The Great Zorg
Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, I'd like an A&W Prime Rib Grammy Burger with mustard, relish, onions, sauce and hold the seasoning salt please. 
Oooops, wrong thread.
Oooops, wrong thread.
Is Mike Rinder a Trusted Source of Inside Information for Aussie Exes?
- Thread starter Alanzo
- Start date
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
To the contrary, Al. Proving hypotheses is precisely what formal methodologies strive to achieve.
However, once an hypothesis has been proved it is no longer an hypothesis. In the case of axiomatic systems such as mathematics it becomes a theorem or lemma. In the case of an empirical system such as physics it becomes a fact, principle, or law.
Mark A. Baker
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Jesus Christ Mark, you ignorant slut.
Proof is different than probability.
And when you are working in an environment where so much effort is expended to keep causes and efforts hidden - us, here, OSA - we can never know anything to the level of PROOF.
Therefore, to use the standard of PROOF in this environment is to invalidate any and all attempts at figuring anything out at all.
As that chapter on Hypothesis Testing teaches, you CAN isolate a probable hypothesis from which to proceed. This CAN be done. And it is done every day in multiple disciplines throughout the world, as you well know.
In our environment, and almost all others, a hypothesis can not be proven. It's probability can be isolated, and we should allow ourselves to deal in the highest probabilities without being smashed flat for claiming it is PROOF.
exsomessenger
Patron Meritorious
Great stuff guys. This is a really interesting thread. let me see if I understand. we are saying that there are OSA ops ongoing? and they are or mby not being run by Marty and Mike? They have been in the past and that Both Marty and mike could do or might know something about current OSA ops being run.
I agree with most of what everyone is saying. It sorta reminds me of when I was in the Sea Org and in the CMO. We used to allways worry about being a SP. I remember talking about this with other CMO staff and asking am I a SP. I think there was a HCOPL about this or something like this.
So now that we are all declared SP's it is great to see that we are all calling eachother Tinfoil'ers etc. I would say that this means we are on the right track but you prolly knew this allready.
Thanks to each and everyone of you for this.
I agree with most of what everyone is saying. It sorta reminds me of when I was in the Sea Org and in the CMO. We used to allways worry about being a SP. I remember talking about this with other CMO staff and asking am I a SP. I think there was a HCOPL about this or something like this.
So now that we are all declared SP's it is great to see that we are all calling eachother Tinfoil'ers etc. I would say that this means we are on the right track but you prolly knew this allready.
Thanks to each and everyone of you for this.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
Wow - that was it? A bunch of 'it must have been".
Was there a program or a plan? yep I am sure there was because no entity with money is going to sit there and not do something in response to a perceived threat.
But from what I KNOW about this - the CofS and it's legal team just did the legal and open method of aggressively calling into question the results of the autopsy. Doesn't strike me that there was any "op" unless you are now going to try to cite every program that OSA has run - like the one to arrange the Christmas in Hollywood thing? No-one has suggested, AFAIK, that the cofs did anything untoward or illegal. They did not "infiltrate" or at least no-one has said that they did.
So the answer from you to my question was, in essence, no, you don't have any examples.
Cherished
Silver Meritorious Patron
Carmel, we've gone over and over the argument that X is running an OSA op and that that is why the split has happened. It wasn't outright dismissed. The "evidence" was evaluated and conclusions reached. You believe that is what happened. Most people do not. I don't know what there is to be gained by keeping on kind of not actually discussing it (or directly discussing it). At this point, people just need to agree to disagree.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
All right then. I'll accept your challenge and give you another one, also a Marty Special: The secret IRS decision to gain tax exemption for Scientology that no other religion in the US has, and which no one can see - despite every attempt to expose it using the Freedom of Information Act.
We DO know that OSA volunteers were standing outside IRS offices every day for months asking IRS employees for any evidence of wrong-doing or unlawful behavior on the part of IRS executives.
Ahhh... you're right. OSA would never find our manufacture evidence to get its enemies to sue for peace. That would be unlawful. But it would be policy. And one thing we know about Scientologists is that they never follow the policies of L Ron Hubbard on how to handle things.
And just as blackmailing a medical examiner to get her to change her ruling on an autopsy would be a felony, so would blackmailing IRS officials to get them to give a religion tax exemption.
So in the environment of tinfoil/moonbattery you create, where anyone who ever says anything that would be per policy - you're right. It was only lawyers doing their jobs that got Scientology a tax exemption that no other religion on earth has ever been given.
You win Mick.
Let's all just go home now. Aussie exes are under no threat from OSA. To say anything else might make me look bad.
Is MR an OSA operative
Well okay after trawling through this thread I think I will just add a slightly different perspective on OSA:
As a holdover from the GO based on LRH there are three main areas of production within OSA: Intel; PR; and Legal. To paraphrase LRH – when intel fails it becomes a PR matter, when PR fails it becomes a legal matter, and when legal fails it becomes an LRH matter. Something along those lines anyway.
The Primary function of Intel is the gathering and codification of information for analysis. This information is used in a variety of ways, including for running ops if that is determined to be the best course of action. But ops are and will always be secondary in importance to “knowing who the enemy is, what their plans are, finding their weak spots etc” . By knowing these things, having good quality intel, then one is in a far stronger position to mount an offence or even defence.
The offence may be with an op, or it might be using PR, or even be taken straight into the legal arena.
Now to the scene in Australia. The ex-community has run an “op” using Xenophon to get a Senate hearing. That Senate hearing has occurred and the processes of government are continuing regarding the outcome of that hearing.
From an OSA point of view, it is now Xenophon and the rest of government that is involved in this that is the threat, not the ex-scieno crew anymore. It is the government that can change things and hurt the Co$. So Intel will be focused on this area. If they are true to form it will be by having people close to the decision makers and knowing what they are thinking and planning. PR will be putting together a plan to attack these individuals should they be seen to be taking any negative action against the Co$. Legal will by now have probably developed a strategy for contesting any action by the government to curtail the Co$ or their member’s “rights” in the courts.
I do not see why OSA would be spending any time running ops in the ex-scio community in regard to “what is happening in Australia” now. It may have served their purpose up to and during the Senate hearing. But now the hearing has been held there is little or nothing to be gained.
If we are talking about these “natter boards” then that is a different matter. I would feel quite certain that there have been and continue to be Intel and PR ops in this regard. On the PR front you have RFW and other Co$ sponsored DA sites. I am sure you still have operatives that are here from time to time. But any seemingly effective player is going to have to be in deep cover if they expect to establish themselves as an effective critic.
Back to my first point about Intel – its primary function is the gathering and codification of information for analysis. Any deep cover op’s primary function is that – gathering and reporting on information. Key amongst that will be discovering who the actual anonymous posters are and their real connections. A deep cover op will NOT expose themselves by creating 3P or any such thing. They are there to be trusted and use that trust to get the inside scoop.
In the majority of cases no one will ever know who they were or that they were operatives in the first place.
OSA runs on specific policies by Hubbard, and although they have deep pockets, they still only have a limited budget to work with and this budget is spread quite thinly. Sure there are big legal and PI sums being spent but I doubt by comparison that they spend but a fraction of that on “hate” sites.
They use intel to find who the movers and shakers are, to get as much information on their activities, their plans and their backgrounds so that they can take out or handle the “cause/s” of the threat. They may try and take them out with Intel, PR, Legal or some mixture. They don’t go after the broad mass.
Is Mike Rinder OSA? Well it is always possible but in my view highly improbable. First I concur that there is no way that DM would ever allow his name and “reputation” to be sullied to the level that M&M have done. Second, it doesn’t fit OSA SOP. If MR was a deep cover op, then he definitely would not be involved in running covert ops on the ESMB members.
If we assume that the M&M show is a covert strategy to corral the ex-scio community and hypothesize that their purpose is to:
1. Get them off of the “natter boards”
2. Rekindle their failed purposes with regard to Scientology
3. Have them ready as an “alternate” Scientology to stand up against any Government threat to the practice of Scientology
4. To work as a credible alternative to rebuild the Scientology brand in broad positive light.
5. And of course to build confidence to gain access to the actual names of who everyone is and gather intelligence.
6. Plus whatever else you want to add to this list.
Using M&M as active agents in creating 3P or stirring up trouble on ESMB or with ESMB member is counterproductive to their purpose and I would believe would be off their Mission Orders. It does not fit within the SOP of how OSA operates.
Well okay after trawling through this thread I think I will just add a slightly different perspective on OSA:
As a holdover from the GO based on LRH there are three main areas of production within OSA: Intel; PR; and Legal. To paraphrase LRH – when intel fails it becomes a PR matter, when PR fails it becomes a legal matter, and when legal fails it becomes an LRH matter. Something along those lines anyway.
The Primary function of Intel is the gathering and codification of information for analysis. This information is used in a variety of ways, including for running ops if that is determined to be the best course of action. But ops are and will always be secondary in importance to “knowing who the enemy is, what their plans are, finding their weak spots etc” . By knowing these things, having good quality intel, then one is in a far stronger position to mount an offence or even defence.
The offence may be with an op, or it might be using PR, or even be taken straight into the legal arena.
Now to the scene in Australia. The ex-community has run an “op” using Xenophon to get a Senate hearing. That Senate hearing has occurred and the processes of government are continuing regarding the outcome of that hearing.
From an OSA point of view, it is now Xenophon and the rest of government that is involved in this that is the threat, not the ex-scieno crew anymore. It is the government that can change things and hurt the Co$. So Intel will be focused on this area. If they are true to form it will be by having people close to the decision makers and knowing what they are thinking and planning. PR will be putting together a plan to attack these individuals should they be seen to be taking any negative action against the Co$. Legal will by now have probably developed a strategy for contesting any action by the government to curtail the Co$ or their member’s “rights” in the courts.
I do not see why OSA would be spending any time running ops in the ex-scio community in regard to “what is happening in Australia” now. It may have served their purpose up to and during the Senate hearing. But now the hearing has been held there is little or nothing to be gained.
If we are talking about these “natter boards” then that is a different matter. I would feel quite certain that there have been and continue to be Intel and PR ops in this regard. On the PR front you have RFW and other Co$ sponsored DA sites. I am sure you still have operatives that are here from time to time. But any seemingly effective player is going to have to be in deep cover if they expect to establish themselves as an effective critic.
Back to my first point about Intel – its primary function is the gathering and codification of information for analysis. Any deep cover op’s primary function is that – gathering and reporting on information. Key amongst that will be discovering who the actual anonymous posters are and their real connections. A deep cover op will NOT expose themselves by creating 3P or any such thing. They are there to be trusted and use that trust to get the inside scoop.
In the majority of cases no one will ever know who they were or that they were operatives in the first place.
OSA runs on specific policies by Hubbard, and although they have deep pockets, they still only have a limited budget to work with and this budget is spread quite thinly. Sure there are big legal and PI sums being spent but I doubt by comparison that they spend but a fraction of that on “hate” sites.
They use intel to find who the movers and shakers are, to get as much information on their activities, their plans and their backgrounds so that they can take out or handle the “cause/s” of the threat. They may try and take them out with Intel, PR, Legal or some mixture. They don’t go after the broad mass.
Is Mike Rinder OSA? Well it is always possible but in my view highly improbable. First I concur that there is no way that DM would ever allow his name and “reputation” to be sullied to the level that M&M have done. Second, it doesn’t fit OSA SOP. If MR was a deep cover op, then he definitely would not be involved in running covert ops on the ESMB members.
If we assume that the M&M show is a covert strategy to corral the ex-scio community and hypothesize that their purpose is to:
1. Get them off of the “natter boards”
2. Rekindle their failed purposes with regard to Scientology
3. Have them ready as an “alternate” Scientology to stand up against any Government threat to the practice of Scientology
4. To work as a credible alternative to rebuild the Scientology brand in broad positive light.
5. And of course to build confidence to gain access to the actual names of who everyone is and gather intelligence.
6. Plus whatever else you want to add to this list.
Using M&M as active agents in creating 3P or stirring up trouble on ESMB or with ESMB member is counterproductive to their purpose and I would believe would be off their Mission Orders. It does not fit within the SOP of how OSA operates.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Jesus Christ Mark, you ignorant slut.
Proof is different than probability.
And when you are working in an environment where so much effort is expended to keep causes and efforts hidden - us, here, OSA - we can never know anything to the level of PROOF. ...
Actually somethings can be shown as 'proved; as Descartes aptly & elegantly illustrated: cogito ergo sum.
I prefer the standard of 'proof', 'probability' is an inferior and clearly more fallable standard. Most often we can only know complex events to some degree or measure of 'probability'. Yet, I have often seen you confuse the two standards in your formal arguments, maintaining as 'proved' that which is only 'probable' , or even less, merely 'possible'.
Mark A. Baker
me myself & i
Patron Meritorious
Actually somethings can be shown as 'proved; as Descartes aptly & elegantly illustrated: cogito ergo sum.
I prefer the standard of 'proof', 'probability' is an inferior and clearly more fallable standard. Most often we can only know complex events to some degree or measure of 'probability'. Yet, I have often seen you confuse the two standards in your formal arguments, maintaining as 'proved' that which is only 'probable' , or even less, merely 'possible'.
Mark A. Baker
Don't want to interrupt your exchange with Alanzo (but for ever so briefly) Mark, but I did want to mention that in some lines of philosophically defendable thought, Descartes got it backwards. Lol.
To wit: Sum ergo cogito (can't find the correct latin for that but the insinuation is that thought is consequential to awareness, not Sr. to it). Thus if Descartes were both english speaking, and correct, he would have stated: I Am therefore I Think. Not, I Think therefore I Am.
Carry on. Lol
Mojo
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Yes, but they are demonstrably wrong.
Many things which apparently 'are' nonetheless can not be credibly said to 'think', e.g. rocks. However, the recognition of the process of one's own 'mind' as it 'thinks' directly implies the existence of 'something' which thinks. Thus an 'existence' has been established.
What this famous statement doesn't actually accomplish is to define the nature of the that 'something' which is observed to think. Descartes statement does not imply that man is as man believes himself to be. It only demonstrates that the process of mind demonstrated by the recognition of one's own innate mental state is clear evidence of the existence of something.
As a side note, proofs of 'existence' are often extraordinarily difficult, both in mathematics & philosophical reasoning more generally. Descartes' is one of the more fundamental achievements accordingly.
Of course, most people are content with relying on their physical senses as an adequate basis for determining their world view, although this is not precise and can be highly misleading.
Mark A. Baker
G
Gottabrain
Guest
This is so much better than "moonbattery and tinfoil".
This guy is definitely OSA.
No. But he has pretty much stated who he is in an earlier post.
He is someone with lots of info from a point of management from a certain time period whom I, for one, am very interested in hearing all he has to say.
Suggest you read his other postings, Al.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Don't misunderstand me. I very much appreciate Ned Kelley's contribution here. It is so much better than smackdown invalidations of any discussion of this sort that we have been stuck with here on ESMB for far too long.
degraded being
Sponsor
Harh!! - Funny as shit, but actually quite true.. This was 'used' to bolster our selfesteem and esprit de corps as Guardian's Office staffers. Albeit, without the 'special kind of retard' designation..
But to pick up on something a few pages back..
How good are OSA?.. If they are simply laughable idiots.. Do we need to take 'em seriously at all?
Well, they did manage to make Joan Wood, coroner, change her evaluation about Lisa Mc.Pherson's death and cause the courtcase to be abandoned.. Quite a feat that.
They also managed to perform a hostile takeover of CAN, Cult Awareness Network.
Or how about fooling the Canadian Justice system into extraditing Keith Henson?
I'm sure we can all think of more examples of this kind of shit.. Police and official authorities being infiltrated and 'manipulated'... It IS cult policy after all.
How 'good' would OSA be at infiltrating a gang of ex-scientologists, like us, then?
Would we spot them easily, or with difficulty? Certainty? - Can we predict what they would do? - Discern their 'program'?
I think we can 'predict' and recognize a lot of possible OSA behavior.. Many of us here did study the 'tech' for it.. Erhmm.. In fact I did know (about) a lot of guys at the Guardian's Office who really were laughable idiots.. One was as funny as Mr.Bean when he was exposed as a 'Scientology Spy' by a national newspaper here in Denmark.
But I knew very able and intelligent people too! - People who I'm sure really could infiltrate and fool the lot of us for a long time!
So.. What kind of 'behavior' should we look for?
- 'Attacking' other critics?
- Arguing that suspicion about OSA is tinfoilhattery?
- Quoting 'Religious Freedom Watch' about another critic?
That would be some stuff that make me suspicious.. I'm not considering posters who's very obviously CoS! - At times when there's such a 'provocateur' posting, the most likely 'purpose' will be to divert attention from another poster (maybe also a newbie) who'll be posing as a recent blowee and a critic.
But if we were ever to be certain about someone being an OSA OP, it would take the OP making a rather blatant mistake..
Allright.. This thread has been a lot about the possibility that Mike Rinder is an OSA OP, or an 'Independent Hubbardite Surreptitious Spooks Office' IHSSO Operation..
I'm not sure.. But I don't find the idea too unlikely.
What behavior to look for then?
- Third Partying.. As per policy. This 'activity' doesn't work well in a messageboard, where everybody can see what was said. Thus, Third partying will be in private and 'back channel', and likely with 'advice' to 'keep quiet about it'..
The thing is, they have got their own OSA ops going which do not have to be in collaboration with COS, just things they do for their own goals. By "ops" I mean anything they do to forward their purposes, such as discrediting people etc. They do want to forward KSW, that's why I call them OPs. Some of their OPs and some of the COS will be of mutual benefit to M&M and COS even if they are enemies of each other.
Some of the data and crime-withholding will be of mutual benefit.
So asking if they are OSA, has that little twist(s) in the question itself. They could very well be COS OSA at times with absolutely no *intentional* collusion at all, but nonethless having someone in OSA getting a few stats from them!
This, BTW is not meant to argue against the idea of them being in collusion with OSA. It is totally possible IMO. Just to point out that even if they weren't officially they can be also be seen as rival Mafia gangs with the law and the police as common enemies.
I guess everyone knows this already. I just wanted to write it.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Understood, Carms. I would always shout "Watch out!" if I saw someone about to step off the curb into the path of a speeding bus. If I thought there was something to beware of, I'd say so.
The way I view these things is in terms of probabilities. I believe that whilst almost anything is possible, only some things are probable.
Ned Kelly's excellent post (see below) expressed pretty much how I view it.
I like this very much, Ned.
Ned obviously has a more reasoned and patient approach than some of us. I'm very glad that you appreciate it, Al.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
All the following represents an hypothetical analysis. As stated before, I've no specific opinion as to what Rathbun's goals or intentions are. My only consideration with regard to Rathbun is one of general distrust based on his history.
Nice analysis, although I disagree with the conclusion. I could argue that stirring up trouble on esmb helps to consolidate those who believe in the utility of a church format, i.e. those who would be likely targets of such a campaign as you outline, in their belief that the critic community constitutes a threat to their interests. As a result it would be easier to persuade them to a Rathbun promoted alternative of 'unity among scientologists'.
I see the basic fault in your reasoning as simply excerpting one possible goal of such an hypothetical op, that of intentionally stirring up trouble on known web fora frequented by critics, and subsequently using the non-excerpted goals to argue against the others inclusion. I see no genuine reason that all goals of an op must be consonant with each other. Different people respond to different arguments, and different communities are best dealt with by using different tactics.
If the goal is to split those who are not retrievable from those who might potentially be recoverable, then separating them into factions would be a useful step. The first goal could reasonably taken to be to isolate those most likely to be retrievable. Stirring up trouble within the ranks would be a valid technique for such a separation process.
Mark a. Baker
Just out of curiosity because all the OSA ops I've ever read about have been about seek and destroy missions,be it people, information or rival ideologies.
How often are DBs and SPs sought after rehab trophies? Just seems like an odd group to try to recover and would seem outside of OSAs mission statement (not that I know what it is but it would seem recovering people is not part of it).
Infinite
Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Who is X, what "evidence" has been gone over and by whom was it evaluated?
Why do we always have to pay for your not lurking enough?
Similar threads
