For the Rathbun "Believers"

[Zinjifar]

well my opinion of Marty is emblazoned at the start of this thread for all to see and he and I are not at all on the same side. Maybe OSA did it to get the Marty partisans stirred up and off the Haggis thread.

Could be, to be honest I never thought I would be worth impersonating.

Yep Mike - just so you can hear it from me directly - I did not repost my item from here on Rathbun's blog. Someone else did it.

You know Mick, considering *this* post by Marty, made after you'd exposed the impersonation and even after himself calling for less diversion on the Haggis thread:

martyrathbun09 // October 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm | Reply

Alanzo, take a look at the four part letters. Then take a look at Mick’s comment and diversion. I have allowed him to identify himself clearly – and his sensitivities and awareness of the power and beauty of the subject matter of the original post – so that others know from when he comes. He has represented himself – as-is – remarkably well.

I'd give you even money that Marty posted it himself. It served admirably to give his loyal followers a 'new enemy'.

At first I was thinking it might well have been Alanzo trying to stir up some fun, but, it's not really his style to use someone *elses* writing, or, for that matter, to let anyone else take credit for mischief

But, when it gets down to it, *nothing* is posted to Marty's blog that's not approved by Marty and he's certainly got the background in malicious manipulation of sheeple.

Zinj

 

[everfree]

At first I was thinking it might well have been Alanzo trying to stir up some fun, but, it's not really his style to use someone *elses* writing, or, for that matter, to let anyone else take credit for mischief

Far from trying to stir up mischief, Alanzo appears to be working hard to promote understanding between critics and Marty's group, for which I applaud him.

 

[Carmel]

Far from trying to stir up mischief, Alanzo appears to be working hard to promote understanding between critics and Marty's group, for which I applaud him.

Understanding or acceptance? Understanding could only be a good thing, acceptance though, is a different matter, and I wouldn't applaud anyone for doing that.

I think I understand "Marty's group", but I don't accept it anymore than I'd accept LRH's group or DM's group - All peas from the same pod and not sweet ones by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You have. Not sure what demographic you are referring to. They,
well for the most part, aren't FZers.

I don't think she's as "wrong" as you make out BB. Not all fz'ers are terribly enamored of the "upper bridge" as it was laid out. Notice all the tweaking out & about by various fz'ers & independents. The "lower bridge" is more generally accepted. Still there are those who simply prefer to deliver Book I, or early procedure processes such as "creative processing", etc..


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

If a 27 year veteran and second in command of Scientology, can allow himself to get abused to this level, by a single man, for so many years, as he claims, then of what use is Scientology?

False argument. The implication is that the Co$ and SO have actually relied on the use of the subject of scientology during this period. Their continual enforced violations of the Code of a Scientologist, The Auditor's Code, and failure to respect the rights of the individual members during the period cited gives the lie to their having actually used the technology.

Just because it's called the "Church of Scientology" doesn't mean that is what they practice.

Mark A. Baker

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

False argument. The implication is that the Co$ and SO have actually relied on the use of the subject of scientology during this period. Their continual enforced violations of the Code of a Scientologist, The Auditor's Code, and failure to respect the rights of the individual members during the period cited gives the lie to their having actually used the technology.

Just because it's called the "Church of Scientology" doesn't mean that is what they practice.

Mark A. Baker

PAYING CUSTOMER: "The new 2009 Ford you just sold me broke down the first minute I drove it out of the showroom. I either want a car that works or my money back."

CAR SALESMAN: "I am sorry, Ford Motors cannot help you. The car you mistakenly call a Ford was made by uncaring factory workers who were employed at a factory that did not follow the original policies of Henry Ford during that period."

PAYING CUSTOMER: "But this is a Ford Dealership. Your name badge says Ford. The legal title says Ford and the word Ford is on the car! Are you saying it's not a Ford?"

CAR SALESMAN: "Your argument is false. Your implication is that the factory that made your car actually relied on the workable Ford technology."

PAYING CUSTOMER: "What workable Ford technology?! The car doesn't work!!"

CAR SALESMAN: "Exactly! You have just proven my argument that it wasn't a Ford!"

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

PAYING CUSTOMER: "The new 2009 Ford you just sold me broke down the first minute I drove it out of the showroom. I either want a car that works or my money back."

CAR SALESMAN: "I am sorry, Ford Motors cannot help you. The car you mistakenly call a Ford was made by uncaring factory workers who were employed at a factory that did not follow the original policies of Henry Ford during that period."

PAYING CUSTOMER: "But this is a Ford Dealership. Your name badge says Ford. The legal title says Ford and the word Ford is on the car! Are you saying it's not a Ford?"

CAR SALESMAN: "Your argument is false. Your implication is that the factory that made your car actually relied on the workable Ford technology."

PAYING CUSTOMER: "What workable Ford technology?! The car doesn't work!!"

CAR SALESMAN: "Exactly! You have just proven my argument that it wasn't a Ford!"

That seems to be the last resort, catch all ,flimflam used by some Freezoners.

It's only Scientology if the outcome is favorable. If the results are not favorable, pull out the ten volume excuse manual and pick an excuse to explain why Scientology is not at fault.

Oh yeah and most importantly remember ... do not blame L. Ron Hubbard himself either for his lies, crimes, and abuses, because he didn't realize he wasn't practicing Scientology.

 

[Pooks]

You are kidding right? Do you seriously think that DM would be worried about someone who has been such a pussy for the entuire time? Puleeze. Enemy number one? Headley, Many, Hawkins are much more of a threat. Probably the biggest enemy is Larry Brennan.

I agree. Larry Brennan is wonderful man full of courage and integrity and not only has the goods to do much harm to Scn, but he has the balls to stand up and talk about it. He doesn't blame anyone, he takes responsibility for what he's done and moves forward to make things right.


Here's Larry with his 2009 SP of the year award.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn;320258
That seems to be the last resort, catch all ,flimflam used by some Freezoners.It's only Scientology if the outcome is favorable. If the results are not favorable, pull out the ten volume excuse manual and pick an excuse to explain why Scientology is not at fault. Oh yeah and most importantly remember ... do not blame L. Ron Hubbard himself either for his lies, crimes, and abuses, because he didn't realize he wasn't practicing Scientology.

HelluvaHoax has been asked by moderator that I edit my reply....it was the moderator's opinion that I should not say what I said.

So, it is now "edited".

The part that I thought was really funny is now deleted (along with the rest of the post)

Everybody happy now?

HH

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I agree. Larry Brennan is wonderful man full of courage and integrity and not only has the goods to do much harm to Scn, but he has the balls to stand up and talk about it. He doesn't blame anyone, he takes responsibility for what he's done and moves forward to make things right.


Here's Larry with his 2009 SP of the year award.

Thank you for posting that Pooks. Larry is much much more an effective opponent of DM than Rathbun has thus far shown himself to be.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

That seems to be the last resort, catch all ,flimflam used by some Freezoners.It's only Scientology if the outcome is favorable. If the results are not favorable, pull out the ten volume excuse manual and pick an excuse to explain why Scientology is not at fault. Oh yeah and most importantly remember ... do not blame L. Ron Hubbard himself either for his lies, crimes, and abuses, because he didn't realize he wasn't practicing Scientology.

<Quote by HH deleted>


Deleted

 

[Veda]

I don't think she's as "wrong" as you make out BB. Not all fz'ers are terribly enamored of the "upper bridge" as it was laid out. Notice all the tweaking out & about by various fz'ers & independents. The "lower bridge" is more generally accepted. Still there are those who simply prefer to deliver Book I, or early procedure processes such as "creative processing", etc..


Mark A. Baker

Apparently, Terril's trying to be truthful. Why don't you get off his back?

You do your thing as the PR man for the Scientology Freezone and tell "acceptable 'truths'" to the ESMB "public," and let it go at that.

The Scientology Freezone is primarily about providing the Scientology Bridge outside the "Church" of Scientology.

No need for you to *ease* with slippery sneaky gradients us lost souls on ESMB back onto the Bridge. And that Bridge might be the early 70s Bridge or the late 70s Bridge, or the Bridge up to OT 3 then the Ron's Org levels after that, but it's, essentially, the Scientology Bridge.

 

[Zinjifar]

HelluvaHoax has been asked by moderator that I edit my reply....it was the moderator's opinion that I should not say what I said.

So, it is now "edited".

The part that I thought was really funny is now deleted (along with the rest of the post)

Everybody happy now?

HH

One Word:

WTF?

What's the *reason* given that you should edit? Did you call someone a doo doo head?

Zinj

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Everybody happy now?

HH

Nope.

 

[OHTEEATE]

fricking hilarious

OY, Mick! Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel about Marty?
HAAAAA HAAAAAA

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Far from trying to stir up mischief, Alanzo appears to be working hard to promote understanding between critics and Marty's group, for which I applaud him.

Me, too. Goooo 'Lanzo!

 

[Voltaire's Child]

OHTEEATE--

Good to see you here again!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

PAYING CUSTOMER: "The new 2009 Ford you just sold me broke down the first minute I drove it out of the showroom. I either want a car that works or my money back."

CAR SALESMAN: "I am sorry, Ford Motors cannot help you. The car you mistakenly call a Ford was made by uncaring factory workers who were employed at a factory that did not follow the original policies of Henry Ford during that period."

PAYING CUSTOMER: "But this is a Ford Dealership. Your name badge says Ford. The legal title says Ford and the word Ford is on the car! Are you saying it's not a Ford?"

CAR SALESMAN: "Your argument is false. Your implication is that the factory that made your car actually relied on the workable Ford technology."

PAYING CUSTOMER: "What workable Ford technology?! The car doesn't work!!"

CAR SALESMAN: "Exactly! You have just proven my argument that it wasn't a Ford!"

The guy who took your money is the one you ask for the refund. Doesn't matter if he sold you the real "ford" or the "dud". You can make it as complicated as you want. It's really very simple.

Good luck on your refund cycle!


Mark A. Baker

 

[Div6]

You know Mick, considering *this* post by Marty, made after you'd exposed the impersonation and even after himself calling for less diversion on the Haggis thread:



I'd give you even money that Marty posted it himself. It served admirably to give his loyal followers a 'new enemy'.

At first I was thinking it might well have been Alanzo trying to stir up some fun, but, it's not really his style to use someone *elses* writing, or, for that matter, to let anyone else take credit for mischief

But, when it gets down to it, *nothing* is posted to Marty's blog that's not approved by Marty and he's certainly got the background in malicious manipulation of sheeple.

Zinj

I would encourage you to go back and carefully look at the time stamps on these messages, as they are not always posted sequentially on that blog.

The statement Marty made that you quoted was made after the impersonated Mick post, but BEFORE the genuine Mick showed up to set the record straight. It was ineffective as a diversion, as the Haggis letter is now the #1 item when you google Scientology, with 52 news organizations currently carrying the story. Marty also "ate crow" about it later in the thread.

I realize you love your fixed ideas more than reality itself, but some of us want to perceive what is there (or not) without the added distortion.