Geir Isene: Scientology Fair Game & forced Disconnection. So what?

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
I am sticking with everything I have said. Although I admit, I have let Veda off the hook, after all. I started to like that guy.
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Balthasar said:
Now what regards Paulette Cooper. Paulette Cooper is not whistle blowing. That is not the same. This was a heinous attack towards a group of people minding their own business.

Paulette Cooper meticulously planned and carried out her odious attack in a very unfair manner to say the least. Her mind was made up in advance. She was going to find what she wanted to find. Maybe she thought, that is what is going to sell well. After all, who would care about this Scientology cult being one of many back that days?

While we don't know what was going through her mind, it stands to reason to suspect that her motivations were money driven...

Paulette Cooper has heinously attacked Scientology and Hubbard in the first place. Paulette Cooper was not a "nice" person. Paulette Coopers motives were based on greed and hate. Paulette Cooper, while she later became a "victim", was the initial aggressor...

Bathazar said:
What was all my fuss about it? Please let me try to explain.

It seems so far Paulette Cooper initiated the attacks on Scientology and Hubbard. Paulette Cooper fair gamed Scientology. That would Hubbard make a victim and Paulette Cooper the aggressor.

As I am defending Hubbard I will not take this lightly much less to let you off the hook.

You have 48 hours to come up with evidence that Paulette Cooper was NOT the initial aggressor otherwise you are toast.

I am sticking with everything I have said.>snip<

demons_of_stupidity.jpg
 

TheSpectator

Patron with Honors
Geir Isene: Scientology Fair Game & forced Disconnection. So what?

Geir Isene: Fair Game & forced Disconnection. So what?
http://isene.me/2014/05/08/fair-game-disconnection/

Geir is woefully wrong on this. He must not have kids of his own otherwise he'd understand.

Scientology takes disconnection to a higher level than other churches or groups. As an example, I talked to one woman who was a Jehovah's Witness. She was shunned (disfellowshipped) by her church for dating a man who wasn't a Witness and refusing to break up with him. The Witness' disfellowshiping is far less damaging than Scientology's disconnection. It was easier for her to get back in to the good graces of her church and family than it is with Scientologists.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.

What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.

How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.

What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.

The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.

What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.

I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.

Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.

What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snipped--

What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper.

I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference.

Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.

What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker.

The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack.

If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.

Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology.

My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first.

If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better.

It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.


Try as you might to spin & cloak it, your Scientology is showing. Haven't you figured out by now that "attack" and "dead-agenting" are the tells of Scientology & Hubbard?

I'd offer you a mercy cramming cycle on detection-avoidance, but I'd rather see you flailing about in the disgraceful shit you are drowning yourself in.

Hubbard was a criminal on a grand scale who was, in reality, exposed by Paulette Cooper's investigative journalism. If any justice had prevailed, he would have been in prison for a vast number of felonies including but not limited to tax evasion, child abuse, kidnapping, fraud, medical malpractice, terrorism and worse. It is comical that you try to portray her publishing a whistleblowing book as an "attack" when (by the mere act of publishing it) the diabolical depth of Hubbard's depravities were thereby revealed to be infinitely worse than what she reported.

Whether you are intentionally trolling on behalf of your Scientology beliefs or just legally blind might still be debated. Either way, the result is the same.


BlindLeadingTheBlind-4-1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Boomima

Patron with Honors
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.

What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.

How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.

What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.

The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.

What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.

I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.

Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.

What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.

I still don't see how Paulette Cooper fair gamed or slandered Scientology or Hubbard. There is nothing in what Face, Dart, or anyone else who actually knew and worked with Hubbard have written to suggest that. Given that they have first hand information and as a group are amazingly consistent, I will believe their accounts before I accept the arguments of a true believer.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I still don't see how Paulette Cooper fair gamed or slandered Scientology or Hubbard. There is nothing in what Face, Dart, or anyone else who actually knew and worked with Hubbard have written to suggest that. Given that they have first hand information and as a group are amazingly consistent, I will believe their accounts before I accept the arguments of a true believer.

Believers in Ron's "tech" are having an absolutely horrid time trying to figure out what to do about Ron's Fair Gaming innocent people.

They used to just claim it was "canceled". After years of pretending that those magical words handled it, they have been recently scattering and coming up with all kinds of squirrely creative approaches. Geir just recently took the "So what?" nullification route and was promptly hit with a volley of (unaudited) tomatoes. Balthasar is "sticking with" the WordClown route ("Hey Paulette was the one Fair Gaming Ron!") and he hasn't figured out yet that people are pointing and laughing. And good old Commander Bird is still proudly minimizing Ron terrorizing 4 year old children in chain lockers by trying to derail the discussion onto whether it was a misdemeanor or felony or--not even illegal in any respect to begin with.

The abject cluelessness of Scientologists is their only stat that continues to reach highest evers.
 

TrevAnon

Big List researcher
I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor

:omg:

You cannot be serious. :confused2:

In my book, an aggressor is someone who uses illegal methods to harrass some other person.

Paulette Cooper didn't use illegal methods. She published a book, using her freedom of speech.

The church used illegal methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

There is a BIG difference.

Edit: inb4troll?
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.

What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.

How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.

What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.

The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.

What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.

I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.

Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.

What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.


:confused2:

Paulette had every right to "attack" the cult ... she was only using words not bullets or bombs. Ortega and John Sweeney use words too.

Go and have a lie down now Balthasar, you're starting to sound a bit confused.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
:confused2:

Paulette had every right to "attack" the cult ... she was only using words not bullets or bombs. Ortega and John Sweeney use words too.

Go and have a lie down now Balthasar, you're starting to sound a bit confused.

Sure, there is freedom of speech so I let you have this one.

Whatever the case may be, my leisure time is over. I am going to get back to my biz after having taken off a few days. I be better concentrating on things taking more priority in my life at the moment. This board drains energy. I need to focus my mind, that's very important - get the mind in the right direction! Focus your mind - relax - concentrate on what you want to do - focus your mind......

Pleasure to talk to you though :coolwink:
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Yes, and I'm not convinced that various Christian leaders wouldn't do it again if they still had the power, although of course one can hope that those belief systems have truly moved on from all that. Still, how many great people were persecuted because of their sexuality and ruined utterly because of Christian dogma? I guess, I'm thinking of Alan Turing mainly, but Oscar Wilde comes to mind also.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/bigread/bigread_wilde.shtml

You're unhappy with Christianity because it isn't perfect. Meanwhile, we have atheist systems, in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, being responsible for killing upwards of 100 million of their own people. And let's not forget that before Christianity came into power, the Roman Empire was fairly bloody-minded about those who would challenge their power, as the residents of Carthage would testify (had the Romans left any alive).

Humans are violent and crave power. The correct question is "Does a religion or philosophical system INCREASE or DECREASE the natural inclination towards seeking power and killing those who are perceived as threats or obstacles?"
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Sure, there is freedom of speech so I let you have this one.

Whatever the case may be, my leisure time is over. I am going to get back to my biz after having taken off a few days. I be better concentrating on things taking more priority in my life at the moment. This board drains energy. I need to focus my mind, that's very important - get the mind in the right direction! Focus your mind - relax - concentrate on what you want to do - focus your mind......

Pleasure to talk to you though :coolwink:


You need to learn to multi-task Balthy (instead of ... "blowing" when it gets uncomfortable).

:coolwink:
 

Cat Daddy

Silver Meritorious Patron
You're unhappy with Christianity because it isn't perfect. Meanwhile, we have atheist systems, in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, being responsible for killing upwards of 100 million of their own period. And let's not forget that before Christianity came into power, the Roman Empire was fairly bloody-minded about those who would challenge their power, as the residents of Carthage would testify (had the Romans left any alive).

Humans are violent and crave power. The correct question is "Does a religion or philosophical system INCREASE or DECREASE the natural inclination towards seeking power and killing those who are perceived as threats or obstacles?"

Dutchology is the solution:
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.

What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.

How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.

What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.

The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.

What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.

I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.

Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.

What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.

You are applying "Scientology Algebra"

Scientology Algebra is a mental procedure that Hubbard encourages Scientologists to go through on how to apportion BLAME for something.

Allow me to give a concrete example - in your post you mention that Paulette Cooper deserved/earned to be fair gamed because of what she had done to the CofS (I do note that you later moved on to expand on it). But, by Scientology's own works - Scientology must have "pulled in" the attack so the CORRECT action for Scientology to have taken - by its own philosophy - would have been to examine what it had done wrong and then correct it. Right? Nowhere in that "process" is there some leeway to go frame someone.

Second to that - if Cooper had, indeed libeled somebody (slander is spoken or by exclamatory gesture -if something is defaming in writing it is libel) then the recourse of the Church is, of course, the courts (beloved arena of Scientology).

But Scientology requires its adherents to look at things through the complex calculus that Hubbard has laid out as they seek to justify their own feelings and courses of action.

If someone criticizes Hubbard - then they must have "overts" and to continue to criticize is to "attack". This is regardless of the simple fact that Hubbard is a person who can be roundly criticized for his publicly known misbehaviors. Abandoning wife and child for example, bigamy, black magic, lying. Those are all things worthy of criticism and someone being castigated for that sort of behavior - especially someone who is seeking to be a public figure - is how it should be. It doesn't matter whether Scientology is good or bad or whether it works or doesn't. Hubbard has acted as an asshole at various points in his life and saying so is not defamatory. But for scientology - it has to add up. Therefore Cooper was branded as an SP. Ah, now, an SP is continuously trying to destroy, therefore taking action to stop them is, well, self defense! And now the algebraic computation is complete.

You have fallen into the trap, I think, of trying to look at this through Hubbard's calculus of blame.
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
Believers in Ron's "tech" are having an absolutely horrid time trying to figure out what to do about Ron's Fair Gaming innocent people.

To be honest, believers in Ron's "tech" are having an absolutely horrid time trying to figure out all kinds of things. I doubt some of them know how to make toast.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
To be honest, believers in Ron's "tech" are having an absolutely horrid time trying to figure out all kinds of things. I doubt some of them know how to make toast.

Oh they must do know how to make toast, what else can they afford?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
You need to learn to multi-task Balthy (instead of ... "blowing" when it gets uncomfortable).

:coolwink:


Whew! Thank God sometimes someone is more evil than me. LOLOLOL.

His post immediately made me think "blow!" (LOL) but I had a little conversation with myself and didn't post anything...

HH
(helluva hoax's earthbound lower db valence self)
Dammmmmm! He couldn't take it! He blew!

HHHS
(Helluva Hoax's Higher Self)
Ummm, don't post that.

HH
Why not?

HHHS
Haven't you said quite enough already?

HH
Well, kinda.

HHHS
Right then! Off you go to another thread. . .

HH
Yeah, but I sure hope someone will post
the obvious. I mean somebody has got
to wear the Boots In The Mud!

HHHS
No problem. I have spoken to ITYIWT's
higher self and she said that her lower
self is totally out of control.

HH
Cool!​


(I swear ITYIWT, youze one of da peeples dat makes dis joint really fun to hang out in. Now if we can only figure out how to get Face back on post. lol)
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
You're unhappy with Christianity because it isn't perfect. Meanwhile, we have atheist systems, in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, being responsible for killing upwards of 100 million of their own period. And let's not forget that before Christianity came into power, the Roman Empire was fairly bloody-minded about those who would challenge their power, as the residents of Carthage would testify (had the Romans left any alive).

Humans are violent and crave power. The correct question is "Does a religion or philosophical system INCREASE or DECREASE the natural inclination towards seeking power and killing those who are perceived as threats or obstacles?"

I don't think it's that simple. I think it depends on which bits the individual is attracted to.
 
Top