firstname.lastname@example.org (Gregg Hagglund) wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>You are discussing physical control of the preclear *only* while
he is in an org classroom. The public Scientologist[tm], even when he is enrolled in a class, still has absolute freedom outside of that classroom to see, hear, read, write, experience and express
whatever he chooses.
>>Of course, those instructions apply only while the student is in
the classroom. Once the student is out of the classroom and back in
his normal environment, there is no supervisor around controlling him.
> Diane, those two statements above display such ignorance of scientology that I am aghast you feel in anyway qualified to make such statements.
>How can you be so deliberately obtuse?
You may believe that I'm being deliberately obtuse. That is an
incorrect assessment on your part.
>The individuals there are subject to a code of behaviour that they at first willingly adhere to and later are compelled by reinforcing controls to strictly adhere to.
Really? Then why have we witnessed Scientologists[tm] reading this
group, thinking about what has been written, and reaching their own
conclusions? That's certainly not strict adherence to a code of behavior.
>The Co$ defines what is permissible information for input and the individual complies. This is standard procedure and you know it.Else this entheta group would be awash with clam public taking us to task. It doesn't happen obviously and you realy damn well *do* know why.
Let's see . . . Kim Baker was a Scientologist[tm] reading this entheta
newsgroup. Ted Mayett was a Scientologist[tm] reading this entheta
newsgroup. J. Stewart was a Scientologist[tm] reading this entheta
newsgroup. AlphOhm still *is* a Scientologist[tm] reading this
entheta newsgroup and participating on IRC channel #scientology.
I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
They all read this newsgroup, thought about what was said, and made
decisions of their own. Where was the milieu control?
If you think these people are exceptions to the rule, it doesn't take
long to read the AOL CoS folder to realize that many other
Scientologists[tm] keep up with this newsgroup regularly although they
don't post messages here. Attempts at "milieu control" by the
that's what you choose to call them, are an abysmal failure.
>I pull you out of my killfile for one day and there you are again demonstrating an abysmal lack of intellectual integrity for the purpose of being just plain bitchy. It is a waste Diane. And a tragic one too. I've read your stuff from years back, what happened to you? Where did the constructive and informative Diane go? And where did this intellectual dilettant spring from?
Well, I guess Mr. Hagglund won't be replying to this message. :-)