Message 801 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Harmonics (an interesting word) Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:53 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Besides, I'll take David Mayo's word on anything in the tech which > hasn't actually been proven false. :-) A Mayo article on Clear is online at http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html Paul
Message 802 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Magic or illusion Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:43 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > In scientology one does not believe, one postulates, perceives and > observes, or one does not. In what universe? It is a very rare Scientologist who does not believe vast numbers of LRH statements without personal knowledge or inspection, whether or not he will admit it. I know from my own personal experience that I found out for myself that many things LRH said were true, things that I had not known before. Things about the tech and natural phenomena that if one looks, yes, they do work the way he said. Out of this comes a HUGE extrapolation, along the lines of "Well, the stuff I checked out seemed to be OK, so I will just assume that the rest--most of which I cannot check out personally--is OK". And the penalties that tend to accompany disagreements with Hubbard don't discourage this grand extrapolation. And after years of this, one happily swallows even the whole-track sci- fi stuff for which there is not one shred of objective evidence in the real world. I'm not about to launch into an argument here on whether, say, the whole OT3 scenario is true or false--my point is that many doing the level *believe* it to be true and whatever phenomena are encountered in solo auditing the level are viewed through the mental filter that makes them appear in the expected manner. Was 9/11 an inside job? Most people have the BELIEF that it couldn't possibly be, which is not shaken at all by an inspection of the huge amount of contrary evidence and argument online. Why not? Because it is being viewed through a fixed idea, the belief that 9/11 couldn't possibly have been an inside job. The contrary evidence is not assimilated. It is an interesting exercise to sit down, grab some non-trivial LRH text one is familiar with, and go through it minutely, line by line, statement by statement, and see exactly how many of the statements one can agree with from personal experience and how many one just blindly accepted. I found it quite eye-opening the last time I did it. Try it for yourself. Don't just believe me. Or not believe me! Paul
Message 803 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Executive C/Sing (was Channel 4 etc.) Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:43 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > But the point is, I saw a lot of this "executive C/Sing" > traffic originate out of the DSA/OSA office. What about your > experience with it? My first major experience of it was in the early 80s, when I was working in the Solo Division ("The AO") at Saint Hill. Sometimes people would arrive to do Solo Part Two who had attested Dianetic Clear after maybe ten hours auditing total. We would train them properly on Solo Part Two and the theory of OT1-3 (not all at once). They would basically bomb out on OT2 and OT3 because their cases weren't set up properly. Some (maybe all) considered Scn a rip-off as a result. And they had been ripped off, of course. This happened many times. I asked the AO C/S, Hugh Whitt (good tech guy), how come they were allowed to start on the OT Levels without having had any auditing--why weren't they C/S'd for Grades etc. first? He replied that the local execs were insisting on it, presumably because the public concerned were all hot-to-trot on "going OT" and "making them go back down the grade chart to do grades" made them BIs and unwilling to pay more money for that. Then some even got onto NOTs to try and fix things that get handled on the Grades. Crazy, crazy. Many left the CofS, and/or Scn. One personal experience of executive C/Sing was the CO International Training Org in LA, Rene Norton, around 1993/4 decided I needed the FPRD. I didn't object as I hadn't had any auditing since leaving SH in 1986, apart from sec-checks and the clay reps on Pro TRs and KTL/LOC. Maggie Denton was auditing me and she was very good. We did a few sessions, a 53 or something like that, and I was all ready to start. Woohoo! I'd been wanting to do the FPRD for years and years actually. And what could go wrong? The *CO herself* was demanding I go into session!!! Next thing I know the same CO has kicked Maggie and her husband Bill out of the Sea Org! Bill had been keeping a shotgun under his bed at their berthing building on Hollywood Boulevard (totally legal by California state law, but not by SO policy). As I said, Maggie was a very good auditor. I've been audited by maybe 50 auditors, and she was pretty much the best. I don't know the whole story: it may have been totally innocent or it may have come up in a sec check that he had threatened to blow away anyone trying to get him up in the middle of the night to do some silly post cycle. All I know is that the one chance in ten years in the SO in LA that I had to get auditing came to nothing. The CO gaveth and the CO tooketh away. I didn't spend much time in a regular HGC. At SH I was posted in the Solo Tech Div; in LA the pcs were almost all staff members. I did work with OSA Int for a year or so. Most of the OSA Int auditing I was aware of was sec-checking. I saw Arthur Hubbard there once (1988?)--he was getting a sec check, that he had to pay full public rates for. He wasn't a happy camper. "Auditing is for the pc". Hah! But generally, OSA-ordered auditing is not something I would have come across. I didn't look in a lot of pc folders routinely. Oh, here's an interesting twist. While I was at OSA Int, Earle Cooley (the CofS's #1 attorney at the time) was getting auditing from Kathy Strom/True. Hush hush. I assume this had been ordered by RTC. And what was he being audited on? Expanded Grades! Paul
Message 804 [FreezoneOrg] Re: C-Meter? Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:48 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It has a body motion detector. I saw that demonstrated, > looks usefull. What's wrong with eyeballs? Or is the meter designed to be used while the auditor is watching TV? Wearing headphones. Turned up loud. Showing pretty girls. Reminds me of doing that E-Meter Drill on detecting body motion and at one point in it the coach coughs and you have to state what the body motion was. Maybe I'm being too dismissive, since I don't have any idea how this feature works. Does anyone know? Does it have any real use? Paul
Message 805 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:02 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > you really think big! Yes, I already thought about how I would just > burn CDs with the AVI file I have and the subtitle file I would > have created, but what you say is just another dimension of the product! > > Just if there is the transcript, we will care for translation into > Czech subtitles and give it to you in any encoding you say. I have created a page for the transcript on Scienowiki at http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en Anyone can edit it in real time. If someone has half an hour to spare maybe they can put up part of the English version, that they have personally transcribed from their copy of the programme. If someone else notices that a word has been misheard, just go ahead and correct it. Wikipedia demonstrates how useful a wiki can be. Scienowiki uses exactly the same software as Wikipedia. If someone wants to make a German translation, say, make a new wiki page at .../Channel4doc_de, using the standard two-letter language abbreviation. I haven't researched adding pages containing non- English letters. This will avoid duplication of effort, and allow people all over the world to contribute to the task. Whether they will or not remains to be seen! Paul
Message 806 [FreezoneOrg] Yahoo Groups and E-Mail Ad... Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:15 pm I mention this every now and then. Time to mention it again. Yahoo chops the end off an e-mail address posted in a message. With one exception: one's own. If someone writes something like: "OK, great, e-mail me using hunkyguy at hotmale.com" (but using the normal "@" instead of " at "), then hunkyguy will see it on his own computer exactly as he wrote it. Everyone else will see it as "hunkyguy at...", except with the " at" replaced with a "@". The second part of the e-mail address, after the @, will have been replaced by an ellipsis, three dots. Yahoo does this to preserve individuals' privacy to some extent. It is not something one can set as a personal option. If you want to give out your e-mail address, IT DOES NOT WORK to write it normally in a message on Yahoo Groups. It doesn't work! You have to do something DIFFERENT. I find it easiest to just spell out the address instead of using the ampersand (@), such as: Hi, my name is Paul Adams, and my most-used FZ e-mail address is fzglobalguy at yahoo.com.
Message 807 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Yahoo Groups and E-Mail Ad... Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:25 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams"
wrote: > > ampersand (@) duh Paul
Message 808 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Magic or illusion Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:32 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Fair point XXXX, except "free energy" isn't really free. > It generally boils down to tapping an existing but previously > untapped energy source. I'm going to be picky about that "untapped", XXXX, my friend. What do you think bodies run on? [Hint: It's not really things like Big Macs, fries and a Coke.] <hee-hee> Paul
Message 809 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:21 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > However I did have a look around your site and this > http://www.fzglobal.org/robot.htm > was intriguing...In fact, I just ran a session with it and had a > good reaction.... Hi XXXX, Paul's Robot Auditor is not really welcome on this forum, so I will just chop up your post into a self-serving snippet and reply privately. Anyway, you're obviously not a properly-trained Scientologist or you would know that it's impossible to be audited by a robot, so your good reaction is obviously delusory. :) Paul
Message 810 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Magic or illusion Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:54 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > The speed of light through sodium chloride (common table salt) is only about 30 MPH! That means that if you had an opaque pipe filled with a mono crystalline body of salt, you could measure the speed of the light traveling through it at 30 MPH. As long as the light source stayed on long enough (called photonic pumping), you would be able to measure the progression of the light down the pipe at that speed. At that speed you could turn on a big flashlight and then hop on a bus to the other end, then hop off and wait for the light to catch up. Photonic pumping wouldn't be needed. But my reference material says sodium chloride has a refractive index of about 1.54 and the velocity of light through it would be about 194 million meters a second. Maybe a free-energy powered bus might be able to get up to that speed eventually but I don't think one could hop on and off it quite fast enough. Or did I misunderstand something? Paul
Message 811 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:42 am Thank you. It is always interesting to see who actually donates their time and effort to worthwhile-looking Freezone projects that won't result in mostly personal benefit. And who doesn't. Paul --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Yes, I'll look into that and do what I can in my spare time. I'd like to help you all accomplish this. > > -XXXX > > XXXX wrote: Great idea, Paul! I will start right away. > > XXXX > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams"
wrote: > > > > I have created a page for the transcript on Scienowiki at > > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en > > > > Anyone can edit it in real time.
Message 812 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:29 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I was already on this and didn't need prodding. :) Sorry! I just read my post and it looks like I am trying to take over this cycle. I'm not. Just trying to shorten it a bit. > I have no experience in this sort of thing, but have > been told its quite labour intensive, and thus > duplication of effort would best be avoided. I've transcribed a couple of LRH tapes. It took me about fifteen or twenty hours per hour of LRH speech. The documentary here is going to be less than that. I would guess that 95% of it will be relatively fast, and 5% of it will involve a lot of "Huh--what did he say?" But the way to do it is someone just transcribes the first segment, say, with a blank for any bits that are unintelligble to the first transcriber. Use a placemarker, such as Hardeep: I found that really [unknown] and then we got into the car. Others can then fix the unknown bits, but most of the "grunt" work will have been done. [link omitted] > > I believe this link has been the one most people may > have got. We could standardize on that. I don't know > if my thought of using running time for place > subtitles would work or be accurate enough. Possibly > XXXX could comment. I would suggest dividing the English transcript up into sections by named scene, with approximate time from the start 00:00 given, up to 48:34 or whatever. Then someone can start working on a scene 30 minutes into the programme and label and insert it correctly into the whole. Again, anyone can do this. It doesn't have to be organized from a central location. It's on a wiki. Anyone with Internet access can edit it in real time. No-one needs permission from anyone. Duplication of effort is avoided by someone transcribing, say, five or ten minutes of the programme then posting it in the wiki. Then all can see what has been done so far, and not repeat that work. I think any subtitling would have to be eyeball-synchronized, XXXX. Not everyone will be using the same copy of the programme--the one you referenced is 400 MB and a bit-torrent version. Paul
Message 813 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:38 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Others may also be needed. Hi XXXX, My ser-faccy announcement that XXXX commented on was not intended to prod *you* into action. You're one of exceptions! Obviously (don't I love and overuse that word?). Thanks a lot for helping out. Dependable as ever. I don't agree with your suggestion re XXXX. Or any other of the specific people named. Not because they are incompetent as I imagine they would each do a sterling job. But because there will be a tendency for everyone else to think, "Ah, that's good, it's being taken care of, I don't have to worry about it." I would much prefer ten different people to each help. I don't see that it requires any special ability to transcribe here other than being able to duplicate what is being said and to be able to type it out accurately. It will need people fluent in idiomatic English, probably native English speakers. The joy of editing something in a wiki in real time is that anyone, anywhere in the world can help. Yes, there would be a learning curve if we're talking about the code for wikifying the article, i.e. putting in internal links to other parts of the wiki, or headings etc. But there is none of that needed in posting part of a transcript. All you have to do is transcribe some of it in Notepad or wherever, then copy and paste it into the article. Hit the edit tag, paste it in the edit box, HIT PREVIEW TO CHECK IT'S OK, fix it as needed and then hit save. If there are any questions or discussion needed on the transcript, put them on the associated talk page in the wiki, not on the transcript page itself. Practise first in the Sandbox at http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Sandbox The transcript page is at http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en Its talk page is found by hitting the "discussion" tag at the top. It's very clear if you check the link. There should be little duplication of effort. It would be silly to post a sentence at a time, but equally don't spend twelve hours before posting, only to find someone else has already entered that bit. Even so, it would be useful to check over the work the other person did. A time tag is a good idea, although remember that it won't be exact after ten minutes as the original was broken into segments with ads between, and there will be different copies. Paul
Message 814 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:27 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > translations to Czech. > ...Russian > German > Spanish ( XXXX can flood latin america with > this and has a 2000 strong forum) > > Probably also needed are:- > Portuguese > Italian > French I put pages up for these, with translated introductions. I think I fixed your name in each. The Russian one comes out as Park Terril in Cyrillic script. The Czech one took a bit of work. When I fed its original version of your name back into the translating machine (i.e. Czech to English) it translated as "Horrible Warren" (no joke) I replaced it with the more familiar version. XXXX can do whatever is customary with it. But you gotta like Horrible Warren! These are machine translations. If any native speakers of the languages concerned (Diana, for instance) could fix them, it would be an improvement. They are at: English http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en French http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_fr German http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_de Portuguese http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_pt Russian http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_ru Spanish http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_es Italian http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_it Czech http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_cs Paul
Message 815 [duplicate]
Message 816 [XSO] Re: SCN Movie Link: The Bridge Tue Sep 28, 2006 11:04 am Remember this movie is designed to show the *critic* view of the CofS. Compared to how it could have been done, it wasn't so far off. I don't know if the relative closeness to the truth was done out of a desire to stick closely to the truth, or a desire to not be sued by the CofS. Some critics acknowledge getting gains, especially from the lower Grades area, and some don't. Tory does, for instance. In the movie, none of the benefits of Scn were shown. Maybe the producer considered it would be mixing messages; maybe he's one who never got any gains. I don't know if he was ever a Scientologist and I'm not motivated enough to research it. The tech shown was not technically correct, as with many details, but conceptually it wasn't so off the wall. For instance, I would guess that the purpose of the sec check scene was to show the viewer the questions on the Jo'burg, in order to lower his ARC with Scientology even more. A movie made by someone else would show whatever point of view the financial backers wanted to show. This one was something like the Scn- is-a-money-making-scam view. Paul --- In XSO@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > [re depressing movie]
Message 817 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Declare Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:30 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I wonder how they have the gall to label me evil! The original LRH policies and HCOBs on SP kinda make sense. The problem is that they have rarely been followed in practice, and it got considerably worse after the early 80s. The purpose of your SP Declare is to cut your comm lines to existing churchies, to lessen the chance of their getting non-CofS information about the CofS and the FZ. No other reason. The only real similarity to LRH's policies and HCOBs is the name and enforced disconnection, not the reasons behind it. The CofS doesn't declare all people who have some contact with the FZ. But they do tend to declare those who are vocal about it, but not with consistency. I admit Mike (IFA) should have been rewarded with one by now. Paul
Message 818 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Declare Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:32 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Yeah, How come I miss out!! > > I gotta frame all ready, Just need the Declare to put inside it. > hee hee. Do you know anyone who has been sent a copy of their declare in the past few years? I'm thinking that frame might be empty for a long time. I received a polite letter from the CJC WUS in December 2004 giving me the issue number and date of my declare. I asked for a copy and received a polite letter back, without a comm lag, saying I could come over to PAC and see it there, but she could not sent me a copy. The stories I have heard since would seem to indicate that as a matter of policy they don't send them out any more. Reasons I could guess to include: 1. The recipient might put them on the Internet and ridicule CofS members and accuse them of making false statements; [I would certainly have put mine on my web site] 2. The recipient might sue for libel because of these false statements. 3. The recipient might even sue for libel based on true statements if the CofS would have difficulty in providing evidence for them. I was curious to see mine. Apart from getting auditing outside the CofS I had put enough on the Internet [including OT2 and OT3 checksheets I had written] to justify a declare by existing policies without having to fabricate anything at all, and I wondered if they were satisfied with the truth or if they had invented stuff too. At the time, I only lived a couple of miles from PAC, so I was thinking of going over. But a week or two later I moved to Reno, not next door at all. Before I got back to LA five months later I had decided that there was no need to see it, as if there were false reports in it there was absolutely nothing I could do about it, so why worry? I haven't originated the fact that I have been declared to my churchie friends. It would violate the policy of not putting entheta on theta comm lines. If they find out somewhere, it's not from me. Paul
Message 819 [XSO] Re: "Uniforms" Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:51 pm I recall a morning muster I attended at OSA Int around 1988 when the CO, Kurt Weiland, had just shaved off his moustache. If I remember correctly, he commented that Int Mgmt had done a survey and found that "people" associated facial hair with psychiatrists and so the Int execs had now become clean-shaven. At the time, I sported a moustache and had no intention of removing it (actually no-one ever even suggested it to me in 34 years, in the SO and out, except a guy on a Turkish train once when I was 20). My consideration was that goatee beards reminded me of psychiatrists, certainly not moustaches only like Kurt Weiland's, and I felt sorry for him that he had had to toe the party line. I assumed he would have preferred to keep the moustache. Paul --- In XSO@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > (about facial hair)
Message 820 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:37 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Er, to be more accurate: Paul's Robot Auditor is considered > controversial in this discussion group. > > Obviously those who reject it feel that it is unwelcome. Others > find it interesting, at the least. <pants> Paul
Message 821 [XSO] Re: "Uniforms" Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:04 am I remember the bit about B1 injections from the MO. One day at ITO I heard someone commenting that some RTC/Int exec had just used up the entire week's MLO float (the MLO float was for FCB, not Int) on one B1 injection at Shaw's. Which speaks volumes about things! Paul --- In XSO@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > (about B1 injections)
Message 822 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript -- thank you Mon Oct 2, 2006 3:59 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi > > I have also been very busy auditing and I know that the transcript > came out and I will be happy to translate it into Spanish. > > Someone finally sent me a copy of the Channel 4 doc and I loved it! > > Can someone please send me the transcrip in a private mail Nope. The English one with the time-codes, or at least the first six minutes of it, along with a translator's hat for this cycle is at: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en That's the one that you should work on. No need to wait for the whole thing to be done before you start. Paul
Message 823 [FreezoneOrg] Channel 4 Programme Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:39 am The verbatim transcript is pretty much done. Some bits that were unintelligible in a couple of hearings need clarifying, but the grunt work is done. Anyone can help with the clarification! This verbatim transcript is at: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc It still needs to be "translated" into English subtitles, and then the non-English subtitle translations can be made from the English sub-titles. While waiting for that, any translators are welcome to make a start on improving the half dozen lines of introduction that I already translated (badly) into Czech, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. There are links to those pages from the verbatim transcript page. Please help, guys. Paul
Message 824 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript -- Subtitled Versio Mon Oct 2, 2006 1:24 pm I bet you thought you had to wait months for a DVD to be produced, which you would have to buy, and then wait for it to be sent from overseas, and only then would you be able to see this programme with, say, Spanish or Russian subtitles. Not so. You can see it today! The subtitles aren't finished yet, but you can practise, so that the moment they are done in your language, you can see the programme with your favourite language added to it. You can follow along as they get done. The full instructions are at: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en In brief, you need a copy of the video on your computer. You need a media player (software) that can handle both video files and subtitle files (just a text file with text in a particular format). You can download one of these free of charge easily. You start up the player (that you downloaded for free), select the file where the video is (that you downloaded for free), select the file where the subtitles are (that you downloaded for free). That is all you need to do: Instant subtitles in the comfort of your own home! Paul
Message 825 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript -- thank you Mon Oct 2, 2006 12:41 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Thank you for the link. > > I will work on it as soon as I have some time. > > XXXX If you have trouble downloading software and so forth, here is the low- tech version. I have copied the first 117 subtitles to the correct page at: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_es I have translated the first twenty subtitles into (bad) Spanish. All you have to do is to click on this link, click on the "edit" tag at the top of the page, and make the necessary corrections to the Spanish. And continue the translation, of course. When you have finished however much you are going to do in that sitting, click on "Preview" underneath the edit box and make sure it looks OK. Then make a brief note (less than about seven words) in "Summary" box, then click "Save page". I can't make it any easier. A highly inappropriate armed forces expression of exasperation comes to mind: "For God's sake! Do you need me to hold your dick when you pee?" Paul
Message 826 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript -- Subtitles Mon Oct 2, 2006 3:24 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams"
wrote: > > I have copied the first 117 subtitles to the correct page at: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_es > > I have translated the first twenty subtitles into > (bad) Spanish. I did the same to the others too, just to get the ball rolling. The first 117 English subtitles, with the first twenty of those translated (badly) into the relevant non-English tongues, are now available at the usual pages listed below. To improve the translations, you need a keyboard with the relevant characters, and the ability to translate. But mostly just the willingness to help. English (includes instructions on viewing software): http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en Czech: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_cs French: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_fr German: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_de Italian: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_it Portuguese: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_pt Russian: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_ru PolyPaul
Message 827 [FreezoneOrg] Re: TECH outside COS: OSA got mad re Beginners guide? Tue Oct 3, 2006 1:20 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > TECH outside COS: OSA got mad at Paul and Nancy re > Beginners guide? > > OSA bot and me conversing. Yeah, somewhat muddled. > XXXX I think he just repeated the names, as in, a string of letters. There was no indication he knew the people concerned. Please leave me out of the critic thing on OCMB or ARS, XXXX. I may have the odd disparaging remark on FZ forums, or in my website archives, but I don't do crit on critical forums. Paul
Message 828 [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Defragmenting" your life Wed Oct 4, 2006 11:13 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Here's a little metaphor to explain Scientology to anyone who, like > us, uses a computer regularly: > > Ever "defrag" your computer? It's the process of running a program > that goes through your entire hard drive and puts back together all > parts of it that have become fragmented or messed up through regular use. > > What does Scientology do? Unenturbulates (clears up, reorganizes) your > theta (spirit) and MEST (Matter, Energy, Space and Time). And, as we > have already discussed, Theta + MEST= Life. > > So, Scientology can "defragment" your life! The defrag concept is very apt, on the basis of defragging a thetan. As in, remedying the dispersed state of "buttered all over the universe". Or attention units tied up in engrams and so forth being returned to the thetan after the engrams are reduced. Thanks for the great idea. It should come in very useful in explaining what auditing does. And especially locationals. Paul
Message 829 [XSO] Re: You gotta read this. "DM's Ideal Org". Un-freakin-believable. Fri Oct 6, 2006 4:24 pm --- In XSO@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > From Beliefnet: > > http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=2& > discussionID=535028&messages_per_page=4 > > [re automated Div 6's] Luddites! I agree this isn't going to work at this time for a multitude of reasons. I'll repeat that before I get branded as a fan of DM's wonky ideas: Div 6 "column tech" is not a correct target right now. But, in the right place, at the right time, I can see the advantages of a partially-automated Div 6. It wouldn't handle everybody and everything, but it would enable a large number of people to get some basic, relevant, general information, and then get the more personalized additional handling that would obviously be needed from a live person. Rather like self-checkouts in some large chain stores. I have used them in two stores, a Home Depot in LA and an Albertsons(?) in Reno. In both, there is one staff member who oversees four self- checkout points, with the customer doing the routine stuff himself and the staff member helping out on anything tricky or if the customer is unfamiliar with the procedure. Yes, as a customer, if one had the choice of going straight to a cashier who would rapidly scan one's purchases and take the money, or scanning it oneself and fumbling with the equipment, most would choose the human. I prefer the self-checkouts for a small number of purchases, maybe because I love state-of-the-art gadgets. It is also quicker if there is a long line for the human cashier and no line for the automatic one. But from the company's viewpoint, apart from the upfront installation costs, it seems that the main expense is staff salary. And one staff member can handle four customers at once instead of one, even if they do move through a bit slower. Speed of particle flow, and all that. So the company can have many more checkout lines open for the same running cost, and more available checkout lines means less waiting time for the customer. Automation can be significant progress if done properly. I know about the longer-term plan of tagging every single product and having the items in one's shopping cart automatically billed en masse. But I haven't heard about a DM plan for micro-chipping or bar-coding individuals (yet), so we'll leave that one for another day. Paul
Message 830 [FreezoneOrg] Re: FREE Anatomy of the human mind course Thu Oct 5, 2006 7:39 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I found the Anatomy of the human mind course > on the internet for free. > ... > Here's the link: > http://www.humanmind.org/Shows.html This sounded interesting. I tried to view the first one, but it looked like it would only download rather than show as streaming video. They looked like they were professionally done, so I downloaded the lot (the first 14 are online). I was going to watch some or all of them, and then give an opinion. They are each about 150 MB and thirty minutes long. Several, by the way, including the first one, are available in streaming video on My Space. The first one is at: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm? fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=707564809 I started to watch the first one of my downloads, number one in the series. The presenter, Ron Savelo, is extremely solid and downtone, and wearing a black suit with a dark blue shirt. The camera angle is not level, as is normal, but from below, so he seems to be looming over the viewer. The first minute or two is a typical attack on psychology and psychiatry. And quite honestly, I couldn't take any more of it than that! Before I had watched any of it, I thought these might be a great dissemination tool. Now, unless the presenter switches later to someone more, er, presentable, and the script lightens up a bit, my opinion is that this series of presentations will put people off rather than attract them. Remember the public reaction to Tom Cruise's TV attacks on Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer? This guy is a long-term Scientologist who works in the arena of Public Access television. I assume this whole AHMC trip is sponsored and approved by you-know-who. Now, maybe they are operating off a basis of the general tone level of new public in regard to the mind is fear, so the entire presentation needs to be half to one tone above. Maybe new people will lap it up. My reaction is the other flow. So sorry, I have no opinion on the tech being presented, as I can't stomach any more of it! Paul
Message 831 [XSO] Re: You gotta read this. "DM's Ideal Org". Un-freakin-believable. Fri Oct 6, 2006 11:15 pm --- In XSO@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > [re machines imitating communication on the track; and the > overwhelming graphics of DM's Div 6 presentations] I don't know how significant these supposed earlier-similars are. We're not talking about an implant being delivered to a being rendered unconscious by overwhelm of some kind. At least, no more so than any person on this planet knowingly going to a movie or watching a TV programme pretty much on his own determinism. I was endorsing the idea of a limited recorded presentation. I did not endorse the specific product that DM engineered. Paul
Message 832 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Scientology Orientation Video availabe here. Sat Oct 7, 2006 7:10 pm --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It's absolutely horrendous. I love how it doesn't tell you ANYTHING > about Scientology, but that if you won't accept it, you should shoot > yourself. You mean you've never read Marketing Series 6, PR Series 32, HCO PL 31 August 1979 "Come-On Dissemination"? There are various bits of it available via Google. That explains the think behind not telling you anything about Scn in the video. As for the second bit, well, it doesn't exactly say you have to accept Scn upfront before knowing anything about it, but I agree it does talk about the alternative of some solo wetwork. Paul
Message 833 [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Defragmenting" your life Sat Oct 7, 2006 8:41 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > The process of as-isness, however, is > more difficult to compare to computer phenomena. Maybe someone else > can come up with something regarding that. Like finally figuring out what something in a Microsoft help screen means? Paul
Message 834 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Scientology Orientation Video availabe here. Sat Oct 7, 2006 6:48 pm Thanks for posting that link, XXXX. I just watched it again, for the first time since about 1993. For the record, at 6pm UK time today, it had been seen 130 times, since being posted on 2 October. I expect the CofS will get it removed soon, so hurry if you want to see it! When I saw it before in 1993-ish, I thought it was quite well done, a bit heavy maybe, but perhaps that was what was needed--hey, what did I know? I should leave it to the experts. Now, my viewpoint is different. My, oh my. As Patty more or less remarked, the final approval for this video must have been given by someone who lives on the far side of a space-time warp. It is very smoothly and professionally done--beautiful music-- perfectly in tune with that other planet's ideal of infomercials, and so slickly repellent over on this side. It is interesting to look at it and try to find ONE, just one, sentence said with good TR1. Not the bit about getting the comm across with good intention, but the bit about making it your own. A possible candidate was Kirstie Alley's statement about getting off drugs, but even that was borderline. All the rest was people reading scripts, and obviously so, in my opinion. Wonder if this guy with the hidden camera has filmed the Tech Films I haven't seen? Or even the ones I have seen. It would be interesting to view those with new eyes. Paul --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > From: Patty Pieniadz - view profile > Date: Sat, Oct 7 2006 12:23 pm > Email: "Patty Pieniadz"
> Groups: alt.religion.scientology > > I remember seeing this video when I was IN Scn and > thought that it would chase new people away. > > It shows how completely out of touch Scn > is with people. > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- 3463204714566011542&q=scient... > > Patty P
Message 835 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Scientology Orientation Video availabe here. Sun Oct 8, 2006 9:03 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I saw the film back in 1997 at Flag. I thought it was way off the > mark. Certainly by comparison the piece done by Channel 4 would be > better. One of the points which makes it better is the fact that it > was done by an outside group. This will certainly lend more > credibility to what was witnessed and experienced. It's an amusing concept imagining the CofS showing the Channel 4 programme as an orientation for new people visiting an org, with a few apologies for having to use a video sourced outside (out-house?) explaining that they aren't permitted to make a proper one in-house. Paul
Message 836 [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Channel 4 movie Transcript -- Subtitles Sun Oct 8, 2006 10:22 am The English subtitles are completed. The German subtitles are completed. The Czech ones are half done and being worked on. None of the others have been started on yet. Is anyone willing to help our Freezone friends who don't speak English well? I have become very familiar with what is said in this programme. It should be very useful as a promotional tool. Post a message or e-mail me if you need help with software or viewing the video or something. Paul Email: fzglobalguy @ yahoo.com --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams"
wrote: > > English (includes instructions on viewing software): > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_en > > Czech: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_cs > > French: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_fr > > German: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_de > > Italian: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_it > > Portuguese: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_pt > > Russian: > http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Channel4doc_ru
Message 837 Mon Oct 9, 2006 7:55 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Hello from Paul Adams --- In email@example.com, XXXX wrote: > > Welcome Paul! > > Beside the quality of the Robot Auditor, including the careful session setup and check for sessionability - I admire your guts. > In the scene of people technically as high as you - you knew that you would be looked at as an 'enfant terrible' by many .... > So - really a WELL DONE! > > Now, as you are on the list - hmmm - let me repeat my question, > which I put you already back channel...... Could we know something > about the result-statistics?? Or do you think it's too early? Hi XXXX, Thank you. I value my personal integrity far, far above approval from others. I don't have a personal practice delivering "standard tech" (whatever that really is), so I don't have to be careful about following the party line in case I lose prospective customers. I can say exactly what I have seen and what I think, and if it's unpopular, it's not my problem. Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question. I don't have accurate statistics, as I have no way of knowing how many sessions have been done using the robot. There is an open counter on my FZ site at http://www.fzglobal.org, and anyone can see various pieces of data, one of which is how long a visitor stayed on the site. What I do know is that there are success stories from five people who have used it that I have posted; there is one other person I know who uses it regularly who doesn't want her name used; and there are three others who posted wins to the FreezoneOrg Yahoo group. No one who has used it has told me that it was bad in any way (there may be hundreds of people who've been caved in by it but none of them have told me about it!). If someone did have a bad session, though, I would be very interested. The first thing I would check is, "What did you really do?" This is not because I am 100% certain that it is perfect, but I would have to check that the pc was fully sessionable and followed the procedure exactly before determining that I had to change something in the procedure. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org
Message 838 Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:59 am [easy_tech_setup] Re: Hello from Paul Adams --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, XXXX wrote: > > Thanks Paul - > > Yes personal integrity - but look around. It is always refreshing to see someone who just does what he thinks is good to do and does not care about what the others might think about! > > BTW I tried out the yawning machine today. > I had a great yawning and a great laughter. > > This rehabilitates my yawing. > > I am a prof. yawner - you must know...but this making havingness > instantly when yawning and for the whole duration of it seems a good > idea (restoring havingness - like in TROM). Glad it helped, XXXX. I wrote the Yawn Machine at http://www.yawnmachine.com to make the robot procedure more widely available. Paul's Robot Auditor is very much using standard Scn methodology in the session form, and I thought the form of it might put non-Scn people off. So I tried to reduce the whole thing down to the most basic parts necessary to still get a good result, with no extras at all. Personally, when I do a session mainly for my own benefit I use this Yawn Machine procedure. I have to sometimes tone it down for myself, as it tends to get the charge off before I can replenish my havingness enough, i.e. it runs off too much too fast and I feel like I've been run over by a truck. But I guess there are worse problems to have. Paul Free Robot auditing 24/7 http://www.fzglobal.org/robot
Message 839 Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:55 am [easy_tech_setup] Re: Hello from Paul Adams --- In email@example.com, XXXX wrote: > > The amazing thing for me is using Yawning as a tool. > Next time your boss gives you a hard time - just yawn it out. > Maybe better not in front of him...LOL Exactly! My dream is that this use-anywhere technique gets assimilated into society's general know-how as a thing passed on from parent to child or peer to peer. If you have eaten or drunk something you shouldn't have, you get rid of it by sticking a finger down your throat. If you've got some BPC you want to get rid of, you use the yawn machine. I've used it walking down the street. It's not ideal like that and I don't do it often, as you have to be careful not to get too anaten and walk into people or traffic, and you have to tone down the touch-stuff and tell-its if you don't want people staring at you too much. But, hey, it's better than suffering if you feel the need. You can always go over the area later back home in "proper" session to pick up any bits you missed while outside. Paul Clean out your mind http://www.yawnmachine.com
Message 840 Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:47 pm [FreezoneOrg] Habeus Corpus Exit This could be considered off-topic, but since no-one has mentioned it so far, I will. There is a palatable treatment of the recent news item here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xUzUljH8EHU There is plenty more on the Net if you want more depth. The actual bill, HR 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, can be easily located via a search engine. If anyone still lives in fairy-tale land, this should help to dispel the notion. Paul
Message 841 Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:15 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Robot auditor WIN! --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, XXXX wrote: > > Ok Paul - I do understand your VP. > > For me it's not like this. > I look at the word 'Scientology' from the VP of the content - not the Brand Name. > > So if someone uses your Robot or your Yawn Machine and says: whow SCN works - I will not correct him...LOL > > Can you get my VP too??? Sure, I get your viewpoint. If some Freezoner wants to stick his neck out and promote that he is selling and delivering Scientology-brand services, it is ultimately his decision. But I can at least influence what is written about something I am delivering. Like it or not, it is illegal for a Freezoner to promote that he sells or delivers Scientology-brand services. Some don't know that, and some don't care, but it still violates trademark law. The CofS doesn't chase down all the minor violations, but it MUST take action on the major ones or risk losing the marks to the public domain. The purpose for this law is to uphold a certain standard that the public has come to expect. One can make comments about the CofS in regard to this, but nevertheless, having some web pages nominally acting as an auditor does not fit in the brand description. I am not an agent of the CofS. But I mostly try to do what is right. And endorsing Freezoners calling anything they want by the name of "Scientology" isn't it. If you need a name to differentiate Scn-based practices from PEAT- based or whatever, called them "Scn-based" or "LRH-based" or something like that. It would be nearer the truth than trying to extend the scope of the word "Scientology". If you are going to allow such extensions to use the same name, illegally and philosophically-indefensibly to my mind, where do you draw the line? Paul Archive index: http://www.fzglobal.org/writings.htm
Message 842 Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:43 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Auditing over the NET - Experimenting --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > ...It's like people saying that someone should invent a car > that will run on tap water. They obviously haven't a clue > about mechanics or chemistry. The water is probably from the ground rather than a tap, but near enough. There is a lot of information on the Net about the Joe Cell. There are two Yahoo groups, each with about two thousand members. One has public message archives with over 11,000 posts going back five years. It is: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/joecellfreeenergydevice/ I read the first couple of hundred posts, then Q&A'd and followed a link to Google video, which has many hours of video on Joe Cells, including several hours of Joe himself. I watched a few of the short videos, not with Joe, and am just about to watch another longer one. I watched the first hour of this 94 minute one, with Joe: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2878952337946217454 It shows a running engine on a Suzuki truck. The engine continues to run without stutter or change in pitch after the ignition is turned off and the key removed. I don't pretend to know my way around engines, so I won't comment much on what was shown. Joe did say in this video that after a while it is possible to remove the Joe Cell and the vehicle will continue to run as if the cell was still there. And that he was present when one vehicle with a Joe Cell hooked up to it lifted and stayed clear off the ground and he ran his hand underneath the wheels. Which lends anecdotal evidence to the idea of gravity being electro-magnetic in nature. Is this running Suzuki engine a hoax? Are these people deliberately lying? Delusional? Careful disinformation? Well, take a look and decide for yourself. And note how much you are influenced (or not) by the fact that mainstream science says it is impossible. Paul Archive index: http://www.fzglobal.org/writings.htm
Message 843 Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:21 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Robot auditor WIN! --- In email@example.com, XXXX wrote: [re copyrights and trademarks] Hi XXXX, One reason that I want to give attention to this subject is that of agreement as to what we are talking about. I try to use words in their normal dictionary definitions. I sometimes err in using too much flowery language, or British idioms of limited use, but I do try. I am familiar with what is normally known by the name of "Scientology" among the Freezoners I have been in comm with for the past couple of years. I have been active in various Yahoo groups and met a bunch of people active in the Freezone, and assume my contact has been pretty mainstream. I was even a member of Zivorad's Yahoo group for a year, although I didn't post there much. I read PEAT and can see how it might work, although I have never tried it. I don't recall Zivorad calling it Scientology, and I remember a post where he expressly denied the label. A year ago I wrote a detailed article for the purpose of determining what should and what should not be considered for inclusion in a wiki about Scientology, which is somewhat relevant to the discussion here, as it would certainly exclude PEAT being considered to be "Advanced Free Zone Scientology": http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Help:In_or_out This group is your group. You are the list owner and have total say on what is covered in your group. My presumption was that "auditing" would be what I had always understood it to be, and if I used the word "Scientology" it would have the same meaning as was familiar to me. If you are using the words in a different meaning here, that's your right, but I would like to know the differences. I once did a complex analysis of the elements of standard tech so that the different technologies in the Freezone could be compared. I lost interest in completing the comparison, but the list could be useful in spotting possible differences between your "Scientology" and "auditing" and mine. The list is at: http://www.fzglobal.org/comparison.htm As for Nordenholz, he published the word "Scientologie" many years before Hubbard. One cannot copyright a single word, although one can trademark it. The fact of this publication may lend some weight to an argument that the registered trademark "Scientology" belongs in the public domain. Maybe it does. But currently it isn't legally in the public domain; I don't live on a tropical island; there is a well-known maxim about sleeping dogs. I don't accept Filbert's statement that the LRH tech he ripped off and published in "Excalibur Revisited" didn't come from published HCOBs but from the Akashic Records. Try that one out in a court of law! A lack of challenge doesn't mean a copyright assertion is legally unassailable. It just means it hasn't been legally challenged, for whatever reason. But this Filbert stuff is copyright. We are really talking about a trademark, not a copyright, not a patent. A trademark. Man, I'm tired of typing this. Yeah, let's get back to some interesting stuff. Paul Current CofS trademarks: http://www.fzglobal.org/trademarks.htm
Message 844 Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:22 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Auditing over the NET - Experimenting --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > XXXX may not have expected to start a long discussion > about the topic here, but it's certainly come up as a > recurring theme: how can we use technology to improve > the ability to deliver auditing? > [snip] Your entire post is excellent, XXXX. Here is another confrontation in the long-standing war of ideas between Progressive Standard Tech and Conservative/Classic Standard Tech. I suspect this war will continue for as long as the idea that LRH is the only individual who can be trusted in matters of the spirit. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org
Message 845 Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:06 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: My speaking C-Meter --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, XXXX wrote: > > E-PRO: The SPEAKING C-METER can READ OUT LOUD A LIST, RECOGNIZE READS, WRITE THEM DOWN and ASK YOU THE NEXT QUESTION all by itself...... > You do not see the computer from where you sit. You just read your book - and you want to be sure to apply study tech. So your attention is on understanding every word. You are reading and reading and suddenly, a soft voice out of the remote computer says "five". > > And you know "Aha - I had a read here of 0.05 division > down.....". I already commented in my robot tech faq on metered robot auditing. But I didn't comment on this aspect. Are you really trying to do something like solo M2 word-clearing? What exact procedure are you following? With what result? Is the idea to word-clear the book first, then study it afterwards with the meter put away, or are you doing both actions at once? (Personally, I don't see how one can fully word-clear something without fully understanding it, but some make the distinction). As far as I recall, solo M2 is not standard Scn, for what it's worth. I did do the Pro Wordclearer course and internship while in the CofS, as well as sup Solo auditors for a couple of years there. I can think of a way it might work, but it wouldn't be following the M2 HCOB, and I am interested in what you have come up with. And are you using Filbert's arbitrary one-size-fits-all sensitivity, or adjusting it each session so that the meter is usable? (Loaded question...) Paul Feed Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org
Message 846 Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:09 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: To Bob - To Fluffy --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It's not really my intention to make people guilty of overts. That's > one of the biggest overts around. Can you explain how that is, in your opinion? You don't have to explain it as a generality for everyone. I've been seeing this statement for years and it never matched with my observations at all. Paul
Message 847 Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:31 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Robot auditor WIN! --- In email@example.com, XXXX wrote: > > A clarification: scientology is a applied religious philosophy > popularized by a research group managed by L Ron Hubbard. > Hubbard researched and popularized Dianetics, but not > scientology -- in spite of a common fallacy. > > Scientology is a religion based on applications of religious > technology and principles of scientology. Scientology to > scientology as Christianity to teachings of Yeshua (Jesus Christ). In which group of people, XXXX? I have seen some people use a lower-case "s", but it is usually hard to see whether they are deliberately trying to make some differentiation or they don't know grammar well enough to capitalize the word. Trademark law doesn't make this differentiation, nor does common usage, as far as I know. Paul
Message 848 Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:41 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: FWD: Running out Scn --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > XXX wrote: > > On your way to finally ditching your case, one > > of the last things that's done is running out all > > your auditing. > The concept of lock-scanning to locate & reduce areas > of bypassed-charge goes all the way back to DMSMH if not > before. Applying it at the end of session with a pc/p-ot > with regard to auditing hardly constitutes a > radical divergence from standard practice. Lock-scanning as a procedure surely is a divergence from standard practice. And definitely radical if done after Clear. Not in R3X but certainly in the current Scn bridge. My opinion is that past auditing should be cleared up as a matter of course throughout an individual's spiritual track, at whatever appropriate points are chosen by the case's decision-maker. Why treasure the BPC until the very end like some precious memento? And a being who would suffer from invalidation just by being asked a question is in a pretty sorry condition for someone supposedly in good shape. Paul
Message 849 Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:52 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Robot auditor WIN! --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, XXXX wrote: > > The word Scientology has more than one meaning, that's > the thing. Using lower-case 's' is an attempt to distinguish > the usual meaning from others. But where does it have this meaning? In which group of people? In my home, we could use the word "coca-cola", with small "c"s, to mean the material vomited up by the cat sometimes. But that doesn't make it a term with broad acceptance. In the Freezone generally, this deliberate use of "scientology" with a lower-case "s" is not common. > Please refer to > http://webpages.charter.net/littlefilbert/excal/ and > http://webpages.charter.net/littlefilbert/excal/authorization_to_post .pdf > for a very terse argument about the nature of Filbert's copyright. > He had successfully maintained that argument over claims from the > Cof$ between 1982 and now. Did the CofS sue Filbert in a court of law over this copyright claim and lose the case, with a written judgment about this copyright claim? What exactly do you mean by "successfully maintained that argument over claims from the Cof[S]"? Do you mean only that no court judgment exists against Filbert? That was a very interesting letter Filbert wrote, by the way. I will comment further on it at some other time. Thank you for displaying it (with his permission). > As far as I understand it -- I am not a lawyer -- > a trademark prohibits commercial use of the items > protected by the trademark. It does not > regulate use of the word, nor anything related to > a dictionary usage of the word. Are we in agreement > on that or there is something I am missing? I'd agree with that. At least, within the boundaries of a "dictionary usage" referring to one of wide currency and not one only accepted within a group of five, twenty or a hundred people. Paul
Message 850 Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:49 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Robot auditor WIN! --- In email@example.com, XXXX wrote: > > > Did the CofS sue Filbert in a court of law over this > > copyright claim and lose the case, with a written judgment > > about this copyright claim? > > Yes, a number of times. Is there any evidence of this beyond Filbert's claim that it is so? Sorry to be an unbeliever, but on the basis of those two letters from Filbert he comes across to me as a nut, supplying vast amounts of added inapplicable data about stuff that looks delusional without any evidence to back it up. I have no idea what you wrote to him, XXXX, that his letter was a response to. But I would guess it was along the simple lines of "Dear Mr. Filbert, I admire your work tremendously and would like to put it on my website to make it more freely available for the good of the world. How about it? ARC, XXXX" An appropriate response would be, "Oh yes, surely, I'm flattered, go for it." If I was making claims one tenth as incredible as his and expected to be believed, I would show some objective evidence to support them. I couldn't find any evidence on the Net on a cursory search. There is a statement on a Lerma site (I think) that the CofS never challenged Filbert's copyright in court. That isn't definitive either, but where is any EVIDENCE? Paul
DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology. Dianetics®, Scientology® and others are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center.