Subject: Re: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?) From: David Mayo Date: 1996/06/07 Message-Id: <4p9bn2$c70@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:54:37 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: >In article <31B77962.13EB@arcadis.be>, Bernie writes >> >>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine >>No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need >>of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes >>here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish >>behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know >>because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not >>helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way >>that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and >>can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you >>did already in some other post I didn't see. >> >Right. Now I *think* I understand what you're talking about. >I have not accused David Mayo of anything. Perhaps you should look at Not true, Dave Bird. In your own words: >>>[no, this does not] equate with membership in the so-called "church" >>>of scientology. Obviously you are no longer so. but also obviously >>>you do not disavow the tech thereof, and in fact still propagate >>>a version of it. which is *why* i consider you to be inclined >>>towards a particular mindset. Above you accuse me of propagating a version of Scientology(tm) tech yet (as I have pointed out repetitively) you do not know what version of "tech" I propagate --if any. In the absence of any factual knowledge, you make an accusation based on a preconceived opinion of yours or based on an opinion you have accepted, without verification, from a third party. (pun intended) >This may be an unwellcome thing for you, as the person who helped >develop and extend much of it, but many of us here think the tech Not true in that I did not develop much of Scn tech AND this is an ad hominem attack --frowned on on a.r.s if it is used against you but not otherwise? [...] >There is some suspicion of you, as having worked so closely All the more reason for you to be factual and for me to demand factual substantiation of opinions. [...] >>You also said that I still propagate a version of it ("the tech"). >>Please believe that I am not being facetious here but I do not think that >>you really have any idea of what I am propagating. I do not think that I >>am propagating any version of Scientlogy(tm) tech but again, I stand ready >>to be corrected. Specify, one single process or technique or piece of >>Scientology(tm) "tech" (or techs) that I am propagating. If you can't do >>that, at least detail any "tech" that I am propagating. >> >Perhaps you should give some details of the auditting processes >you are currently proagating, and I will tell you how I react to For the LAST time, what do YOU think I am "proagating" and/or from whom did you get that "information"? If I am "proagating" the "auditting" you think I am, how is that harmful. (I assure you that if you answer and if your answer is true and if it is harmful, I will cease it immediately.) If you do not answer, or do not answer factually, then I will allege that you are wittingly or unwittingly forwarding the explanation that RTC has used to justify why they have tried to destroy me. >But I really can't give a reaction when I have no clear idea >of what's in them! My point exactly. Yet you did give your reaction(s). Please substantiate or retract. > >}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}UNQUOTE. > >You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo >being "cultishly inclined". All I say is that maybe she >meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS >rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the >authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That >is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part >of the conversation. Please don't hide behind efischer. You did so also. Furthermore, you also said that I was "insufferably arrogant" for expressing my opinion that copyright violations had played into the hands of the RTC and less the cause of the critics and I pointed to copyright lawsuits that upheld my opinion. I also advocated exposure of unacceptable behaviour and said why. In a later post, I detailed the lawsuits I had referred to. > >David also made remarks about "I don't see why people are >suspicious of me" [because of continued connection with the >tech?] > and "why **should** I drop the tech anyway?". False assertion. I said that I had been and was sorting out which was harmful and why and which was not. Rather different than the interpretation above. >This is the part of the conversation that interested me >and which I responded to. No, you first came in on the side of disapproving of my opposition to copyright violation, which lead to "insufferable opinion"(s). Dave, I don't dislike you and I do not think your opinions are insufferably arrogant but I do think they are ill informed. I am no longer asking you to do anything about any of this. [...] >Only consider a set-up whose inner revelations consist >of learning to have a delium tremens vision of the world >in flames, learning to mimic parasitosis, thinking you >are literally divine, and finally realising >that the original mad author was in fact god. I bet the >leaked version of OT8 "the truth revealed" **is** the >genuine article---any comments, David? Express my "insufferable opinion" in the face of ... > >We're not going to agree on this, but I really do >think the tech is irredemable harmful and not >just "coz I feel it so" but for carefully thought >out reasons. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. ... your "carefully thought out reasons"? > Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who have been adversely affected? or to those who may be? Or do you prefer to just shut me up in case I shake a biased or preconceived opinion? Hell, I might even ask you to *think* for yourself instead of just writing it all off as bad. But if that was the case, how come so many "insufferably arrogant" people like me got so into it? Oh, yeah, the question answers itself, so conveniently. >>Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question. I was, too. >> >I'm not, and never was. Ask efisher why she said what she said--not me. I did ask her, too. > > >--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug-- > X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ? For the second time, who did? Do you know? or am I asking an "insufferable question"? Rev. David Mayo "I like dogs and cats." --me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbgwremCyCdNXuVZAQG+qgP/ewaptrNd60ZxpwduJluyOD+avBPDlrsD elBfGgjzLmmgKMGldfMjuKeROYtglBd02TJDzuKhZTpeqXl6Mqzedt0DJ1zjj9YI m4eRU7Yyms1rK4moGnyurX3gZ11QW3qHB0BUYoWqPjNMhsvcN2q5+UhHdEbjCLQ4 AuEVJZ94xV4= =Zkg6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----