More COS Mojo Concerning Debbie Cook

[Hatshepsut]

I did not say the lie is going to vanish as individuals spot the lie.

But if we take the Rathbun OT3 portion of his interview, I do say there was a lot of implosion there and no vanishing of that lie(s).

Rd00

Good'n

Loved that interview.

 

[RogerB]

So you deny the benefits of TRs, the comm cycle, objectives
the grades and correction lists and other matters!

Where would you be without the above?

Try getting honest on whose shoulders you stand on!

Also try sueing CO$. Just for fun.

And I think you should get outside of your tiny little, comfortably deluded little box and look about and find out what else is going on in the world.

You show you are incapable of duplicating, comprehending and appreciating the facts that have so absolutely been presented here by guys like Veda, Arnie, Alan, Mystic, me, et al.

I've never denied the gains I had from early $cn . . . so it is very dishonest of you to propose that I do or have . . . typical of you.

But any early gains folks had do not negate the truth of Hubbard's proven initial intentions, and endeavor, and execution of his fraud and irresponsible "method" of research and lying to his "flock."

You've got to be deluded to not see and understand that.

RogerB

 

[Rene Descartes]

Rene Descartes? Born 13 yrs before John Dee 007 died...hmmmm....was he a 00 too?
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/dblohseven.html
Descartes too was a brilliant mathematician called to work in a court of a queen


I was just wondering why you placed the 00 after Rd in your signature

Because it is the origin (0,0) in the two dimensional cartesian plane.

And thank you for the inforation on this Dr. Dee.

It seems he did not quite make a proper entrance into the Renaissance Period. Sort of close but no cigar.

Rd00

 

[Rene Descartes]

And I think you should get outside of your tiny little, comfortably deluded little box and look about and find out what else is going on in the world.

You show you are incapable of duplicating, comprehending and appreciating the facts that have so absolutely been presented here by guys like Veda, Arnie, Alan, Mystic, me, et al.

I've never denied the gains I had from early $cn . . . so it is very dishonest of you to propose that I do or have . . . typical of you.

But any early gains folks had do not negate the truth of Hubbard's proven initial intentions, and endeavor, and execution of his fraud and irresponsible "method" of research and lying to his "flock."

You've got to be deluded to not see and understand that.

RogerB

I was thinking that perhaps he might have had you confused with someone else because I had nebulous recollections of reading statements you made, I think in conversations with the dulloldfart, about things that sounded like gains or enjoyments of some kind.

But we know how terril is. I predict that he will apologize and blame it on extra strong brandy on a Friday night or something.

Rd00

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mr Baker,

Are you calling him a liar? ...

I have been for thirty years now, RD. No news there.

Are you just now coming to realize this about me?


Mark A. Baker

 

[Rene Descartes]

I have been for thirty years now, RD. No news there.

Are you just now coming to realize this about me?


Mark A. Baker

Mr. Baker,

I looked back at post #2 in this thread. I am not going to trouble us any further on this matter.

The reason for that is because in my post that preceded yours I was talking about "lies" and truths.

In your post you were talking about "untruths" and truths.

It's sort of like we were talking about two different things. Or better stated we were not talking about the exact same thing.

I'm going to try to be on the lookout for things like this in the future. However I still did enjoy the repartee we exchanged on the matter.

Rd00

 

[Auditor's Toad]

So you deny the benefits of TRs, the comm cycle, objectives
the grades and correction lists and other matters!

Where would you be without the above?

Try getting honest on whose shoulders you stand on!

Also try sueing CO$. Just for fun.

Only a true-blue Hubbard lovin scientologist could post that.

:: Bet that boy is one of them thar clears we a hearin' so much about ! ::

Wasn't that one of those garl darned "success stories" that wasn't supposed to be here?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mr. Baker,

I looked back at post #2 in this thread. I am not going to trouble us any further on this matter.

The reason for that is because in my post that preceded yours I was talking about "lies" and truths.

In your post you were talking about "untruths" and truths.

It's sort of like we were talking about two different things. Or better stated we were not talking about the exact same thing.

I'm going to try to be on the lookout for things like this in the future. However I still did enjoy the repartee we exchanged on the matter.

Rd00

Fair enough. My view is that a focus on truth illuminates, whereas a focus on lies or other untruths serves principally to distract. What matters is identifying that which is true. Time spent on lies is not useful in itself excepting only as it may serve to aid the discovery of truth.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Terril park]

And I think you should get outside of your tiny little, comfortably deluded little box and look about and find out what else is going on in the world.

You show you are incapable of duplicating, comprehending and appreciating the facts that have so absolutely been presented here by guys like Veda, Arnie, Alan, Mystic, me, et al.

I've never denied the gains I had from early $cn . . . so it is very dishonest of you to propose that I do or have . . . typical of you.

But any early gains folks had do not negate the truth of Hubbard's proven initial intentions, and endeavor, and execution of his fraud and irresponsible "method" of research and lying to his "flock."

You've got to be deluded to not see and understand that.

RogerB

And I think you should get outside of your tiny little, comfortably deluded little box and look about and find out what else is going on in the world.

You show you are incapable of duplicating, comprehending and appreciating the facts that have so absolutely been presented here by guys like Veda, Arnie, Alan, Mystic, me, et al.

I've never denied the gains I had from early $cn . . . so it is very dishonest of you to propose that I do or have . . . typical of you.

But any early gains folks had do not negate the truth of Hubbard's proven initial intentions, and endeavor, and execution of his fraud and irresponsible "method" of research and lying to his "flock."

You've got to be deluded to not see and understand that.

RogerB

It was silly of me to make this post. You piss me off sometimes. We have different viewpoints.

I'm quite familiar with facts presented by those you mention, and others.
I have no problem with them.

I don't understand how you can call scn a "decietful fraud" and yet claim you made gains from it. That there was deceit and fraud I have no disagreement with. But there must have been more to it than that for you to have had gains.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... I don't understand how you can call scn a "decietful fraud" and yet claim you made gains from it. ...

How about because ... the church routinely has failed to deliver what was promised?

Don't be stupid. BB. The ability to differentiate distinctions is a critical feature of intelligence generally, along with the ability to recognize similarities.

That there is much in the tech which may be of value when applied with good sense and compassion readily accounts for any possible gains which may be had. Nor is that unique to scientology practice. That hubbard routinely lied and the church intentionally misrepresents itself in order to ensnare the unwary and promote internal loyalty constitutes deliberate fraud.

A bit less 'loyalty' and more intelligence, please.


Mark A. Baker

 

[NonScio]

It was silly of me to make this post. You piss me off sometimes. We have different viewpoints.

I'm quite familiar with facts presented by those you mention, and others.
I have no problem with them.

I don't understand how you can call scn a "decietful fraud" and yet claim you made gains from it. That there was deceit and fraud I have no disagreement with. But there must have been more to it than that for you to have had gains.

Any "Con", to be sucessful, absolutely requires that it contain some truth.
The "Mark", is lured in by that truth. The deciet is in the wild claims that
go far, far beyond the grains of truth. Most "marks" eventually find those wild
claims to have been concious, deliberate and outright lies. Lies designed
to garner the $$ which, of course, is the usual purpose of any "con".

The disillussioned sucker, the "mark" afterwards comes to distrust
all that the connman "gamed" him with...certainly the lies, but any
truth that had been there as well.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

The disillussioned sucker, the "mark" afterwards comes to distrust
all that the connman "gamed" him with...certainly the lies, but any
truth that had been there as well.

I don't think that most people on ESMB fit that description. Most here can see both the cheese and the trap. It's just that some of the tiny pieces of cheese still have even tinier hooks in them, and a certain amount of caution and doubt is prudent.

This becomes somewhat muddled, since there are a few Scientologists - such as the Abbott (Mark A. Baker) and Costello (Terril) team - who regard the majority of ESMBers as fitting the description of the disillusioned "mark," and themselves as being above that lowly state and able to (brace for the Scientologists' favorite word) differentiate.

The rest of us are regarded as lowly non-differentiators, and this becomes even more muddled as Scientologist Abbott slaps Scientologist Costello around, scolding Costello for not differentiating.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Damn it veda, sorry but I could not resist.

Who's the mark?

Costello: Okay Abbot my first day on post. Who's the mark for today?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow's name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The mark.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy we are going to give the Stress Test and OCA to..
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy out on the sidewalk...
Abbott: Who is the mark!
Costello: I'm asking YOU who's the mark.
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's who?
Abbott: Yes.
PAUSE
Costello: Look, we gotta mark?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: Who's the mark?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: When we get today’s mark signed up for a course who gives us the money?
Abbott: Every dollar of it.
Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name that’s the mark.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy that we give the stress test and OCA to...
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Who gives us the money...
Abbott: He does, every dollar. Maybe his wife will come down and gives us money too.
Costello: Whose wife?
Abbott: Yes.
PAUSE
Abbott: What's wrong with that?
Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when we sign up the mark for the first service, how does he sign his name on the check?
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: How does he sign...
Abbott: That's how he signs it.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Yes.
PAUSE
Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name that’s our mark today.
Abbott: No. What is already on the comm course.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on the comm. course.
Abbott: Who's the mark today.
Costello: One public at a time please!
Abbott: Well, don't change the public around.
Costello: I'm not changing nobody!
Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.
Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy that is going to be the mark today?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: Ok.
Abbott: All right.
PAUSE
Costello: What's the guy's name that is the mark today?
Abbott: No. What is on the comm course.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on the comm course.
Abbott: Who's today’s mark.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on the HQS course, we're not talking about him.
Costello: Now how did we get to be talking about anyone on the HQS course?
Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.
Costello: If I mentioned the name of someone on the HQS course, who did I say is on the HQS course?
Abbott: No. Who's the mark for today.
Costello: What's the mark for today?
Abbott: What's on the comm course.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on the HQS course.
Costello: There we go, back on the HQS course again!
PAUSE
Costello: Would you just stay on the HQS course and don't go off it.
Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?
Costello: Now who's on the HQS course?
Abbott: Why do you insist on putting Who on the HQS course?
Costello: What am I putting on the HQS course?
Abbott: No. What is on the comm course.
Costello: We don't want who on the comm course?
Abbott: Who is today’s mark.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: HQS course!
PAUSE
Costello: Look, We got anyone on the Acadamy Levels?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The name of someone on Level 0?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.
Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.
Costello: Then tell me who's on Level 0.
Abbott: Who's the mark today.
Costello: I'm not... Get back in the Acadamy I want to know what's the guy's name on Level 0?
Abbott: No, What is on the comm. course.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on comm course.
Abbott: Who's the mark today!
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: HQS!
PAUSE
Costello: The name of the guy on Level 0?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: Because!
Abbott: Oh, he's on Level 1.
PAUSE
Costello: Look, We got a NED intern on lines?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: His name?
Abbott: Tomorrow.
Costello: You don't want to tell me today?
Abbott: I'm telling you now.
Costello: Then go ahead.
Abbott: Tomorrow!
Costello: What time?
Abbott: What time what?
Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's the NED intern?
Abbott: Now listen. Who is not the NED intern.
Costello: I'll break your arm if you say who's our mark today! I want to know what's the name of the NED intern?
Abbott: What's on the comm course.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott & Costello Together: HQS!
PAUSE
Costello: We got someone on the Student Hat ?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: The name of the person on the Student Hat?
Abbott: Today.
Costello: Today, and tomorrow's the NED intern.
Abbott: Now you've got it.
Costello: All we got is a couple of days on lines.
PAUSE
Costello: Okay so I go out get the mark into the org and the mark is who is taking the OCA
Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.
Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!
PAUSE
Abbott: That's all you have to do.
Costello: Is get who to take the OCA?.
Abbott: Yes!
Costello: Now who's taking the OCA?
Abbott: Naturally.
PAUSE
Costello: Look, if I put the mark down in a seat to take the OCA, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the OCA and I give it to Naturally.
Abbott: No you don't, you give the OCA to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's different.
Costello: That's what I said.
Abbott: You're not saying it...
Costello: I give the OCA to Naturally.
Abbott: You give the OCA to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's what I said!
Abbott: You ask me.
Costello: I give the OCA to who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Now you ask me.
Abbott: You give the OCA to Who?
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! Okay so I give the OCA to who. Whoever it is finishes it and goes onto the Comm Course. Who goes to the Comm Course with What. What finshes the Comm Course and goes to the HQS course with I Don't Know. I Don't Know finishes the HQS course and what does he do next? I don't give a damn!
Abbott: What?
Costello: I said I don't give a damn!
Abbott: Oh, that guy’s on the Solo 1 course.

Apologies please

Sometimes temptation is just too grand of a tasty

note: The above is not directed at Mr Baker nor Terril. It is directed at the CoS

I doubt that Mr Baker and Terril would ever stoop to signing people up for courses in a CoS, at least in its present form and somesuch that is similar to it.

Rd00

 

[Petey C]

I don't understand how you can call scn a "decietful fraud" and yet claim you made gains from it. That there was deceit and fraud I have no disagreement with. But there must have been more to it than that for you to have had gains.

I don't usually buy in these arguments but I can't resist this one. Watch carefully.

Scientology is a deceitful fraud. However, some people who believe this to be true nevertheless can also believe they had some gains from it.

Intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's mind simultaneously.

 

[degraded being]

It was silly of me to make this post. You piss me off sometimes. We have different viewpoints.

I'm quite familiar with facts presented by those you mention, and others.
I have no problem with them.

I don't understand how you can call scn a "decietful fraud" and yet claim you made gains from it. That there was deceit and fraud I have no disagreement with. But there must have been more to it than that for you to have had gains.[/QUOTE]

If you don't understand that, then you are extremely "challenged" intellectually.

 

[RogerB]

I find the above several posts in response to Terril's nonsense quite interesting . . . and of course RD to be quite deliciously hilarious.

But what I find amazing and offensive, is Terril claims to be OEC and Data Series Evaluater Course trained !! And one gets this kind of illogical nonsense and inaccuracy from him!

God . . . is that an example of failed tech or is it an example of fail!

Apart from false accusations of what I believe . . . . he seems to have not enough intellect to remember my original posts on ESMB when I first mentioned my $cn history and accomplishments . . . . remember Terril? Remember when you blurted out my real name on the board for google to find? The big, blundering outing of me?

To be honest, I've written him off. He just has no credibility. The stunts he pulls are beyond acceptance.

RogerB

 

[Terril park]

I was thinking that perhaps he might have had you confused with someone else because I had nebulous recollections of reading statements you made, I think in conversations with the dulloldfart, about things that sounded like gains or enjoyments of some kind.

But we know how terril is. I predict that he will apologize and blame it on extra strong brandy on a Friday night or something.

Rd00

Well it was the devil made me do it [brandy]

I'm familiar witrh extra strong malt whiskey. 43 and 57%

Extra strong brandy I'm yet to come across?

Please PLEASE tell me where I can get some!

Then I can insult Roger better.

 

[Free to shine]

Well it was the devil made me do it [brandy]

I'm familiar witrh extra strong malt whiskey. 43 and 57%

Extra strong brandy I'm yet to come across?

Please PLEASE tell me where I can get some!

Then I can insult Roger better.

Scientology can help you with that.

 

[Terril park]

I find the above several posts in response to Terril's nonsense quite interesting . . . and of course RD to be quite deliciously hilarious.

But what I find amazing and offensive, is Terril claims to be OEC and Data Series Evaluater Course trained !! And one gets this kind of illogical nonsense and inaccuracy from him!

God . . . is that an example of failed tech or is it an example of fail!

Apart from false accusations of what I believe . . . . he seems to have not enough intellect to remember my original posts on ESMB when I first mentioned my $cn history and accomplishments . . . . remember Terril? Remember when you blurted out my real name on the board for google to find? The big, blundering outing of me?

To be honest, I've written him off. He just has no credibility. The stunts he pulls are beyond acceptance.

RogerB

You have no understanding of me at all.

You claim to be this great guru.

And yet we both support tech.

And you attack me with stupidity.

Reflects on you.

Tell us your gains with scn.

You mentioned them!!!

Or stop harping on at them.

We should be allies.

That you deal in insults reflects badly on you!

 

[Rene Descartes]

Gads, as Johnny Winter sang, "There's a riot goin' on".

I'm heading over to the thread about the Church filing for Summary Judgement.

Now that has to be a doozy.

Rd00