From: Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net heldal@online.no
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology,nl.scientology,
de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology,fr.soc.sectes
Subject: Re: Is Andreas Heldal-Lund attempting to avoid delicate situations...?
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:29:17 +0100
Organization: Operation Clambake
Message-ID: q63o0194php8e6s74r2s32na6sfsvq43r6@4ax.com
References: 5ZDOd.16940$d5.136650@newsb.telia.net
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 07:22:41 GMT, "Spacetraveler"
wrote:
>Since early nov last year I have had 2 particular posts, I have been
>reposting them with various intervals, and I have been in particular nudging
>Andreas to get a reply from him on them. It is about this page where he
>talks about Fair Game and a SP/PTS pack from 1989 he claims that he has.
>
>http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
Sorry if I don't read everything on ARS. I do however have a
system for adding your views on my site:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/free_speech/
You did not follow that procedure, but I have still added this
post on the Fair Game page. Press the "A Second Opinion" image.
>I had found some inconsistencies on that page. They are laid out in detail
>in the following latest 2 reposts:
>
>Fair game again....conveniencies and leaving out data....Armstrong, Rice &
>Heldal-Lund:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=LIqNd.16614%24d5.135257%40news
>b.telia.net
I do not agree that this changes anything. The important points
I am documenting is:
1. This "church" did make such a policy. In itself that is very
bad and must not be ignored!
2. The reason given for canceling it was that it "causes bad
public relations".
3. There are inconsistencies in the policies as to what is
cancelled (term "Fair Game" is still used).
4. Critics of CoS are fair gamed even today.
5. CoS has not tried or managed to convince us that whatever did
replace the actions instructed in the original Fair Game policy
is any less worthy of criticism. It looks like a paper exercise
only.
6. The CoS has not publicly denounced or excused their Fair
Gaming before they say they found out it was wrong and cancelled
it. Forgiveness demands at least an apology and some remorse.
>Course manual "PTS/SP COURSE - How to Confront and Shatter Suppression" 1989
>edition:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&selm=gKqNd.16616%24d5.135277%40news
>b.telia.net
I got a lot of CoS documents and literature, on paper and
digitally. I got 2 prints of the "PTS/SP COURSE" binder. Both
have copyright notice from 1989. The one I quote on my page (A)
was used in US in 1993. The other (B) I have is almost
identical, I have found nothing that separates the versions. I
do see some differences though, two examples are:
Under "Chronological List of Titles" in the first print (A) on
page 219 the HCOB "Mistakes and PTSness" is listed under 1989,
but in the other print (B) it is listed under 1973.
Another change is the discussed HCOP of 5 April 1965. In A it
says "The ex-student should realize this makes him Fair Game and
outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind
beyond refund. And after signing can only return to Scientology
as per policy on Fair Game."
But in B it says: "The ex-student should realize this puts him
outside our Justice Codes. He may not have recourse of any kind
beyond refund. And after signing can only return to Scientology
as per HCO PL. 23 Dec. 65RB, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF
SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS."
It is obvious I got two versions. It is also obvious that CoS
has tried to remove all references to the Fair Game policy, and
the reasons are obvious. They admitted it themselves when they
wrote it causes bad PR. I say it is reason to suspect that it
was not a genuine change inside CoS, more like a smoke screen.
They have not changed, they still treat us Fair game. If it
talks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is most likely
a duck.
>He also failed to finish our discussion which you will find here:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?q=g:thl530514750d&dq=&hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm
>=9f53d1e2.0407170846.16b3dcb3%40posting.google.com
I said my piece and you said yours, I felt that discussion had
reached its potential. Anything specific you wanted more
comments on?
>Is he not responding because they are uncomfortable to them? It is my
>experience that the critics running around the ARS do not have much of a
>stand against someone who knows what he/she talks about. The general
>displayed behaviour is that these 'critics show up to spout their entheta,
>their ridicule or various empty claims or questionable associations of some
>data. And when they then face oppropriate opposition of something, they
>either joke about it, or they may say that they now have spent enough time
>on this (for example) crazy 'Spacetraveler' and they will killfile. Or they
>may disappear into thin air away from that discussion, only to show up
>somewhere else doing the exact same thing they always have been doing,
>spouting, ridicualing, attacking.
I've seen some amazing debates here on ARS over the 9 years I've
been involved. I do not share your experience. Of course it
happens also here, like anywhere where people meet and debate,
but that does not make ARS so different it deserves to be
described as you do. That's IMHO misrepresentation.
>Back to Andreas... Does he not respond because he may have seen what
>happened with various of the ARS critics when they started to into battle
>with me. The latest exposure was Tory. You know, people want to on top of
>the other ones. Of course you have to keep away from those who may be a
>threat to you being that.
You think a lot of yourself, that's for sure. I have not seen
that you have craved my attention, and I have been busy with
many things I consider more important. But here I am.
Take care.
Best wishes,
Andreas Heldal-Lund # home.online.no/~heldal # www.xenu.net
Ph: +47 8800 6666 # Addr: Postboks 131, N-4098 Tananger, Norway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Each of us does what we can do. Our obligation is to do it as
well as we can, with as much grace, dignity, integrity and
honor our egos can tolerate.
-------------------------------------[Robert Vaughn Young]-----