On Feb 16, 11:23 am, "Eldon" wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:58 pm, "Ball of Fluff" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 3:25 am, "Kevin Brady" wrote:
>
> > > "Zinj" wrote in message
>
> > >news:MPG.203ea7c99270f561989869@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> > > > In article <45d4d...@news2.lightlink.com>, gomorr...@hotmail.com
> > > > says...
>
> > > >
>
> > > >> People can argue
> > > >> endlessly over the definition of what a scientologist is, but to me, it's
> > > >> a
> > > >> person who practices scientology to the extent they have been trained in
> > > >> it,
> > > >> and I find people who haven't been trained (or trained themselves, using
> > > >> internet resources) to at least Class V, and preferably Class VI to be
> > > >> essentially blow-hards who don't understand the subject.
>
> > > > Strange. By your definition, since I've never been 'trained' in
> > > > Scientology, and I practice it to the level of my 'training'
> > > > (not at all), I'm a Scientologist :)
>
> > > If that's what you took from it, good! Adroit sidestepping of the point, as
> > > usual.
>
> > > > Sounds like the Fluffy definition, where anyone who 'uses
> > > > Scientology Tech' to his own benefit is a 'Scientologist', and,
> > > > since I not only own at least a half-dozen dictionaries and
> > > > *use* them, and using a dictionary is part of the Scientology
> > > > Tech, I am a Scientologist.
>
> > > Sweet, let me know when you have your LifeTime Membership to the IAS.
>
> > > >> That's assuming
> > > >> that the core activity of scientology is auditing, and not systematically
> > > >> defrauding people, which is the argument of many critics. There is that
> > > >> "business interest" which is pursued by some, if not many
> > > >> "scientologists",
> > > >> but that is not the core activity of the subject, at least not as
> > > >> understood
> > > >> by most people calling themselves scientologists.
>
> > > > If I were to specify the 'core activity' of the 'Scientology
> > > > Movement' it wouldn't be auditing *or* the 'business interests',
> > > > which are both subservient to the *political* activity; i.e.
> > > > 'Clearing the Planet'.
>
> > > > Zinj
> > > > --
> > > > You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
>
> > > Really? And clearing the planet means what to you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Actually, what I said was that it's Hubbard's definition.
>
> > I only wrote that ten bazillion times. Zinj needs to get his head out
> > of his ass.
>
> It doesn't matter how many times you write it, Fluff. You can write it
> for the rest of eternity. You can wear you fingers out on multiple
> keyboard and empty pens for the next decade.
Not sure what the problem is. I'm rebutting this constant charge that
I made up that definition. I didn't and am saying so.
>
> You can continue writing utter bullshit, indoctrinated by LRH or not
> See what I mean?
See above.
>
> Unlikely, due to your severe state of hypnosis.
Nope. Divested myself of all indoctrination. That's why a lot of FZers
don't particularly care for yours truly.
>Perhaps a
> professional therapist could help you with that.
That's really neither here nor there. Nor is it any of your business.
It is not a question of therapy when someone truthfully rebuts a
comment falsely attributing something to her.
>But you probably
> wouldn't want to find out, would you? OK. Just keep typing. It's
> redundant, but if it works for you, fine.
If someone says I made something up and I didn't, I am going to say
so.
If you're too dim to get that, then that's really your problem.
C
www.claireswazey.com
|