One opened, more to come!
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:26 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2907 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ... 194  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Posts: 2315
Location: Canada
Don Carlo wrote:
Many bitter arguments often are fueled by a few incidents.


Or by agenda. Or by program. Or by hatred. With these compelled actions, incidents are selected to serve them.

Don Carlo wrote:
The issue of "who benefitted" from Gerry's case seemed to be one of those incidents.


The issue that Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and a slew of Indies are pursuing is who are the "beneficiaries." The "benefits" the beneficiaries individually or as a group derive is debatable. But the "beneficiaries" have to be identified first.

The Scientologists, not Gerry, created the "beneficiaries."

They are very specifically identified in their injunction against Gerry and, inter alia, persons acting in concert with him. Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and the slew of Indies, and Innies, attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are. [The Injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/injunction-1995-10-17.pdf]

Such actions are antisocial and threatening. It is frankly threatening when people act over and over in this way without shame or remorse. And they are doing it over Gerry’s life and his defense against the Scientologists’ predations in and out of the legal arena for 30 years.

The Indies' ongoing abusive behavior in Gerry Armstrong's case shows a lack of regard for the type of human rights and religious reforms all wogs should expect without negotiation. In any case, talk of reform, or moving on up, or reconcilation of the SP class conflict, is meaningless without a good faith showing, which would begin with a recognition and acknowledgement of the nature of the SP doctrine.

Don Carlo wrote:
Sometimes, rather than sweep the bitterness under a rug, or lash back at the opposing arguer, a poster can create a timeline, or an essay with clear points and a conclusion, to explain her point.


Sure, the Scientologists can come up with a timeline in which they are not the "beneficiaries" in the injunction they created. Or come up with an essay that proves that the "beneficiaries" listed in the injunction are not the "beneficiaries" in the injunction.

Don Carlo wrote:
Ideally, this would entirely focus on that past event, and not on how mean the present-time opposing arguer is being.


Absolutely. Let’s have an opposing arguer who will argue that the "beneficiaries" listed in the injunction are not the "beneficiaries" in the injunction.

If the "beneficiaries" issue is resolved, which it already has been, then the meanness of people who have continued to attack Gerry about it, and willfully disregarded the documented facts and the resolution of the issue in order to justify such attacks, becomes a legitimate issue.

And that is where I’m at. Gerry is a long time victim of the Scientologists. The attacks on him at this point by the current Scientologists and their collaborators is as unconscionable as attacking Lisa McPherson. That he has been the Scientologists’ victim for 30 years does not mean that he is not hurt by their lies and black propaganda, and by the support his victimizers get from wogs who know better.

This forum, or its operators, has moved decisively to make Gerry and me enemies. I cannot pretend this hasn’t happened. Denials would be more meanness.

But regarding the issue of who "benefited," which was resolved in 1995 with the granting of their injunction, is who are the "beneficiaries." And then, who made the "beneficiaries" the "beneficiaries." And that would be the "beneficiaries."

Gerry did not write one word of the injunction. And it was obviously prepared by the "beneficiaries’" attorneys, Wilson, Ryan & Campilongo and Moxon & Bartilson, all of whom are also "beneficiaries." Mark Rathbun was over the attorneys at that time, and was a beneficiary. He still is.

_________________
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
What does beneficiary mean? Did they get money, or were they getting some kind of "justice," similar to an apology? is there a link to the legal documents?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Don Carlo wrote:
What does beneficiary mean? Did they get money, or were they getting some kind of "justice," similar to an apology? is there a link to the legal documents?

Thank you!

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
Don Carlo wrote:
What does beneficiary mean? Did they get money, or were they getting some kind of "justice," similar to an apology? is there a link to the legal documents?


Yes, there's a link in caroline's posting.

caroline wrote:
They are very specifically identified in their injunction against Gerry and, inter alia, persons acting in concert with him. Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and the slew of Indies, and Innies, attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are. [The Injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-con ... -10-17.pdf]

_________________
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
So anyone who "attacks" Gerry is a "beneficiary"?

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
^^ Any person or entity classified by the injunction as a beneficiary is a beneficiary according to the terms of the injunction. The beneficiaries are listed on page 7.

It isn't that complicated, if you're trying to understand rather than to misunderstand.

_________________
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
operatingwog wrote:
Don Carlo wrote:
What does beneficiary mean? Did they get money, or were they getting some kind of "justice," similar to an apology? is there a link to the legal documents?


Yes, there's a link in caroline's posting.

caroline wrote:
They are very specifically identified in their injunction against Gerry and, inter alia, persons acting in concert with him. Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and the slew of Indies, and Innies, attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are. [The Injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-con ... -10-17.pdf]

operatingwog, I don't see how this involves me other than somehow caroline insists that I acknowledge something. If it's stated clearly on p. 7 (which I read) who the beneficiaries are, then why is it important that I acknowledge this? Is it some kind of control issue? Like "do as you are told"? I don't get it. The beneficiaries are the beneficiaries, they're listed there. It's scientology corporate entities and their members, right? I don't see what that has to do with me, J.Swift, Karen or Rathbun? Lumping our names together like that seemed like standard LRH positioning tech to me. When I brought up the point that I thought caroline's claim that the Indies are beneficiaries in this injunction was ridiculous, she denied it and called me a liar. Yet that is exactly what Gerry says:

Gerry wrote:
116 The Indies are also beneficiaries in this contract and in this Injunction.

From: http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg ... 0260737b97

From the list on page 7, I don't see how the Indies or any critics here on clambake are included in the list of beneficiaries.

inb4LIAR!

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
I think when caroline says 'attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are' she probably simply means something along the line of 'come up with lots of smearing black PR rather than straightforwardly reading and accurately representing the injunction'. I may be wrong. You should check with her if you're in good faith about wishing to understand.

Dorothy wrote:
inb4LIAR!

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's presumably intended to be offensive to someone. It comes across as childish and silly.

_________________
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
operatingwog wrote:
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's presumably intended to be offensive to someone. It comes across as childish and silly.

For someone who claims to not know what it means, you have certainly settled yourself on what it means. Do you do this a lot?

Operatingwog: the exact same message coming from three accounts or ten accounts doesn't necessarily give it any more strength. Your message has to stand on its own merits.

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:17 am
Posts: 17
caroline wrote:
Opter2 wrote:
Very glad to read that she is coming back in 2112. :D :D :D :D :D :D


Opter


I'm sure we'll all be chilled out by then. Did she say who she's coming back as?






Sorry :oops: I meant to write 2012. :oops: :oops: :oops:

BTW she is doing great.

Opter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Posts: 2315
Location: Canada
Opter2 wrote:
Sorry :oops: I meant to write 2012. :oops: :oops: :oops:

BTW she is doing great.

Opter


Darn. For the past two days, I postulated a hundred years to chill out. :wink:

Karen obviously is talking to a lot of people and is a "busy little lady". And some apparently are conveying her thoughts to the forums, so she still has a presence here.

Of course, a program that focuses troops on OCMB could include generating conflicting or otherwise confusing messages for us to focus on, try to figure out, and fractionalize over.

The black PR has been generated that certain people drove her away from OCMB and ESMB with "attacks." I know the purveyors of this black PR include me in this group. This is clear black PR for two reasons: Karen denies it; and there were no attacks. These facts have, naturally, made no difference to the black PR merchants.

Karen demonstrated her PR and technical training, particularly in her manipulation of our emotions.

_________________
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
...
Using a message board is probably not the best avenue to do this as there will always be people wanting to challenge you or ask you questions etc. There is nothing wrong with this except that it's not really what Karen has time for or wants to get into. She said right up front that she wasn't here to clash swords with anyone or get into any long debates. It just didn't interest her & she doesn't have the time to get into it.

I believe Karen is looking at a better alternative to get her message across that doesn't involve ESMB or OCMB. I will help her in any way I can because I believe what she is doing is probably the most important thing that needs doing right now. Debating about belief in the Tech or auditing or anything else is secondary in importance to stopping the human rights abuses being committed by DM every day.
...


I didn't notice anyone wanting to get into long debates with Karen. I didn't notice anyone wanting to debate her belief in the Tech or auditing.

I did notice some people objecting to a broad inaccuracy, which appeared to be deliberate, in her presentation of abuse in scientology -- namely the more of less total airbrushing out of LRH's role as perpetrator, as cult founder, and as scriptural source.

Is that "sword fighting" or is it simply a concern that Karen should communicate truthfully about the subject she chose to post on? If instances of abuse in scientology are presented shouldn't they be presented accurately and in their appropriate context?

Is this concern for truth really "frying other fish"? Is it really a distraction from "the most important thing that needs doing right now"?

Or is "the most important thing that needs doing right now" functioning to distract people from straightforwardly recognising and telling the truth about LRH and scientology?

_________________
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
SME(Larry Brennan) wrote:
Unlike you Karen I have little regard for LRH and his "tech". I think that some of it is highly dangerous and some very cruel and wrong. I don't know how scientology can continue other than by individuals or in small groups in the absence of so many dangerous and cruel policies. But I hold out hope in many individuals of good heart and have held that the true "good" or "bad" in scientology lives in the heart of the scientologist and how and why she uses it. I believe that is pretty much true of everything.


I'm with Larry. :love7:

I hope everyone has a safe, fun and happy Holiday Season and a grand New year. I wish peace and happiness to ALL victims of scientology, including Karen, Indies, and all Ex-scientologists who have suffered over it. I'm looking forward to 2012 and I hope next year brings an end to the cruel abuse that goes on inside corporate/organized scientology. Let's all work together to make that happen!

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9294
I don't see in the link any specific facts about Dorothy, Swift, etc. Where / when exactly are they attacking Gerry? Are they beneficiaries? How?

Quote:
Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and the slew of Indies, and Innies, attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are. [The Injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-con ... -10-17.pdf]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:04 pm
Posts: 94
Location: Los Angeles, CA
I’m sad and disappointed that a kind of flame war between two groups, both being friends of mine, seems to have killed this excellent thread. There are points that we all agree on and there are objectives that we can all achieve together-eliminating corporate scientology in its present form. Karen poured her heart and soul into this thread and she should not have to denounce Hubbard and his Tech in order to be heard. I do not have much time for much of Hubbard’s Tech myself but others surely have the right to follow it where there is no abuse, coercion, etc. I'm pleased to read that Karen will be back in 2012. She is missed already.

_________________
Graham E. Berry


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2907 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ... 194  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 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