I, Poopsy Carmicheal, Get Deprogrammed From Scientology On ARS In 2001

I, Alanzo, had been reading the internet and posting to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology as Poopsy Charmicheal from April 2001 to the end of 2002. I wrote this while “under the radar” and still working at a Scientologist-owned marketing company in Los Angeles.

OSA had probably identified me by this time, and within 3 weeks my whole life was about to change: Followed by PIs, fired from my job, family threatened, full disconnection from all my friends and business associates – everything I had built as a Scientologist.

But I didn’t care. They were not going to stop me from writing what I know.

And they were never, ever, going to shut me up.

They would have to kill me to do that. They know this.

Here’s me writing my latest “cog” in 2001:

________________________________

Poopsy Charmicheal
Apr 3, 2001, 12:39:54 AM

It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my head.

I can see why we hate you.

It’s because we’ve decided to become Scientologists. And in doing so, we
created a self called “Scientologist”.

It’s much like a self called “democrat” when one says, “I’m a democrat”. But
when we say “I am a Scientologist”, we are being something that we decided
to be, but that we don’t really possess. When a person decides to become a
democrat, no one can take that away from them. No one can declare them a
republican and kick them out. The democratic party can’t get all their
friends and family to disconnect from them, get them fired from their jobs,
and worse.

But the Church of Scientology can. Deep down, we all know this. Although it
rarely dawns on us, this is the only beingness that we have created, and put
tons of time, energy and money into, which we don’t end up owning. It is our
most precious self, as it represents eternal freedom from pain, misery and
death. But it can be taken away at any time. We can be declared. And so, as
a Scientologist, we live a hunted existence.

We are very tightly controlled by this threat of extinction for all
eternity. Threaten us with it just a little, and we cave. Who wants their
eternity taken away for a little spat over some money, or some time, or over
a principle or an ideal of how things should really be?

A Scientologist can become quite frantic over this. We can live for years
with the grossest of injustices, totally justified, merely because of our
anxiety of having this precious self stripped away.

This anxiety extends to the third dynamic. Out in society, or here on ARS,
when we confront a person who calls Scientology a “cult”, the threat of
religious intolerance looms over us. It’s the same fear of losing one’s self
called “Scientologist”, but it’s external now – we could lose our whole
religion. So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

A Scientologist is our most precious self. We identify totally with it. We
fight for it with all our might.

And it isn’t even ours.

If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?

Poopsy Carmichael

THE BIG MAC
Apr 3, 2001, 2:15:18 AM

You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset? Doing so will
help your readers understand what it is you are trying to say, and I
think that is a goal you wish to achieve. I’m quite serious: to
communicate you must speak a common language.

Beverly Rice
Apr 3, 2001, 3:47:48 AM
to Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:

Wow, ~very~ interesting insight . . .

great perspective in to the ~why~ regarding the hatred
and animosity and the outright dehumanizing of Co$’s
targets . . .

and the reason dedicated Co$’ers allow themselves to
become a part of that.

I never realized that the hatred of Hubbardites is more
a fear of losing self.

And as you said, not realizing that if they really
~were~ what they were afraid of losing, they would
~NOT~ be able to lose it.

Therefore . . .

being a $cientologist in Co$ . . .

is just an illusion that can be taken away at any
moment and time.

Thank you for sharing.

ARC = As-Ising The Real Co$,

Beverly

DeoMorto
Apr 3, 2001, 3:58:03 AM
>And it isn’t even ours.
>
>If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?

an insightful post indeed.

Scientology: Building idiots from the bottom up.

Aelius
Apr 3, 2001, 3:22:03 AM
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:

> So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
> whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

Bullshit. Everyone can see you for a bunch of evil fuckwits, that’s all. You’ll
destroy anyone who disagrees with you, and THAT is why people treat you like the
filthy shit that you are.

Nobody goes after harmless cults. Ever noticed that?

Aelius

Joe’s Garage
Apr 3, 2001, 4:14:26 AM

I don’t know who or what Poopsy is, but the message is clear enough to me,
and makes a good point, to boot. Not meeting your individual preference,
such as responding to a post from the top instead of the bottom, does not
equate to senselessness.

The poor man’s version of what Poopsy said is that you can’t be a
Scientologist and be an OT any more than you can be Peter Pan and fly. But
if you want the real meaning you have to read and understand Poopsy’s own
words. Have a great WOG[tm] day!

Joe Cisar: http://cisar.org/rfs0100.htm
Appreciate the finer things in life: http://www.leipzig-award.org
Save a Scientologist – http://mp3.cafepress.com/barbz
On-line book: http://members.tripod.com/German_Scn_News/has00.htm

Hermann Raith
Apr 3, 2001, 2:19:56 AM
to Poopsy,

I am not a Scientologist, and therefore it is difficult for me to understand
your enthusiasm. I found a way for myself, which is fully satisfying for me
and certainly much cheaper than Scientology (it is described on my
homepage). Can you give me any reason, why I should look deeper into
Scientology?

Hermann (http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm)

Starshadow
Apr 3, 2001, 7:59:20 AM

Poopsy, very true. I think you may have had your first Wog
Cognition–that in the Wog World, people don’t worry about friends
and family leaving them for differences in life, lifestyle, opinions,
or beliefs. Wogs are At Cause over petty differences, in the main.
Why, my own mother thought for years that gay and lesbian people
CHOSE to be that way,(and that they were scum of the earth thereby)
and when, a few years before her death, she found out that her
beloved youngest daughter was a lesbian, she didn’t disconnect, she
became closer to me, and learned something, at nearly eighty years of
age. If one of us had been a Scn’ist, she might have died without
that closeness, if the other were diametrically opposed to Scn’y.

But you have yet to learn –and may never learn–that Scn’y is
designed with making its own enemies, since by doing so it can create
a united front in the face of all that is bad with Scn’y in the CofS.

Maybe you’ll wind up Freezone, or maybe you’ll take the rest of the
steps out when you cognate that Hubbard designed it that way. In any
case, the first steps out are the hardest. Congratulations on your
cognition. May it be the first of many.

– —
Bright Blessings,

Starshadow, KoX, SP4, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)

Starshadow
to Aelius”
<ael…@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:3AC9963B…@runbox.com…

>
>
> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
>
> > So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
> > whip up support against the church and take our selves away.
>
> Bullshit. Everyone can see you for a bunch of evil fuckwits, that’s
> all. You’ll destroy anyone who disagrees with you, and THAT is why
> people treat you like the filthy shit that you are.

This is where your black and white thinking is going to get you in
trouble. Not *everyone* sees all Scn’ists as a bunch of “evil
fuckwits”, though most critics can see the management of the CofS as
such.

For the record, I do not think the average, public Scn’ist is
“filthy shit” and I doubt most of the critics do. Aelius speaks for
himself.

Though Claire already knows I’m not standing in Aelius’ ranks.

>
> Nobody goes after harmless cults. Ever noticed that?

Again with the generalities. People do go after “harmless cults”.
They don’t happen to be the subject of THIS newsgroup, however.

People don’t, contrary to your apparent fuzzy thinking, wake up and
say “I think I will join a cult today and live in groupthink
forever”. They usually see a cult’s goals as compatible with their
own and want to improve the world and themselves. They are idealists,
and not always as wide-eyed as I used to think they must be. But for
whatever reason they fall for the hype and go after it and get caught
up in it.

Personally, Aelius, I wish you’d take a class in logic. You
specialize in fuzzy thinking, and it’s not a pretty sight for those
of us who try not to. My opinion, not to be construed as an order or
mandate, of course.

– —
Bright Blessings,

Starshadow, KoX, SP4, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)

barb
Apr 3, 2001, 8:16:04 AM
to

I thought it was pretty clear, myself. But then, I’ve been here a while.
See, what “Poopsy” is saying is that, although you may CHOOSE to be a
Scientologist, it’s vaporware. Even if you achieve the exalted OT
levels, supposed to bestow super powers, it can be all taken away by the
stroke of a pen, whereas true achievements become a real part of you
forever. I bet you didn’t know that Superpower abilities can be revoked!
If you learn to ride a bicycle, you remember how to do that your whole
life. Apparently Scientology Powerzz are more ethereal.
—
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.home.net/bwarr1/index.htm (this site is down right now.)
http://www.geocities.com/bwarr_2000/ mirror site

“Every week, every month, every year, every decade and now
every century, Scientology does weird and stupid things
to damage its own reputation.”
-Steve Zadarnowski

“Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
Scientology.”
-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle “club”

barb
Apr 3, 2001, 8:35:47 AM
to

She’s trying to explain the mindset here. Not the perception of the wog
world. I think she did quite a nice job, too. They don’t see themselves
as evil fuckwits, do they!

Thanks for the peek, Poopsy. I got it.

El Roto
Apr 3, 2001, 8:54:11 AM
to

“Poopsy Charmicheal” <poo…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_eey6.126296$Ch.17…@typhoon.we.rr.com…

An excellent post. Fear is nearly always the progenitor of hate.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful insight into the dynamic
between Scientologists and critics.

Steve G.

Geir Corneliussen
Apr 3, 2001, 9:28:56 AM
to
Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
>
> It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my head.
>
> I can see why we hate you.

That’s great. I know what you mean..

> We are very tightly controlled by this threat of extinction for all
> eternity. Threaten us with it just a little, and we cave. Who wants their
> eternity taken away for a little spat over some money, or some time, or over
> a principle or an ideal of how things should really be?

Right on. It’s all about consciousness.
Scientology sounded good. You became a part of a group, sharing the same
goal. It made you feel good. The whole point behind it, was to keep you
there with illusions. You have realized the “scientology self” to be
just an illusion. So you also realize that the hatred and the fears you
feel, is not yours, right? That the critics are dangerous criminals is
just made-up bulldull as well. I am not out to get the individuals, just
expose the organization. Some feel this to be a threat, since the
collective “sc. self” is what the critics attack. Take this away, and
there is nothing to attack. Your own self is what makes you a real
person, and that is something I respect. A much better and bigger deal.
Great post, thanks. Made me think about a couple of things as well. Now,
get you ass out of that wormhole.

🙂

—
Geir

Friendly Little Finger FZ Links
http://home.online.no/~corneliu/zappa.html

Why do you necessarily have to be wrong
just because a few million people think you are?
FZ

Birgitta
Apr 3, 2001, 9:38:54 AM
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
<poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:

Just like the insight when you realize that you are going to be
declared. The most frightening moment in your whole life is about to
happen. It’s like looking down in deep black unknown water and knowing
that they will put you there and you will most possibly drown,

What you don’t know yet is that you will survive and floate up to the
surface thousand times stronger, and that you will easily reach the
lifeline your new friends are offering you.

Thank you for sharing your insigt with us.

Birgitta (Bid) Harrington

Geir Corneliussen
Apr 3, 2001, 10:00:23 AM
to
Beverly Rice wrote:
>
> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
>
> Wow, ~very~ interesting insight . . .
>
> great perspective in to the ~why~ regarding the hatred
> and animosity and the outright dehumanizing of Co$’s
> targets . . .
>
> and the reason dedicated Co$’ers allow themselves to
> become a part of that.
>
> I never realized that the hatred of Hubbardites is more
> a fear of losing self.

The collective scientology self. As Poopsy realized, it’s “not even
ours”. That tells me Poopsy is no longer a real scientologist, the way
they were meant to be by the organization. It looks like an awakening.

“Wake up, Time to Die!”
As any fan of the movie “Bladerunner” knows, he don’t die.
Deckard wins 🙂

And then, as Morpheus say in the movie “The Matrix”:
“Welcome to the real world”…..

Since the Scientologists enjoy Hollywood and their celebrities so much,
I wonder if they are allowed to watch those…

Geir Corneliussen
Apr 3, 2001, 10:03:05 AM
to
Birgitta wrote:

> Just like the insight when you realize that you are going to be
> declared. The most frightening moment in your whole life is about to
> happen. It’s like looking down in deep black unknown water and knowing
> that they will put you there and you will most possibly drown,
>
> What you don’t know yet is that you will survive and floate up to the
> surface thousand times stronger, and that you will easily reach the
> lifeline your new friends are offering you.

Just make sure to take the blue pill. Or was it the red pill?

Sorry, Matrix sketch again….

Birgitta
Apr 3, 2001, 10:39:16 AM
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:03:05 +0200, Geir Corneliussen
<corn…@online.no> wrote:

>Birgitta wrote:
>
>> Just like the insight when you realize that you are going to be
>> declared. The most frightening moment in your whole life is about to
>> happen. It’s like looking down in deep black unknown water and knowing
>> that they will put you there and you will most possibly drown,
>>
>> What you don’t know yet is that you will survive and floate up to the
>> surface thousand times stronger, and that you will easily reach the
>> lifeline your new friends are offering you.
>
>Just make sure to take the blue pill. Or was it the red pill?
>
>Sorry, Matrix sketch again….

Well, I wrote from my memory how it felt for me. Very, very scary.

But I guess it was the blue pill, as the blue color is the symbol for
hope. At least in Sweden.

Bid

Gerry Armstrong
Apr 3, 2001, 10:58:38 AM
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
<poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my head.
>
>I can see why we hate you.
>
>It’s because we’ve decided to become Scientologists. And in doing so, we
>created a self called “Scientologist”.

Technically it really isn’t a creation. It’s a mocked up fiction or
illusion.

>
>It’s much like a self called “democrat” when one says, “I’m a democrat”. But
>when we say “I am a Scientologist”, we are being something that we decided
>to be, but that we don’t really possess. When a person decides to become a
>democrat, no one can take that away from them. No one can declare them a
>republican and kick them out. The democratic party can’t get all their
>friends and family to disconnect from them, get them fired from their jobs,
>and worse.

They might be able to. But as a rule they don’t. Scientology as a rule
does.

>
>But the Church of Scientology can. Deep down, we all know this. Although it
>rarely dawns on us, this is the only beingness that we have created,

That we mocked up. Our, using your words, created beingness remains
unchanged no matter what we mock ourselves up as; e.g., a Democrat, a
Scientologist, or a declared ex-Scientologist.

> and put
>tons of time, energy and money into, which we don’t end up owning.

The blessing is that it’s a “beingness” you wouldn’t want to end up
owning; or being.

>It is our
>most precious self, as it represents eternal freedom from pain, misery and
>death.

Scientology doesn’t deal with that self. That self never changes.
Scientology only deals with what changes; i.e., the ego. If
Scientology addressed what never changes the cult would lose its
customers, since there’d be no reason to do all the things which
“cause” change.

>But it can be taken away at any time. We can be declared. And so, as
>a Scientologist, we live a hunted existence.

You don’t really. That’s just what the cult rulers want you to
believe. They want you to believe that they have some power over you
to threaten or take away your “beingness” or, as you say, your “most
precious self.”

>
>We are very tightly controlled by this threat of extinction for all
>eternity.

That’s an illusion. It has no control over you whatsoever. What you
are remains unchanging through all the seeming threats.

> Threaten us with it just a little, and we cave.

This is another proof that Scientology doesn’t work.

>Who wants their
>eternity taken away for a little spat over some money, or some time, or over
>a principle or an ideal of how things should really be?

Ask really who would want to take away your eternity for any reason.

And ask who would want you to believe that your “eternity” can be
taken away at all.

And then try, now who or what gives eternity which can never be taken
away?

>
>A Scientologist can become quite frantic over this.

Another proof that Scientology doesn’t work.

But can’t you see now that you should thank God Scientology doesn’t
work. If it worked, you really could have your “eternity” taken away.
But it doesn’t work, and your “eternity” is not threatened in any way.

>We can live for years
>with the grossest of injustices, totally justified, merely because of our
>anxiety of having this precious self stripped away.

And what a crime Hubbard committed against you when he convinced you
that you should live with injustice and anxiety because your precious
self could be stripped away if you didn’t. Thank God L. Ron Hubbard Is
Dead Wrong.

>
>This anxiety extends to the third dynamic.

The “dynamics” are a mechanism of slavery and abuse.

> Out in society, or here on ARS,
>when we confront a person who calls Scientology a “cult”, the threat of
>religious intolerance looms over us.

That’s just another illusion you’ve been implanted with by the bad
folks running Scientology. No threat of religious intolerance looms
over you. Scientology is a cult. You can confront that when you can
say it.

> It’s the same fear of losing one’s self
>called “Scientologist”, but it’s external now – we could lose our whole
>religion.

Right, it’s an implanted fear. You are made irrational by Scientology.
Then the organization rulers manipulate your fear and irrationality.

> So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
>whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

Which is an illusion. The “bigots” don’t want your selves. It’s your
own rulers who have implanted you with the idea that they can take
your self away.

>
>A Scientologist is our most precious self. We identify totally with it. We
>fight for it with all our might.
>
>And it isn’t even ours.

Oh it’s yours all right. But it’s a complete illusion. What you
identify as your most precious self is an unstable illusion. Surely
you sense that.

Because it’s an illusion, your identity as a Scientologist can be
given away without the slightest loss. It really has no value. But by
continuing to believe that it has value, indeed believing it is your
most precious self, you will not recognize what really does have
value, and really is your precious self.

>
>If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?

True. What is real cannot be threatened. Scientology, thank God, is
unreal.

ptsc
Apr 3, 2001, 10:24:13 AM
to

>Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:

Actually, some people do. Pat Robertson. The Taliban. The Chinese
government. Other fanatical nuts who think that some people are just
inherently too evil to be allowed rights.

Incidentally the post you are responding to is an example of IRONY.

ptsc

ptsc
Apr 3, 2001, 10:23:17 AM
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:19:56 +0200, “Hermann Raith” <herman…@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Poopsy,

>I am not a Scientologist, and therefore it is difficult for me to understand
>your enthusiasm. I found a way for myself, which is fully satisfying for me
>and certainly much cheaper than Scientology (it is described on my
>homepage). Can you give me any reason, why I should look deeper into
>Scientology?

>Hermann (http://home.t-online.de/home/hraith/english.htm)

Your irony detector is malfunctioning 😉

ptsc

ptsc
Apr 3, 2001, 10:26:08 AM
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:05:52 GMT, “Starshadow” <starsh…@home.com> wrote:

>”Aelius” <ael…@runbox.com> wrote in message
>news:3AC9963B…@runbox.com…

>> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:

>> > So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
>> > whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

>> Bullshit. Everyone can see you for a bunch of evil fuckwits, that’s
>> all. You’ll destroy anyone who disagrees with you, and THAT is why
>> people treat you like the filthy shit that you are.

> This is where your black and white thinking is going to get you in
>trouble. Not *everyone* sees all Scn’ists as a bunch of “evil
>fuckwits”, though most critics can see the management of the CofS as
>such.

To be fair, Scientology is *RUN* by a bunch of evil fuckwits, so people being a
member of Scientology and making donations to the IAS contributes to the reign
of the evil fuckwits in question.

OSA, for example, is comprised almost entirely of evil fuckwits.

And unfortunately, the evil fuckwits are financially supported in their evil
fuckwittery by people who are often non-evil non-fuckwits.

The evil fuckwits could not continue their reign of lunacy without the inaction
of good people.

ptsc

Fluffygirl
Apr 3, 2001, 2:13:41 PM
to

“THE BIG MAC” <bm…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3ac9861a.6865711@localhost…

> You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
> English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset?

Poopsy is making plenty of sense. She is describing why many church members
(and I used to have *exactly* the same mindset and I can attest that what
she says is quite true for many of us) feel the way they do about critics.

She is using Scn terminology because, even though it may have escaped your
notice, many contributors here *are* ex Scientologists or Free Zoners and
know the lingo quite well. Still many others who are *not* ex members or
Free Zoners have made it their business to learn something about the
customs, tenets and so forth of the group that they critique so often and in
some cases, so valiantly. (because those individuals are *responsible*
critics) It’s pretty much a given that most of these terms will be
understood by the majority of contributors here.

Also in using these terms (which she *has* kept to a minimum, whether you
recognize this or not) a certain flavor or feeling comes across and that’s
obviously Poopsy’s intention.

One can always ask for clarification as needed. And before you protest “But
that is what I did.” I will say that what you were *really* doing was
pretending to ask for clarification but really chiding Poopsy and giving her
a ration of shit for her terminology. There’s a Scn term for that, but I
won’t burden your delicate sensibilities with it.

So accept the post in the spirit in which it was given.

Claire

Fluffygirl
Apr 3, 2001, 2:23:23 PM
to

“Aelius” <ael…@runbox.com> wrote in message
news:3AC9963B…@runbox.com…
>
>
> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
>
> > So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
> > whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

Poopsy has made it quite clear that she is describing a mindset that she is
in the process of changing. She is not presenting this mindset as correct.

And you slam her. Nice going.

>
> Bullshit. Everyone can see you for a bunch of evil fuckwits, that’s all.
You’ll
> destroy anyone who disagrees with you, and THAT is why people treat you
like the
> filthy shit that you are.

Poopsy and I are not filthy shit.

In my case, I’ve come onto this forum and been here 3 years trying to find
out why people were slamming CofS. I originally thought they were all evil.
I hated them (you). The first night I read the critic’s ‘sites and this ng
I cried. Not for the abuses, I was crying ‘cuz you guys were so mean. This
was my perception at the time. But I’ve changed it. I’ve found out that
CofS was doing a WHOLE LOT of things I never dreamed that it would do. They
surely weren’t going to tell me about those things. But thanks to the
internet, I found out. (I’d hitherto dismissed various news magazine and
newspaper articles as bigoted rantings.) I found out that there was much
more going on than a few disgruntled ex members and the occasional rare
abuse which I (incorrectly) figured was rare as hens teeth. I also learned
not to consider that critics were SPs just because they were critical of
CofS. I apply this particular updated datum even to vitriolic rude people
such as yourself.

When I got into the church and during the time I persisted with my
membership I felt I was part of something that was going to address all
society’s ills and any of my own as well. It was a search for truth that
led me into it.

I believe that this is what Poopsy is describing, too.

And now Poopsy is changing her viewpoint about things she believed for a
very long time and she’s sharing that with the ng. And you call her filthy
shit.

You should read her post again. Carefully. Because you obviously didn’t get
it.

>
> Nobody goes after harmless cults. Ever noticed that?

Actually, that’s not true. Others have answered this more eloquently than I
so I need not repeat them…

arnie lerma
Apr 3, 2001, 2:58:50 PM
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
<poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is exquisite
I’d like to web it, but prefer to avoid
using anon stories.. I do, rarely, post anon stories, but
even then the anon posted is usually not anon to me.
Arnie Lerma – non disclosure guranteed

I’d prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90’s
http://www.lermanet.com – mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post’s – ‘Reliable Source’ column re “Scientologist with no HEAD”

Tommy
Apr 3, 2001, 3:24:32 PM
to

What he said.

Tommy
—
“… it brings into focus more than anything else the refusal by the
defendants to live by the law — their apparently intractable conviction
that they are somehow above the law. This is illustrated by Mrs.
Hubbard’s statement on the witness stand that she and her codefendants,
including these two defendants, felt they could do to others whatever
they perceived, however erroneously, others were doing to them.”

— Sentencing Memorandum in US v. Kember and Budlong;
Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)

Hartley Patterson
Apr 3, 2001, 3:58:37 PM
to
Fluffygirl wrote:

> When I got into the church and during the time I persisted with my
> membership I felt I was part of something that was going to address all
> society’s ills and any of my own as well. It was a search for truth that
> led me into it.

And it has been a search for truth that kept you here and has brought you
to your present position, and that is subject to change as well? That’s
all I would ask of people – keep reevaluating the data.

—
“I think of my beautiful city in flames”
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and how to outrun
Thread. PGP ID: 0xC27CDDDC

Steve Plakos
Apr 3, 2001, 4:54:44 PM
to
Bravo Poopsy. I have not enjoyed a post this much in ages. Thank you for the
insights.

Steve

Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:

> religion. So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could

> whip up support against the church and take our selves away.
>

Steve Plakos
Apr 3, 2001, 4:55:49 PM
to

THE BIG MAC wrote:

> You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real

> English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset? Doing so will
> help your readers understand what it is you are trying to say, and I
> think that is a goal you wish to achieve. I’m quite serious: to
> communicate you must speak a common language.

You have *completely* misread her message. Try again.

>
>
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”

Mistmagoo55
Apr 3, 2001, 5:24:58 PM
to
>Subject: Re: Why Scientologists Hate You
>From: Gerry Armstrong arms…@dowco.com
>Date: 4/3/01 12:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ivvjctss2rkcrpmo5…@4ax.com>
>

>
>>If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?
>
>True. What is real cannot be threatened. Scientology, thank God, is
>unreal.

Here Here, Gerry! I agree with everything you have said. It is amazing how
Scientology does run this fear tactic, and they DO seem to take over your
entire life.

I, having been a Scientologist for 30 YEARS, just left last July. It took
tremendous courage to face up to the fraud I had bought into for most of my
adult life, but once I did, freedom has increased daily.

I suggest you re read what Gerry has written, and take a good, hard look at
what the truth is. Also, go to www.xenu.net and read and read and learn the
truth about this group you think is so wonderful.

Also, please go to www.lermanet.com and see my site on OSA and read what these
folks are up to.

The truth shall set you free, but only if you are willing to look at ALL of it
(which Scientology discourages tremendously I might add. Why do you suppose
THAT is??)

LOVE TO YOU,

Tory/Magoo~dancing in the light~
In for 30 years
Out for 8 months
SP 5
Free at last!
(more info at www.xenu.net/Tory)

Starshadow
Apr 3, 2001, 6:38:29 PM
to
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

“ptsc” wrote in message
news:p9ujct0ljrb9fl0dp…@4ax.com…

True. Those people need to be made aware of this, though, before
they can do anything about it. Some are learning…

– —
Bright Blessings,

Dave Bird
Apr 3, 2001, 2:04:00 PM
to
In<3ac9861a.6865711@localhost>, THE BIG MAC <bm…@aol.com> writes:
>You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
>English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset? Doing so will
>help your readers understand what it is you are trying to say, and I
>think that is a goal you wish to achieve. I’m quite serious: to
>communicate you must speak a common language.

Actually, BigMac, it’s not that heavy on jargon, and what there is
can be understood from context. It doesn’t ** assume ** agreement
with an irrational mindset before you can follow the text, rather it
is trying to explain one. I agree “globular transparency” is a bit
purple-proseish, but that isn’t a scientology expression.

>
>
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
><poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my head.
>> I can see why we hate you.
>> It’s because we’ve decided to become Scientologists. And in doing so, we
>> created a self called “Scientologist”.
>>
>> It’s much like a self called “democrat” when one says, “I’m a democrat”. But
>> when we say “I am a Scientologist”, we are being something that we decided
>> to be, but that we don’t really possess. When a person decides to become a
>> democrat, no one can take that away from them. No one can declare them a
>> republican and kick them out. The democratic party can’t get all their
>> friends and family to disconnect from them, get them fired from their jobs,
>> and worse.
>>
>> But the Church of Scientology can. Deep down, we all know this. Although it
>> rarely dawns on us, this is the only beingness that we have created, and put
>> tons of time, energy and money into, which we don’t end up owning. It is our
>> most precious self, as it represents eternal freedom from pain, misery and
>> death. But it can be taken away at any time. We can be declared. And so, as
>> a Scientologist, we live a hunted existence.

In article<u7ujctsish4fmic2q…@4ax.com>, ptsc writes:
>Incidentally the post you are responding to is an example of IRONY.

Really? I didn’t read it as one bit ironic; merely trying to explain
what it was like to hold an irrational viewpoint she once held.

|~/ |~/
~~|;’^’;-._.-;’^’;-._.-;’^’;-._.-;’^’;-._.-;||’;-._.-;’^’;||_.-;’^’0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge’s Dog? | . . . . . . . ‘—-. 0 | O
O | answers on *—|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F

mephistopheles
Apr 3, 2001, 8:40:40 PM
to
THE BIG MAC wrote:
>
> You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
> English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset? Doing so will
> help your readers understand what it is you are trying to say, and I
> think that is a goal you wish to achieve. I’m quite serious: to
> communicate you must speak a common language.

Actually, fool, “poopsy” is making perfect sense to me. Maybe *you*
have the problem. If it’s a “common language” you want, the common
language I’m hearing is fear… the fear of losing one’s identity as a
member of a group, after having devoted much time and effort to
developing that identity and finally becoming an accepted member of the
group, when that is something much desired.

For what it’s worth, I sympathize with “poopsy”. The “church” of
$cientology could be filled with such people, for all I know. However,
I would still inform and educate as to $cientology, Inc.’s TRUE nature,
because the organization is much, much more than the sum of its parts,
and far worse than anything most people imagine.

$cientology’s “parishioners” are regularly coerced, blackmailed, and
forced to do things that they wouldn’t dream of doing outside the
“church”. Its effect on its members is cancerous, turning what would be
bright, creative people into angry, dimunitive, divorced-from-reality
cultists. The “church” demands that its members harm their “enemy” to
get back in its good graces. The “church” never stops demanding money,
to the point of totally invading your privacy and gaining access to your
accounts without your permission or consent. Don’t want to give up the
cash? Don’t have any cash to give up? $cientology will find cash for
you to give them. $cientology will get you a loan, another credit card,
whatever it takes to get more money from you.
The “church” will tell you your “increased abilities” will more than
make up for it. The truth is that there are more $cientologists using
their “increased abilities” to generate multi-level marketing victims
than anything else. It’s like a huge Avon/Tupperware party daisy
chain–each victim sells to his or her peers, and they feed off each
other. Every once in a while an opportunity comes along like
“Battlefield Earth”, which employs a hundred $cientologists at union
wages, giving them the money they need for the next step on the hamster
wheel to total freedom (apologies to alerma).

$cientology wants your MONEY. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not
about “wins” or “making the able more able”. It’s about MONEY.
Anything that interferes with the ultimate goal of $cientology, getting
its hands on your money, simply cannot be tolerated.

After such an investment, the blinders slowly slipping off must be
terrifying indeed. Not only has the “church” taken every dollar it
could get its hands on, it has a PC folder fat with potential blackmail
material, a sheaf of “success stories”, and a proven history of
harassment, intimidation, and litigation in the pursuit of SILENCING ITS
ENEMIES. All of your friends and associates are cult members, and your
life has been put on hold, waiting for the next step up the “bridge”.
It must be terrifying indeed to see the end of everything you know ahead
of you on the road somewhere.

It’s much easier to remain in the cult and put up with the abuse, lies,
incessant demands for money and other bullshit. It’s the “evil you know
versus the evil you don’t know” argument. The hardcore adherents won’t
ever leave. The cult will have to be stripped from them for their own
good. I hope to see it in a few years, when the cult of $cientology is
consumed by its own evil, having forever alienated most of the
population of this country and probably others, the Sea Org “reserves”
are tapped, and the ones holding the reins are forced to seek asylum in
some third world shithole with what’s left of Hubbard’s millions, never
to be heard from again, like the leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich fleeing
Nazi Germany for South America with gold bars made from Jewish dental
fillings in their pockets.

> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
> <poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my head.
> >
> > I can see why we hate you.
> >
> > It’s because we’ve decided to become Scientologists. And in doing so, we
> > created a self called “Scientologist”.
> >
> > It’s much like a self called “democrat” when one says, “I’m a democrat”. But
> > when we say “I am a Scientologist”, we are being something that we decided
> > to be, but that we don’t really possess. When a person decides to become a
> > democrat, no one can take that away from them. No one can declare them a
> > republican and kick them out. The democratic party can’t get all their
> > friends and family to disconnect from them, get them fired from their jobs,
> > and worse.
> >
> > But the Church of Scientology can. Deep down, we all know this. Although it
> > rarely dawns on us, this is the only beingness that we have created, and put
> > tons of time, energy and money into, which we don’t end up owning. It is our
> > most precious self, as it represents eternal freedom from pain, misery and
> > death. But it can be taken away at any time. We can be declared. And so, as
> > a Scientologist, we live a hunted existence.
> >

> > We are very tightly controlled by this threat of extinction for all
> > eternity. Threaten us with it just a little, and we cave. Who wants their
> > eternity taken away for a little spat over some money, or some time, or over
> > a principle or an ideal of how things should really be?
> >
> > A Scientologist can become quite frantic over this. We can live for years
> > with the grossest of injustices, totally justified, merely because of our
> > anxiety of having this precious self stripped away.
> >
> > This anxiety extends to the third dynamic. Out in society, or here on ARS,
> > when we confront a person who calls Scientology a “cult”, the threat of
> > religious intolerance looms over us. It’s the same fear of losing one’s self
> > called “Scientologist”, but it’s external now – we could lose our whole

> > religion. So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could

> > whip up support against the church and take our selves away.
> >

> > A Scientologist is our most precious self. We identify totally with it. We
> > fight for it with all our might.
> >
> > And it isn’t even ours.
> >

> > If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?
> >

> > Poopsy Carmichael
> >
> >

—
Any information of a personal nature [hereafter IDENTITY] that Mr.
Mephistopheles may have provided remains the personal property of Mr.
Mephistopheles, and may not be used, bought, sold, or otherwise made
available for use, or provided for informational purposes, to any
unauthorized third party, by any party, under any circumstances, without
his express written consent. This notice does not serve as notification
of consent.

The failure, on the part of the recipient of this notice, to take
reasonable precautions to properly safeguard Mr. Mephistopheles’
IDENTITY may result in legal action being taken against said recipient.

The failure, on the part of the recipient of this notice, to adhere to
the requirements stated herein may result in legal action.

Failure on the part of Mr. Mephistopheles to take legal action as
described in the above paragraph shall in no way indemnify the recipient
of this notice or any unauthorized third party from damages or charges,
to the limit the law shall allow.

Michael Reuss
Apr 3, 2001, 9:29:17 PM
to
> bm…@aol.com (THE BIG MAC) wrote:

>You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
>English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset?

I assure you that Poopsy is making perfect sense and his mindset is
just fine. He’s done a damn good job of communicating the mindset of
many Scientologists in their own dialect. In his words, are the basis
of some true understanding.

Once you are up on a little cult jargon, go back and reread this post.
You might begin to see why Scientologists act as they do.

Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid

Podkayne1
Apr 3, 2001, 11:47:09 PM
to
In article <HVmDAQBw…@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird
<da…@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In<3ac9861a.6865711@localhost>, THE BIG MAC <bm…@aol.com> writes:
> >You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
> >English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset? Doing so will
> >help your readers understand what it is you are trying to say, and I
> >think that is a goal you wish to achieve. I’m quite serious: to
> >communicate you must speak a common language.
>
> Actually, BigMac, it’s not that heavy on jargon, and what there is
> can be understood from context. It doesn’t ** assume ** agreement
> with an irrational mindset before you can follow the text, rather it
> is trying to explain one. I agree “globular transparency” is a bit
> purple-proseish, but that isn’t a scientology expression.
> >

translucency. But transparency is just as wrong, as both of those are
things you can see through, and Poopsy’s saying that he couldn’t see til
after it was gone.

(yes, I’ve been working with translucent OS X widgets too much lately)

> >On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
> ><poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my
> >> head.
> >> I can see why we hate you.

—
You just say that because you have untreated Clue Deficit Disorder.
— Chris Leithiser

Podkayne1
Apr 4, 2001, 12:02:58 AM
to
In article <_eey6.126296$Ch.17…@typhoon.we.rr.com>, “Poopsy
Charmicheal” <poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:

I forgot what I was about to say, because I just connected this with the
OT 8 cog “I know who I am not, and want to find out who I am”

All this time you’re desperately building up “being a Scn” and then the
ultimate cog is to not “be” anything?

‘Scuse me, I have to go dig up the Terry Pratchett that the OT 8 cog
reminded me of:

(spoilers for the end of _Witches Abroad_)
Lily Weatherwax, bad witch (because she wants to control people’s
lives), has spent so much time playing parts she’s lost track of who she
really is, and is trapped in an alternate dimension that’s much like a
carnival mirror house:

Lily: “Where am I?”
Death: INSIDE THE MIRROR
“Am I dead?”
THE ANSWER TO THAT, said Death, IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN NO AND YES
“When can I get out?”
WHEN YOU FIND THE ONE THAT’S REAL
Lily Weatherwax ran on through the endless reflections.

Granny Weatherwax, Lily’s sister, and a good witch because she knows you
*can’t* control people’s lives. Same situation, same conversation, up
to:

WHEN YOU FIND THE ONE THAT’S REAL
Granny: “Is this a trick question?”
NO
Granny looked down at herself.
“This one”, she said.

barb’s profile photo
barb
Apr 4, 2001, 9:26:53 AM
to

“Globular translucency reminded me of the slime capsules parrotfish
encase themselves in at night, sort of like a gooey sleeping bag.
Perhaps globular opacity woulda been a better choice of word, but the
message behind the post was very clear, and a good insight into the Scn
mindset. I can’t fathom why Bigmac is having trouble understanding it.
Jamie Zellerbach’s profile photo
Jamie Zellerbach
Apr 4, 2001, 11:59:15 AM
to
Poopsy Charmicheal <poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We are very tightly controlled by this threat of extinction for all
> eternity. Threaten us with it just a little, and we cave. Who wants
> their eternity taken away for a little spat over some money, or some
> time, or over a principle or an ideal of how things should really be?

As long as your eternity does not come at the cost of others I am all
for it. I respect all organizations as long as they respect others and
their beliefs.

> A Scientologist can become quite frantic over this. We can live for
> years with the grossest of injustices, totally justified, merely because
> of our anxiety of having this precious self stripped away.

> This anxiety extends to the third dynamic. Out in society, or here on
> ARS, when we confront a person who calls Scientology a “cult”, the
> threat of religious intolerance looms over us. It’s the same fear of
> losing one’s self called “Scientologist”, but it’s external now – we
> could lose our whole religion. So we fight for religious freedom and we
> claw at bigots who could whip up support against the church and take our
> selves away.
>

There are enough ongoing examples of fear that breeds violence.
Indonesia where Muslims are killing Christians, Ireland where Protestant
and Catholic blood is shed. People killing people over ideals and
beliefs. The Jews, Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Hindu all
have had times of trial.

It would be very interesting to read what was said about the “Christian
Cult” back in the days of Rome. I am sure there were some awful
accusations. Well theses are not the times of Rome but the Information
Age. We hopefully have progressed from those days but have we?

For the most part what I have read is slanted towards the Church or it’s
members ratchetting up the level of conflict. But this I understand
after reading what I can about the ideology of the church. There is no
system of admitting fault. So when questioned the issue is avoided or
attacked. This makes it hard to be understanding when on the out side.

So how best to proceed? The critics are not going to go away till there
is nothing of substance to criticize. They are asking for answers that
frankly I too would like to hear what the Church and it’s leaders have
to say. Hiding worries people.

> A Scientologist is our most precious self. We identify totally with it.
> We fight for it with all our might.
>
> And it isn’t even ours.
>
> If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?

Your beliefs will always be with you. Even if the rest of the world is
in disagreement with you they can not take away your beliefs. They are
yours. The physical Church and it’s leaders are not what you believe in
but the teachings and ideology of Mr. Hubbard.

I believe the largest issue that the “critics” have is with the
practices of the Church and the leaders. On a whole the critics would
not care two hoots if you believed that the world was flat and the
supreme being was a frog named George. It is your belief and no one can
take it away. All a Church needs is one believer to exist.

To me as an outsider I believe the Church would do humanity a great
service if the teachings were made available for all at no cost and all
the secrecy was dropped. So that anyone can digest the teachings and see
if it works for them. Not everybody likes Chocolate. I am sure that the
faithful will look after the financial needs of the Church.

A part of Buddhism that I admire is the monks go out and receive their
food from the community every morning. They have no money so if they
displease the community they have to leave as there is no food provided
to them. This philosophy has kept the Church and the community close.

My 2 cents worth.

Jamie

STella
Apr 6, 2001, 1:37:11 PM
to
Mac, if this was my week to be Dorian, I’d call you OSA and leave it.
Whether, as I presently believe, Poopsy is posting from the heart, or
as you seem to feel, from a script, communication is a good thing, and
this reads to me like an attempt to communicate, while your post reads
TO ME as an attempt to dismiss. If I am doing you an injustice, I
regret that, but the truth as I see it is all I’m writing here.

Instead, I’m gonna try a translation, even though I think you’re
playing make-wrong games instead of asking an honest question. If
Poopsy feels I’m getting hir wrong in this translation, I hope for a
friendly bonk from the clue-by-four. (You too, Claire, or anyone else
who can increase my understanding of this memetic trap.)

In article <3ac9861a.6865711@localhost>, THE BIG MAC <bm…@aol.com> wrote:
>You are not making any sense. Can you put your statement in real
>English, without the cultspeak and irrational mindset? Doing so will
>help your readers understand what it is you are trying to say, and I
>think that is a goal you wish to achieve. I’m quite serious: to
>communicate you must speak a common language.

In this newsgroup, it is quite reasonable to expect basic familiarity
with scienojargon whether the participant is wog, clam, or somewhere
between. Further, it is entirely reasonable, when attempting to
discuss “irrational mindsets” to paint them from inside as well as
outside. Nothing I read on this newsgroup did as much to let me
understand scientology from the bitter inside as reading Lisa’s
writeup on her overts and withholds. Not even the log of her “care”
was more chilling, because THAT didn’t give me the feel for how
someone moves far enough into the con that the real world disappears.
Reading the logs of her IR, I could see only THAT reality had faded
for her friends who kept her locked up till she died; reading her own
words, I could see how she might have, on some level that would not be
sufficient in MY dungeon, “consented” to her imprisonment. (Please
note the quotes around “consented”. But that’s a whole nuther
discussion and I am not going there now, only pointing out that there
IS a there there.) I could see not only THAT reality had vanished for
Lisa, but something of HOW it was done. And that, I believe, is what
Poopsy is trying to show us — how it happens that scientologists can
feel that the threat we critics pose is great enough to merit
responses WE will think irrational.

So while I consider it reasonable for someone to ask “could you say
that in wog English” at points of confusion, asking someone to show us
what it’s like inside the mindset without using its jargon and
presuppositions is like demanding that someone teach me to speak
Spanish without USING any Spanish in the instruction. Can’t work.

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:39:54 GMT, “Poopsy Charmicheal”
><poo…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It’s as if some globular translucency has evaporated from around my head.

Translation: I can see things that were fuzzy much more clearly now.

>> I can see why we hate you.

Translation: I _get_ the reason critical comments about scientology
throw us into survival panic which we then take out on you.

>> It’s because we’ve decided to become Scientologists. And in doing so, we
>> created a self called “Scientologist”.

Translation: It’s because our status as scientologist is as evanescent
as the Emperor’s new clothing, and we know your criticism may leave us
naked to the wind.

>> It’s much like a self called “democrat” when one says, “I’m a democrat”. But
>> when we say “I am a Scientologist”, we are being something that we decided
>> to be, but that we don’t really possess. When a person decides to become a
>> democrat, no one can take that away from them. No one can declare them a
>> republican and kick them out. The democratic party can’t get all their
>> friends and family to disconnect from them, get them fired from their jobs,
>> and worse.

Translation: Your criticism brings closer to conscious awareness the
fact that our status as “Scientologist” is not under our control, but
instead is at the sufferance of distant others. We chose it, but we
may not be permitted to keep that status, even if we wish to do so.
Further, we can lose not only our status as “scientologist”, but our
friends, family, job, and what we perceive as our only future.

>> But the Church of Scientology can. Deep down, we all know this. Although it
>> rarely dawns on us, this is the only beingness that we have created, and put
>> tons of time, energy and money into, which we don’t end up owning. It is our
>> most precious self, as it represents eternal freedom from pain, misery and
>> death. But it can be taken away at any time. We can be declared. And so, as
>> a Scientologist, we live a hunted existence.

Translation: If I learn to tapdance, no-one can take away my ability
to tapdance. The effort I put into learning is mine, and the skills
remain mine forever, even if age or amputation make performance
difficult or impossible. But we have invested time, effort, and a
metric buttload of money in a status as scientologist that offers us a
way of transcending humanity, and this can be taken away at distant
whim, without our consent or cooperation by the very “Church” that has
promised to open the door to eternity.

Translation: because we have a huge investment in the search for
transcendance, and have been taught that our only source for eternal
survival comes from the Source L.Ron Hubbard, we can be manipulated by
it as easily as a bull with a fresh-pierced nosering. Mere worldly
concerns like money, our lives, our children, and our ideals cannot
weigh as heavily as eternal peace. The observable world has been
outbid by the promises of scientology, and any hint that these
promises are nonsensical or confidence tricks casts doubt on
everything we’ve been doing for years, every injustice we’ve ignored,
every cent we’ve taken from our kids’ wellbeing.

>> A Scientologist can become quite frantic over this. We can live for years
>> with the grossest of injustices, totally justified, merely because of our
>> anxiety of having this precious self stripped away.

Translation: This is a cynical exploitation of Pascal’s Wager. If we
stand to gain infinite benefits, it’s difficult to put anything in the
other side of the scales. Any threat to the supposed infinite
benefits will inspire us to a reaction FAR greater than seems
reasonable to folks who can’t see the shining illusion we believe to
be our future.

>> This anxiety extends to the third dynamic. Out in society, or here on ARS,
>> when we confront a person who calls Scientology a “cult”, the threat of
>> religious intolerance looms over us. It’s the same fear of losing one’s self
>> called “Scientologist”, but it’s external now – we could lose our whole
>> religion. So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
>> whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

Translation: If the sole source of our Soul Source (sorry, I can’t
resist) were cast into question, or worse yet, no longer available on
any terms, we would be cut off from all grounding, we would be
threatened not only for now, but for eternity. And since that would
not be a result of our sins, but, again, an external threat, we can
attack it. Further, we can attack it with all the buried rage we dare
not, like the slapped child, show to our spiritual caretaker.

>> A Scientologist is our most precious self. We identify totally with it. We
>> fight for it with all our might.
>>
>> And it isn’t even ours.
>>
>> If it was, it couldn’t be taken away, could it?

If this needs translation, I don’t have better words than Poopsy used,
and I do believe it does not.

“If it was, it couldn’t be taken away….”

[Translator’s note: I am, as you have perhaps noticed, generally an
industrial-strength joker and degrader. However, this post is my best
effort to understand and reflect what Poopsy is saying, and I am not
intending to make fun of the trap scientologists have been talked
into. If there is any point I have gotten All Wrong, PLEASE assume it
was not intentional, and PLEASE let me know where you think I screwed
up.]

STella, wearing a serious hat for a change

Zinj
unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 4:01:23 PM
to
Great translation work STella.

I think it could be added that:

Despite claims to no-faith, the Scientology house of cards is a monolithic
structure that can pull people in from any of a number of directions, but
requires an acceptance of the whole.

There is a not unrealistic terror in allowing even one element to be
attacked/removed/debunked.

That’s why Scientologists tend to answer criticism by with ‘yes, there are
bad things (unspecified when possible) but we never did them (rogue
elements/govt.agents/SPs) and we don’t do that any more anyway, with a quick
change of topic.

If the ‘tech’ including admin tech, study tech, PTS/SP tech work, how could the
current ‘admin’ develop? By their fruits yee shall know them.

And so we end up with the wildly anti-occam conspiracies of the CIA etc. from
still believing techies and the finger in ear ‘I can’t hear you!’ white noise
cover from the still cult-based.

Thanks to poopsie for what did read like a sincere effort, and here’s hoping
all scientologists lose their terror of criticism.
An attack on Scientology® *may* be by definition an attack on ‘you’ as a
Scientologist®, but first and foremost you are a being. (probably human with
all the good and bad that entails)

Zinj

In article <9al5t…@enews3.newsguy.com>, ste…@links.magenta.com says…

Patrick Volk
unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 6:15:39 PM
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:23:23 -0700, “Fluffygirl” <csw…@home.com>
wrote:

>
>”Aelius” <ael…@runbox.com> wrote in message
>news:3AC9963B…@runbox.com…
>>
>>
>> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
>>
>> > So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
>> > whip up support against the church and take our selves away.
>
>Poopsy has made it quite clear that she is describing a mindset that she is
>in the process of changing. She is not presenting this mindset as correct.
>
>And you slam her. Nice going.
>

A lot of critics don’t see fuckwits in Scientology. They see people.
Do you see people on the other side, not just ‘bigots’? Stuff like
that primes the pump of hatred.

When I see the goings on with Keith Henson, and some of the
ridiculousness, it isn’t proving your validity, it is mocking it. When
I see the tapes of the LMT protests, and hearing all the screaming by
the ‘oppressed’, it mocks that statement.

There are not people who disagree with Scientology, and are willing
to have a discussion it. They are denigrated to bigots, and treated as
such. Because you disagree with us, we must hurt you, we must shut you
up. You, as a critic, cannot be reasoned with. THAT is what
Scientology does to critics. And in this life, you reap as you sow.

The difference between the critics and the CoS members, is, we’re so
bigoted, but we’ll take you in! (Right, Tory? 🙂 There are freezoners,
free speechers (Kobrin is the reason why I’m here), and general
critics.

Fluffygirl
unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 6:38:59 PM
to

“Patrick Volk” <pjv…@home.com> wrote in message
news:3ace58bb.589627588@news…

> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:23:23 -0700, “Fluffygirl” <csw…@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >”Aelius” <ael…@runbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:3AC9963B…@runbox.com…
> >>
> >>
> >> Poopsy Charmicheal wrote:
> >>
> >> > So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could
> >> > whip up support against the church and take our selves away.
> >
> >Poopsy has made it quite clear that she is describing a mindset that she
is
> >in the process of changing. She is not presenting this mindset as
correct.
> >
> >And you slam her. Nice going.
> >
>
> A lot of critics don’t see fuckwits in Scientology. They see people.
> Do you see people on the other side, not just ‘bigots’?

Of course I do. I’m surprised that you’d even ask me that after all the
things I’ve written about a number of critics I’ve read and/or corresponded
with or heard about. It’s very very obvious that I do see people on the
other side. I am not one to scream “bigot” and if you think I am then you
must have read hardly any of my posts or else not retained much of what
you’ve read.

I was addressing one individual regarding his comments and at NO TIME did I
say that I thought all critics did or said these things. This, again, is
very very damn obvious from my other writings as well.

My taking one person’s comments up in a posted reply does not in any way
mean that I am issuing blanket accusations and if you look at my post you’ll
find no such blanket accusations.

There aren’t any because I don’t feel that way. So stop making things up
about me. It sucks and it’s also what you seem to be accusing me of.

Sheesh.

>Stuff like
> that primes the pump of hatred.

Non sequitur. I’ve done none of what you seem to be implying that I’ve done.
And I’m NOT responsible for anyone’s hatred or rantings, just as you are
not. I can see the difference, OBVIOUSLY.

>
> When I see the goings on with Keith Henson, and some of the
> ridiculousness, it isn’t proving your validity, it is mocking it.

WHAT validity? My validity as to the things I’ve said? Or that of all of
CofS? ‘Cuz, guy, I’m telling you now- do NOT try to lay what CofS does at my
feet. I won’t stand for it. I haven’t been sticking my neck- and other body
parts- out on this ng indicating disagreement after disagreement that I have
with CofS to be told that their validity is MY validity, oh no I haven’t. So
don’t pull that stuff.

Change the pronoun, already. Or elucidate further.

> When
> I see the tapes of the LMT protests, and hearing all the screaming by
> the ‘oppressed’, it mocks that statement.

What the hell does this have to do with me and my posts?

I’m not a church. I’m a girl. I’m ME. And I will thank you to address me
with this in mind.

Again I say Sheesh! Exponentially!

>
> There are not people who disagree with Scientology, and are willing
> to have a discussion it. They are denigrated to bigots, and treated as
> such.

Not by me!! So what you say strikes me as not being sequitur to my post.

One guy says some snotty assed things, I take him to task on it. I do NOT in
that post lay that at the door of all critic’dom nor have I in other posts-
so I’ll thank you in advance to reciprocate.

> Because you disagree with us, we must hurt you, we must shut you
> up.

Huh?

Are you sure you know whom you’re speaking with?

WTF?

>You, as a critic, cannot be reasoned with. THAT is what
> Scientology does to critics. And in this life, you reap as you sow.

I have not sown that.

Obviously.

But hey, thanks for the vote of confidence.

Feel free to actually READ some of my posts ‘cuz I think you’ve got me mixed
up with someone else.

You don’t want critics all lumped in together by Scientologists – which I DO
NOT do anyway- so apply this golden rule yourself.

Dang, guy!

> The difference between the critics and the CoS members, is, we’re so
> bigoted, but we’ll take you in!

I do not scream bigot and I dislike your implication that I do this.

And I don’t need anybody to take me in, thank you very much. I have a non
Scn job. I have property. I have a husband who stands behind me NO MATTER
WHAT I do- and I do mean NO MATTER WHAT- and I have plenty of non-Scn
friends.

I appreciate the fact that there are critics who’d be nice and helpful but I
already knew that and I’ve even indicated that quite a few times here on
this ng. Your telling me this here implies that you think I run around
screaming bigot and hating critics which is so far from the truth as to be
laughable. It also makes it look like you’ve not read many of my posts and
have, instead, irresponsibly made up an idea of me and labelled it Claire
Swazey. This is unfair and foolish and it’s also the same thing you are by
implication accusing me of.

That is not very consistent.

> (Right, Tory? 🙂 There are freezoners,
> free speechers (Kobrin is the reason why I’m here), and general
> critics.

I ~know~ that. I’ve commented on all this dozens of times right here on this
ng. Obviously.

(Again- are you *sure* you don’t have me mixed up with some other Scn’ist?
Sure as hell looks that way.)

STella
Apr 6, 2001, 1:37:11 PM
to
==== REPOSTED, SEE END OF ARTICLE ====

>> religion. So we fight for religious freedom and we claw at bigots who could

>> whip up support against the church and take our selves away.

Translation: If the sole source of our Soul Source (sorry, I can’t

resist) were cast into question, or worse yet, no longer available on
any terms, we would be cut off from all grounding, we would be
threatened not only for now, but for eternity. And since that would
not be a result of our sins, but, again, an external threat, we can
attack it. Further, we can attack it with all the buried rage we dare
not, like the slapped child, show to our spiritual caretaker.

If this needs translation, I don’t have better words than Poopsy used,
and I do believe it does not.

“If it was, it couldn’t be taken away….”

STella, wearing a serious hat for a change

Zinjifar
Great translation work STella.

I think it could be added that:

Despite claims to no-faith, the Scientology house of cards is a monolithic
structure that can pull people in from any of a number of directions, but
requires an acceptance of the whole.

There is a not unrealistic terror in allowing even one element to be
attacked/removed/debunked.

If the ‘tech’ including admin tech, study tech, PTS/SP tech work, how could the
current ‘admin’ develop? By their fruits yee shall know them.

And so we end up with the wildly anti-occam conspiracies of the CIA etc. from
still believing techies and the finger in ear ‘I can’t hear you!’ white noise
cover from the still cult-based.

Zinj

(STella) wrote:

> [Translator’s note: I am, as you have perhaps noticed, generally an
> industrial-strength joker and degrader. However, this post is my best
> effort to understand and reflect what Poopsy is saying, and I am not
> intending to make fun of the trap scientologists have been talked
> into. If there is any point I have gotten All Wrong, PLEASE assume it
> was not intentional, and PLEASE let me know where you think I screwed
> up.]
>
> STella, wearing a serious hat for a change

That was great, it ought to be webbed. Even though I’m pretty familiar
with Scn-speak, the translation heightened the impact of the original –
as you said, the jargon illustrates the mindset of a CoS member, and
it’s weird to realize how *different* that jargon is to ordinary English.

STella
unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 1:33:34 AM
to
In article <podkayne1-DF63F…@nntp.lightlink.com>,

Podkayne1 <podk…@aol.com> wrote:
>That was great, it ought to be webbed. Even though I’m pretty familiar

thank you!

Translation: way cool! Freely given if anyone wants to web it!

>with Scn-speak, the translation heightened the impact of the original –
>as you said, the jargon illustrates the mindset of a CoS member, and
>it’s weird to realize how *different* that jargon is to ordinary English.

Absolutely. Naming experiences defines them, and obtaining the power
to draw the dividing lines in another’s experience lets you control
their perceptions in a way that is all the more powerful for its
covert effect.

STella, watching out for the stobor

Beverly Rice
unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 8:15:19 AM
to
STella wrote:

What Poopsey wrote, and what you wrote, are excellent.

I am going to keep this post in storage for future use
when an appropriate time comes.

Thank you both.

ARC = As-Ising The Real Co$,

Beverly

[reposted because of rogue cancel]’s profile photo
[reposted because of rogue cancel]
unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 4:01:23 PM
to
Great translation work STella.

I think it could be added that:

Despite claims to no-faith, the Scientology house of cards is a monolithic
structure that can pull people in from any of a number of directions, but
requires an acceptance of the whole.

There is a not unrealistic terror in allowing even one element to be
attacked/removed/debunked.

If the ‘tech’ including admin tech, study tech, PTS/SP tech work, how could the
current ‘admin’ develop? By their fruits yee shall know them.

And so we end up with the wildly anti-occam conspiracies of the CIA etc. from
still believing techies and the finger in ear ‘I can’t hear you!’ white noise
cover from the still cult-based.

Zinj

3 thoughts on “I, Poopsy Carmicheal, Get Deprogrammed From Scientology on ARS in 2001”

Pingback: A History Of Scientology Criticism: Anonymous' Declaration Of War On Scientology
Pingback: Mark Bunker Is Up For Re-Election In Clearwater - When Will He Start Talking About Kyle Brennan?
Pingback: Are You Being Controlled By "OSA!OSA!OSA!"?

3 thoughts on “I, Poopsy Carmicheal, Get Deprogrammed From Scientology on ARS in 2001”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply