DMCA takedown threat received from the Ethiers

[Panda Termint]

Did you just say that out loud!!!

 

[loose cannon]

For those who wish to see the end of Scientology in all its forms should be quite relieved that Terril is the PRO / Div 6 / Chaplain of the Freezone.

As it's been already mentioned here several times, but I'll mention it again: The Freezone is not a single organization. In it's broad definition (not the original from 1980s) it includes every individual and organization that practice scientology independently on the Co$.

In the light of the above, even Aida's disconnecting from the Freezone is a bit weird. Not to mention Pierre or Marty trying to change the definition of the FZ to "CBR's squirrel" and label the field of practice they consider to be standard as an "indepenent field". But of course, everyone has right to his own considerations and self-determination.

What I want to say is that Terril tries to work as he had those posts, but he hasn't. If he held them for example in IFA, then members of IFA would have to respect that. But the way things are, if he wants to resolve any dispute in the Freezone, both parties must have agreed on that first so that the handling has any effect. Considering Terril isn't an auditor himself, he can hardly expect that his unsolicited attempts to correct a highly trained auditor will be taken seriously by that auditor.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

For those who wish to see the end of Scientology in all its forms should be quite relieved that Terril is the PRO / Div 6 / Chaplain of the Freezone. He is doing a marvelous job (of killing it).

For those who want to peacefully practice Scientology amongst yourselves, distance yourself from this guy, or remove him from "post".

Terril, this is quite an admission, but I'd refer people to the CoS before I'd send them to you. At least the CoS openly bends you over & shafts you. You are not so open about it.

Reading your post to your forum Terril, it comes across as one designed to create the maximum conflict possible. He said/she said and unverified accusations, oft repeated in an obvious attempt to have them become 'truth' through repetition.

The sad thing is TP genuinely believes he is 'being helpful'.

And as to 'removing him from post', that is utterly meaningless as any 'post' he may think he holds is strictly by self-appointment.

Sad.

Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

As it's been already mentioned here several times, but I'll mention it again: The Freezone is not a single organization. In it's broad definition (not the original from 1980s) it includes every individual and organization that practice scientology independently on the Co$.

-snip-

That's not true. You can pretend that anyone who "practices Scientology independent of the Cof$" is part of the Freezone, but if you ask the people themselves, many will disagree. I don't really care, but what you're saying is just inaccurate. If all the people selling the Xenu Bridge want to be identified with one name, that's fine with me (and that name of course is "Scientologist"), but they don't all wish to be identified with a name borrowed from a group started by a guy who called himself Astar Paramejgian and told people he was the Deputy Sector Commander to Elron Elray, the President of the Galactic Confederation. In other words, you guys not only call yourselves Scientologists (which is bad enough), you make it worse by naming yourselves after a wacky spin-off of Scientology. I mean, couldn't you guys have had a meeting and used a little imagination and come up with some other name? Sheesh!

 

[Veda]

The sad thing is TP genuinely believes he is 'being helpful'.

And as to 'removing him from post', that is utterly meaningless as any 'post' he may think he holds is strictly by self-appointment.

Sad.

Mark A. Baker

Some time back, it was mentioned that TP held the post of "Public Relations and Referrals" at the International Freezone Association. Shortly thereafter, his name mysteriously disappeared from their Org Board:

http://internationalfreezone.net/OrgBoard.shtml

I'm not going to attempt to untangle that tangled web of deceit, but it should be noted that, from all indications, he still holds that post, but more discreetly.

 

[Veda]

Nice try. Your behaviour is the issue here.

Counter attack and deflection are part of Scientology tech. Just for the heck of it, here's an example of an earlier attempt at applying Scientology tech (Hubbard's instruction) to accomplish a "handling":

I must admit, it's slightly disconcerting to consider that someone who cannot discern the sordid insincerity of Scientology's phony 'Creed', written as accompanying PR-cover for its "Religion angle," would be in a position to influence the minds of others in an intimate fashion, providing "Hubbard Guidance" as others are led "up the Scientology Bridge." http://scientologistsfreezone.com/LRH2.jpg

You've often made such disparaging comments.

And yes the creed has been honoured in the breech so often.

You often claim that I and others use PR.

That scientologists are not able to discern anything.

You here blatently use black PR.

You describe the creed as " sordid insincerity", " Phony".

As PR cover for its "religion angle".

That its a bad thing leading others "up the Scientology Bridge."

So you don't subscribe to human rights?

The Creed expresses many points re humann rights.

We could assume her that you and human rights are distant.

A Creed by definition embodies fundamental beliefs.

You seem to be unaware of that.

Scientologists apply Scientology. In case anyone is curious where the "handling" demonstrated above originates...

L. Ron Hubbard explained how to use propaganda (to push the "hate" and "love" "buttons" of "wogs") in 'Battle Tactics' of 16 February 1969:

"The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, that means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing... Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you."

And another piece of Scientology tech, from Hubbard's 'Black Propaganda' of 12 January 1972:

"The objective is to be identified as attackers of popularly considered evils. This declassifies us from former labels. It reclassifies our attackers as evil people."

And from 'Ron's Journal 68':

"...And the general attack line is along the line of human rights; yes human rights...

"Now I'll give you a clue on how this is handled, somebody comes up to you he's hostile - he's hostile to Scientology and he says to you and he says <inaudible> and you say why are you against human rights and uh and if you know anything about human rights like the universal declaration of human rights, United Nations - that sort of thing you know if you know something about this subject you just follow it right straight up - in other words you don't defend Scientology, you just attack along this line of human rights, you see...

"Tell him or her ...uh ...the hostile person the hostile press line uh...for instance a newspaper writes an article on how bad Scientology is - any Scientologist reading this should run right to that newspaper and demand: Why are you against human rights?...

"Whereas an attack on Scientology is actually an attack on human rights - anyone making an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights...

"Each time Scientology is attacked, we build into society, if you do this, we'll build into society an actual stimulus response mechanism whereas an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights...

Incidentally, it was shortly after these instructions from "Source," that the Citizens Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS was started.

 

[loose cannon]

That's not true. You can pretend that anyone who "practices Scientology independent of the Cof$" is part of the Freezone, but if you ask the people themselves, many will disagree. I don't really care, but what you're saying is just inaccurate.

You got me. The definition is not absolute. I quote from www.ronsorg.com:

Today where the term "Free Zone" is used, it is often employed in the broader sense of covering all those practices and groups which deliver therapies and training to help individuals to overcome mental barriers and improve abilities and which are to a greater or lesser degree based upon Scientology Technology. In a narrower sense some use the word to mean only groups that deliver Standard Tech outside the Church of Scientology.

If all the people selling the Xenu Bridge want to be identified with one name, that's fine with me (and that name of course is "Scientologist"), but they don't all wish to be identified with a name borrowed from a group started by a guy who called himself Astar Paramejgian and told people he was the Deputy Sector Commander to Elron Elray, the President of the Galactic Confederation. In other words, you guys not only call yourselves Scientologists (which is bad enough), you make it worse by naming yourselves after a wacky spin-off of Scientology. I mean, couldn't you guys have had a meeting and used a little imagination and come up with some other name? Sheesh!

I can't speak for others, but I don't call myself a scientologist anymore. I see there are many valuable pieces of the tech - I don't incude the Xenu story there - but together with some other pieces it can lead to a really bad outcome. I've seen many both churchies and freezoners in highly undesirable states. Fanaticism, refusal to grant beingness amongst the most notable.

But I have not problem being labelled as a freezoner. OK, it was invented by CBR spouting wild stuff around. I don't care. And I admit, I'm not inventive. I think there can be worse faults in people's character.

 

[shanic89]

I posted much early on in this thread, I believe maybe page eighteen or there abouts. I have changed my opinion a wee bit since then.

Terrill Park is a dangerous person, read his posts. He attempts to portray himself as a middle man, a truth sayer, a witness.

He is a scientologist, read his posts. Specifically read his replies to others posts, this will reveal the person that he is.

This is the type of person that I have been attempting to out in the past fourteen months. Everybody is now able to see exactly what a human should not be like, when reading his state of mind in this thread. It is a shame that there are not more people standing up and calling his bullshit.

Terill you are a pig! You live in a fantasy land. It is not to late, drop the shit that is LRH. Look at how you act. You support LRH in his lowest level even if you do not know it.

 

[Jachs]

So you don't subscribe to human rights?

The Creed expresses many points re humann rights.

We could assume her that you and human rights are distant.

The pledge to

The creed of

The Way to

The Code of

People already know right from wrong,

something Hubbard knew already.

as he said ,

"then "someone" comes along and tells them what being good is...now thats quite a trick". L Ron Hubbard

More control from the same suspect source.

 

[Smilla]

You defended the Ethiers when they were gunning for Emma, and you used Aida as a smokescreen every time the spotlight was on the Ethiers.

Are you man enough to apologise for your foul mouthed treatment of Aida and your duplicity towards Emma?

Are you?

 

[RogerB]

Re: DCMA takedown threat received from the Ethiers

I'm reporting what I was told.

I have no knowledge of previous life repair by Victoria.

Victoria was the Dof P and thus should be considered the horses mouth here.

Tansey would be able to contact Victoria I expect and if not
I can connect them.

Re Veda's comments I was told a few years ago that he charged
$10,000 for all the L's. Not by Pierre. I have no idea of the current situation there.

You and Ian can phone me, or viceversa as its free for me.

Terril,

That bolded in red above . . . .

That is your error and down-fall.

You carry gossip and "what you were tolds" and report them as "truth" or as certain knowledge. And that is irresponsible. It is also destructive and causes great commotion among good people who then have to spend their time undoing your spread falsehoods.

You'd be well advised to really look at your behavior . . . look at the fact that you are operating from within your own limited little paradigm and system of beliefs . . . and recognize they are not necessarily truth or the actuality of existence.

You really do need to reach out and learn to duplicate the actuality of what it is that people are communicating and what is the actuality of existence . . . . i.e., a "what someone said" is not necessarily truth: it is what someone said . . . . and should be reported as such.

As I once said of you: "you can be very tiresome at times."

RogerB

 

[Smilla]

Re: Update:

Well Terril it would appear from your explanation that Catherine is quite blameless & it's all Aida's fault.

Tell me though, was it Aida that was spoofing Claire's (Fluffy) nick on ARS and posting all sort of vile trash? And was it Aida who sent a letter threatening to publish worksheets that Pierre has C/Sed? Was it Aida who refused to refund unused hours? Was it Aida who posted on Pierres facebook page that I'm working for OSA (yada yada yada).

Any reference to the Ethier boy has been removed yet Catherine still persists in her complaints. Is that Aida's fault too?

I know Aida is not blameless. But Aida is not threatening the survival of ESMB. Catherine is.

Well, Terril?

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

DESIGNATED WAR ZONE

Thank you. I was right on the point of asking about that.

The OP was a statement of FACT, not an opinion. A DMCA complaint had been lodged, even if said complaint was based on opinion.

Emma complied with the requirements regarding DMCA. It was subsequently withdrawn for precisely the same "reasons" as it had been lodged.

Where does this open the door for a major bitch-slap session among FZers, Indies and Exes? "He said..."; "She said..."---It's all bloody HEARSAY, so let it die.

Emma, you are proving far more patient than I. I would have locked this thread long ago.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1600:

JULIET:
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Terril Park: (As he bitch-slaps Juliet) I'm just reporting what I heard.
Romeo changed his name from a Freezoner to an Indie.
So now he stinks.

Taj: Alas, Scientology by any other name smells not like a rose
but still remains a thorn that pierces the heart.

Emma: Thread closed.
The rest is silence.


The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Smilla]

OK Terril. It's been established that you are a duplicitous bully of women and a liar, but not man enough to apologise.

Just shut the door after yourself when you go, and drop the keys through the letterbox.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: DCMA takedown threat received from the Ethiers

Terril,

That bolded in red above . . . .

That is your error and down-fall.

You carry gossip and "what you were tolds" and report them as "truth" or as certain knowledge. And that is irresponsible. It is also destructive and causes great commotion among good people who then have to spend their time undoing your spread falsehoods.

You'd be well advised to really look at your behavior . . . look at the fact that you are operating from within your own limited little paradigm and system of beliefs . . . and recognize they are not necessarily truth or the actuality of existence.

You really do need to reach out and learn to duplicate the actuality of what it is that people are communicating and what is the actuality of existence . . . . i.e., a "what someone said" is not necessarily truth: it is what someone said . . . . and should be reported as such.

As I once said of you: "you can be very tiresome at times."

RogerB

Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Some time back, it was mentioned that TP held the post of "Public Relations and Referrals" at the International Freezone Association. Shortly thereafter, his name mysteriously disappeared from their Org Board:

http://internationalfreezone.net/OrgBoard.shtml

I'm not going to attempt to untangle that tangled web of deceit, but it should be noted that, from all indications, he still holds that post, but more discreetly.

The IFA has a name which sounds important & all encompassing. It is neither.

IFA positions itself as a 'strictly lrh standard tech' group. They are generally friendly towards the Ron's Org people but they don't accept Ron's Org tech as sufficiently 'standard' to warrant inclusion in their own group.

As far as a functional group the IFA is basically what Michael Moore, the founder & president, defines it to be. He remains a staunch lrh loyalist and doesn't publicly acknowledge any of lrh's faults or potential problems with the tech, nor does he permit discussion of these on his ifachat group. The group as such exists mostly as a website & chatgroup. The chatgroup is generally open in its membership although it heavily censors anything perceived as 'critical' speech.

TP had taken it upon himself to serve as what he considers to be a sort of div 6 promoter of the entire scientology freezone long before the IFA was established. In his own mind he continues in that role to date. [Much of this current contretemps is a direct result of TP's peculiar ideas of his self-adopted responsibilities in that regard.] He is a generally affable sort of fellow very much in the same way that George W. Bush is seen to be by most americans.

At one time TP did hold a div 6 type post with the IFA. His div 6 org board posting with the IFA grew out of his volunteering his efforts on behalf of the IFA when it was first created. [IFA originated out of discussions held on an earlier version of TP's own discussion board. That's an even more convoluted story. ] At that time Moore was looking for anyone willing to help out with his group.

Subsequently the IFA & TP had some sort of disagreement concerning precise viewpoints. I don't recall the details. The disagreement wasn't heated as such arguments often become. It was simply a recognition of the 'not ideologically pure enough to represent our group' state of affairs often encountered among factionalists. Accordingly the official affiliation between TP & the IFA was discontinued. TP remains on good terms with the IFA & its membership more generally.

The 'official' relationship never meant much in itself, and it's discontinuance didn't really change much of anything either.

FWIW, at one time Pierre Ethier was also affiliated with the IFA. After a comparatively brief period that relationship ended far more acrimoniously, at least on one side (guess whose). If that breech has been repaired I remain as of yet unaware of it.

The IFA remains simply one small faction of the freezone, and not a particularly influential one at that. Frankly TP has a broader influence than the IFA, if only because more people know him and find him generally quite likeable despite a few of his less admirable attributes.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

The IFA remains simply one small faction of the freezone, and not a particularly influential one at that. Frankly TP has a broader influence than the IFA, if only because more people know him and find him generally quite likeable despite a few of his less admirable attributes.


Mark A. Baker

Don't want to shake your Mark A. Baker world, but I'm not really that interested in internal Scientology Zoner politics.

Although, I'm not surprised that you felt compelled to come in and explain that TP is not part of IFA, even though he is, even though he isn't, etc. (It wasn't that long ago he was given a commendation by the IFA, which, of course, is just one tiny part of the v_a_s_t - yet undefinable - FZ. )

As far as I'm concerned you're both FZ Scientology PR bobble head figurines, You're Bud Abbott and he's Lou Costello. Even I cringe when I see how you slap him around, now that you think he's in trouble. When he shuts up for a while, and the storm clears, you'll be partners again.

Ho hum.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Don't want to shake your Mark A. Baker world, but I'm not really that interested in internal Scientology Zoner politics. ...

Frankly, I'm not especially interested in them either. However, since you claim to have so little in interest in them, you might want to ask yourself why you so frequently seek to take issue with them in your posts.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

So my question is: Who's on first?

No wait. Better: Who's on OT I?

Sometimes similies and metaphors can be used to enrich the depth of understanding.

But sometimes they can be used as insults.

Let's keep it civil.

The Anabaptist Jacques