, says Hubturd... Therefore the Public Relations Officer (PRO) can make use of an OL by associating (Cof$) with him. - But public reaction to an 'OL' might reverse.. If the OL is seen as a despicable basterd all of a sudden, the public will demand that he is opposed, or handled.

So, if Cof$ is seen as 'associated' with Foley they will now need to 'handle' him. In this situation they need to help bring him down very publicly. Else the public will see Cof$ in the same shade of light as Foley. - However, if they 'handle' him they also admit the connection. There might (almost certainly) be more skeletons in the closet. If nothing else, then the fact that we can assume that OSA knew about Foleys secrets a long time ago.

So we don't 'know' why Cof$ so frantically tries to deny this. There -IS- a reason however!

:onebounce:

_________________
Ask not what Scientology can do for you, ask what the F*arck! is going on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm
Posts: 8290
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:
Tl. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 16 Feb 1969 "Targets, Defense"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 1256
Location: Australia
J. Swift wrote:
Look at all of the idiots going into agreement: Itsaline, Patti P, juju. etc. A big freakin idiot club. It is easy to say, "Ooooh we're so much better than everyone else at Clambake!" but all you guys are really doing is engaging in is a big self-congratulatory circle jerk. I can hardly wait for the X-Rated video where Patti P. uses a strap-on on Itsaline and then they get married and live happily ever after in a trailer park in Hemet.

Hey! Patti P! Since when is SPECULATION off limits? You lived with and obeyed all of LRH's fake science SPECULATIONS for 27 years and paid big money for them. You pay nothing here at OCMB for SPECULATION and have to obey none of the dreaded SPECULATION.

You get to speak your mind here and there are no KR's and Comm Ev's. OCMB is a better deal than what you had for those 27 years when you were a slave and a fool, so why attack OCMB and its members for the freedom we have to SPECULATE and to PRESENT FACTS and to EXPOSE SCIENTOLOGY? Do you gripe because you can take the girl out of Scientology but you can't take the Scientology out of the girl? Still feel a need to DA people huh? Just a force of habit? Can we get you back on the meter to see what your motivators are? Just for one session? Please? :smile:


Thank you for saying more about your character than I ever could.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Posts: 8106
Location: Cyberspace
J. Swift wrote:
Ball of Fluff: Thanks for your preaching and dull platitudes. It is Sunday and we needed a good moralistic sermon.


You're welcome, dollink. I do my humble best. I'm sure that my preaching and dull platitudes pale in comparison with the suitability and appropriateness of telling two contributors that they are about to fuck each other with a strap on. :lol:


Quote:
When you were scolding me, however, I wish you had included some references to Hell and Satan and maybe quoted LRH. I am sitting here in one of the pews in the First Church of Fluff if you wish to continue preaching.


Now, why would I do any of that?

I was referring to post content.

Sadly, you were not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10199
Location: Los Feliz, California
The Scientologists who attack me -- and some of them pose as "regular people" here at OCMB -- are very nasty people who worship L. Ron Hubbard as God. They believe that the souls of dead space aliens (called Body Thetans) cluster to the bodies of all humans and that this accounts for all human suffering. If you pay Scientology $360,000 to get the Body Thetans taken off you and if you worship L. Ron Hubbard as God, you will be a good little Scientologist. The goal of these Scientology attackers is to become an OT VIII , the highest level in Scientology, where they will be surprised to learn that they "mocked up" their Body Thetans and they are basically back to square one where they started. Some "religion" eh?

Scientologists come here to OCMB and use an L. Ron Hubbard hate tactic known as "depopularization." If a person is an effective critic of Scientology then they are targeted for a smear campaign that is called "Dead Agenting" and depopularization. That is all that is happening here with these idiotic attacks on me.

Some Scienobots and OCMB player-haters are working together to attack me. It happens all the time here and one has to learn to ignore it. It is all much ado about nothing when these idiots start spewing their poison. They are all psychologically damaged people and in most cases Scientology ruined them.

On a positive note, Scientology is collapsing and the Scienobots know it. They are trying to prop up their collapsing cult and they think that spreading lies actually works because that is L. Ron Hubbard standard operating procedure: Spread lies about those people who are exposing Scientology.

Scientology is all based upon propaganda and that is all Scientologist know. L. Ron Hubbard ordered Scientologists to operate in the following way:

Quote:
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1969
ISSUE II
REISSUED 24 SEPTEMBER 1987

(Reissued with updated distribution.)

Limited
Distribution:
IMEC
OSA NW
LRH PRs

Confidential

BATTLE TACTICS

(This is a defense paper on material developed after 18
years of ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy. Nothing in
this paper advocates physical violence or invites the physical
destruction of persons.)

In these days of "cold war" when actual warfare is
impossible due to atomic weapons, the warfare is waged in the
press and public in the form of ideas.

If you uniformly apply the tactics and strategy of battle
to the rows we get into, press or legal or public confrontation,
you will win.

The enemy uses " groups" and meetings of groups like one
would use squads.

If we and they are considered as two hostile and opposing
nations at war, then a huge array of tactics and strategy
become visible.

One parallels in the field of thought what is used and
done in the field of battle in other ages.

You don't have to know too much about the tactics and
strategy of warfare to apply this but it helps.

The end product of war, according to Clausewitz, the
authority on it, is (condensed) "to bring about a more amenable
frame of mind on the part of the enemy."

But there are also wars of attrition. We are engaged
in one where total destruction of us has been the enemy's aim
for, at this writing, 19 years. This is barbarian warfare,
thus the enemy must have had very positive fears and terrors
about us. Since he fought for total attrition. In this case
it is not safe to hope for any half-way win. We must ourselves
fight on the basis of total attrition of the enemy. So
never get reasonable about him. Just go all the way in and
obliterate him.

It is bad warfare to fight battles on your own terrain,
in your own subject area. It is not good to fight in the
territory of allies. Fight battles wherever possible only on
enemy terrain, in and about his subject and his people, not
ours. You can gauge your relative success by this. When
all your battles are fought on his terrain, you are winning.

A good general expends the maximum of enemy troops and
the minimum of his own. He makes the war costly to the
enemy, not to himself.

Copyright (c) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard.
All Rights Reserved.


HCO PL 16.2.69 II
Reiss. 24.9.87 -2-

One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections.
He deprives the enemy of political advantages, connections
and power. He takes over enemy territory. He raids and
harasses. All on a thought plane - press, public opinion,
governments, etc.

Seeing it as a battle, one can apply battle tactics to
thought actions.

Intelligence identifies targets and finds out enemy
plans and purposes, enemy connections, dispositions, etc.
It is fatal to attack a wrong enemy. But it is good tactics
to make the enemy attack wrong targets or persons himself.

Good intelligence pinpoints who when where what.

Good PRO plans an action and operations fights the battle.

Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually
comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have
done well, then legal gets an easy win.

You can win a battle even without legal and by PRO alone.
You intend to win it without legal wherever possible.

The prize is "public opinion" where press is concerned.
The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and
are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy. This means standard
wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity,
war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public
opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love.
That's you.

You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops
and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.

Always be ready to parley but watch for tricks. Don't
give the enemy breathing space.

Capture and use his comm lines. A press magnate on your
side is a big win.

You have in one of these publicity wars all the factors
of modern wars complete with artillery, cavalry, infantry.

For example at this writing, all fighting has been on our
terrain; they knew our generals we didn't know theirs; they
had all the press, funds, government control. We are reversing
this. We are fighting now on their ground. But we have a
long way to go.

We will make it all the way providing we look on this in
terms of active battle and not as a "if we are saintly good we
will win." The people who win wars have a saintly image but
they win the war by clever and forceful use of the rules of
tactics, strategy and battle.

Wars are composed of many battles.

Never treat a war like a skirmish. Treat all skirmishes
like wars.

HCO PL 16.2.69 II
Reiss. 24.9.87
-3-

The cold war is a war. The West is losing it because it
is fighting by other rules than the rules of war. We mustn't
lose it.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

LRH:CSI:jk.ja




This is quite bizarre on Scientology's part. It wants to make itself what people want. Yet the Scienobots here like juju and SuzanneMarie have defended the behavior of disgraced US Congressman Mark Foley and also subscribe to the Scientology plans for a genocide against non-Scientologists. This is the kind of mindset that Scientologists possess. They plan to conquer the world and will attack all people who get in their way. The critics here at OCMB expose Scientology and so we are routinely attacked online. The attacks get very personal and the Scientologists have tried to get people fired from the jobs, harassed them, plastered their neighborhoods with hate flyers. It gets worse and worse. All you need to do is to google "Scientology Fair Game" and read.

/

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Last edited by J. Swift on Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group