More COS Mojo Concerning Debbie Cook

[Rene Descartes]

Ahh, I see you be back for some more mojo, mon. And by mojo I mean that I'm a gonna be making da mojo outta you mon.


STATEMENTS MADE BY DEBBIE COOK BAUMGARTEN

Ms. Cook praised the Church and its leadership in statements made at the time or after the alleged incidents took place, a fact which should be made known to your viewers:

On June 2, 2007 she wrote that the Church's ecclesiastical leader's intentions for Scientology were:

“... to accomplish planetary clearing and remove the obstacles to accomplishing that. To do things right and set up organizations for the long haul with real production lines established. To restore the materials of Dianetics and Scientology to a pure LRH [L. Ron Hubbard] state so they can be assimilated and applied by others.”

Hey mon, looks to me like you be saying that she was fooling you then. And you couldn't foresee the hurricane on the horizon because she had been blinding your eyes with all this nice-nice talk about what was going on. No mon. BY now she still be thinking your mojo be da good mojo.

Suerly mon you must be able to see that she was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to the abuse that ye all had been given to her. Hey mon, don't you find it interesting that there is PTS in PTSD?


On September 8, 2007 Ms. Cook conducted a seminar to Church parishioners in Clearwater, Florida. She again echoed support for the Church:

“You have heard it said, there are days in history and there are days that make history. Well, that day was June 30th 2007 at the OT Summit here in Clearwater with the Chairman of the Board RTC's [Mr. Miscavige's] monumental announcement of the Golden Age of Knowledge for Eternity and release of the Basics [books and lectures of L. Ron Hubbard].”

So maybe you be thinking that she had not been totall yfreed from the mind rape that ye had been putting upon her, mon? Only 2 years had gone by. You be thinking that the Kool Aid still be very sweet for her and that the Kool Aid not be mixed in with any bad mojo, mon?


On May 29, 2009 in a letter to the Church she wrote:

“I have no doubt about the true source of the expansion actions at the Flag Land Base—COB RTC [Mr. Miscavige]. My support of COB RTC and his programs during this time was dedicated and unswerving.”

So mon, ye be thinking that she be so happy with the Leader of da Pack that she be happy to lick the bathroom floor for da master?

Perhaps mon by 2009, she not yet done hear about Amy Scobee and a few others and what the hell was that they been through. Perhaps she be lackin' the data at that time to be able to masterfully apply the great ones Data Series to. Mon, ye gotta be thinking that somewhere along the way Debbie Cook had to have gotten fed up with the stories she be hearing and put it all together.

Mon, ye were only able to hold your sway over her to some point. Mon, your lies and deciet and abuse could only go so far. Did ye honestly think mon, that Debbie Cook would not hear the stories of the others, stories that she herself could relate to due to her witnessing and being a victim of the abuse?

Gads, mon, What ye be thinking? Ye be thinking that da mojo you be having within you be the mojo of the gods? Mon, you need to learn that no matter how powerful da mojo be that you be having, the more powerful mojo that exist be the mojo of truth. And I ain't even be quoting about the mojo nonsense of the Lron Mojo.

Your main mojo man Lron, he be saying that lies be the persisting mojo but I got news for you, mon. Lies be the weakest mojo. Lies be getting slapped and kicked into the swamp to rot. Please learn about da mojo of da truth.

Da mojo of da truth be far greater than da mojo of da lies.

Da mojo of da truth be the element that cause da mojo of da lies to not persist.

There be too much convolution in da mojo of da lies mon! Too much!

Da mojo of da lies be imploding unto itself once da mojo reach da point where it cannot stand up to da mojo of da truth.

Bah, I'm finished with you for now, mon.

Your mojo, it be stinkin' like da poop.

Rd00

[Mark A. Baker]

... Your main mojo man Lron, he be saying that lies be the persisting mojo but I got news for you, mon. Lies be the weakest mojo. Lies be getting slapped and kicked into the swamp to rot. Please learn about da mojo of da truth. ...

Not necessarily true, RD. Depends. :unsure:

Obvious lies, being easily spotted, are very weak just as you suggest. However, the more 'truthful' the statement the harder to perceive any untruth it may contain or suggest.

I've a long held personal theory about an individual's own serfacs that it is the degree to which the serfac may embody a truth for that person which makes it so difficult to spot as a serfac and therefore as possessing untruth. Since the person can see the obvious truth contained within the proposition, he is accordingly blinded to a degree to any untruth within it.

The idea that 'a lie causes persistence' is very much in keeping with this observation. It is only in spotting the lie that the lie loses the ability to deceive and accordingly vanishes.




... Da mojo of da truth be far greater than da mojo of da lies. ...

This is true, but it can entail having the ability to perceive some very fine distinctions in order to unravel.



Mark A. Baker

[Petey C]

My take on this is much more simple, and that is: A person can change her mind. In fact, if someone doesn't change her/his mind in the presence of new information, there's something wrong. Nothing wrong at all with changing one's mind.

The difference between most of us and Debbie Cook and a few others is that some have a high profile and their assertions and sayings are more public and wider spread. For someone like me, it's mainly the spouse and dog who hear my bold statements.

We've all been there -- made assertions that we (half) believed in at the time, then regretted it. If I had to stick by every single opinion and claim I'd ever made in my life, I'd be a morass of contradictions. (Hell, I'm already that.)

[Lulu Belle]

My take on this is much more simple, and that is: A person can change her mind. In fact, if someone doesn't change her/his mind in the presence of new information, there's something wrong. Nothing wrong at all with changing one's mind.

The difference between most of us and Debbie Cook and a few others is that some have a high profile and their assertions and sayings are more public and wider spread. For someone like me, it's mainly the spouse and dog who hear my bold statements.

We've all been there -- made assertions that we (half) believed in at the time, then regretted it. If I had to stick by every single opinion and claim I'd ever made in my life, I'd be a morass of contradictions. (Hell, I'm already that.)

Oh I know. My worst nightmare is to have everything that comes out of my mouth be on video. :nervous:

It would convince everyone I know - especially me - that I was a total bipolar lunatic.

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Whoa!

I wonder how many of those kind of sound bytes the CoS has collected in preparation of a trial, where Debbie is praising the cult and COB?

"No, no, no, my guru husband never ever beat me. I sleep with myself and know every square inch of my body and I would know. And those black and blue marks, swelling and stitches on my face are not physical abuse--they are somatics that turned on in my auditing and i just need to continue until it flattens."

I believe what we are looking at (in Debbie's adulation of her tormentor) is Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from the time she was stuck in the hole.

Stockholm Stuckhole Syndrome.

[Jquepublic]

..

Whoa!

I wonder how many of those kind of sound bytes the CoS has collected in preparation of a trial, where Debbie is praising the cult and COB?

"No, no, no, my guru husband never ever beat me. I sleep with myself and know every square inch of my body and I would know. And those black and blue marks, swelling and stitches on my face are not physical abuse--they are somatics that turned on in my auditing and i just need to continue until it flattens."

I believe what we are looking at (in Debbie's adulation of her tormentor) is Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from the time she was stuck in the hole.



Absolutely. I have no doubt.

Anything she wrote prior to leaving the church may have been her attempts to PR her way out of the situation she was in. I don't know about anyone else but as I was leaving, I had to do some heavy duty PRing to keep the situation somewhat under my control. I had to play along or I was going to be ordered to a Sea Org base to do my routing form and I knew what that meant. I even lied about a suicide attempt early on to avoid being yanked down to Flag.

You say what you have to say to get out.

One other thing. Does the church have a single staff member on post these days above the age of 12?! The older I get, the more juvenile their tactics seem. Really? Do they really think that anyone would buy their lame "evidence" as proof of wrongdoing NOW with Debbie?

Please.

[Rene Descartes]

The idea that 'a lie causes persistence' is very much in keeping with this observation. It is only in spotting the lie that the lie loses the ability to deceive and accordingly vanishes.


Mark A. Baker

I would be totally buying into this statement of yours except there is one thing holding me back from buying into it.

The fact that someome in the Church is lieing and someone in the Church knows that they are obviously lieing however the lie in their eyes is not doing a very good job of vanishing as you state it will "accordingly".

This is why I like my theory better.

That the lie gets overly convoluted and gets to a point where it cannot sustain itself and cannot stand up to truth so it implodes, you know kind of like when Columbo shows the criminal the final piece of evidence that nails his ass to the wall the final piece of evidence he deduced from listening to all the lies that he was previously told.

Imagine that, he was able to figure out the truth by being given a bunch of lies.

When the Church throws in half-truths and half-baked truths and half-assed truths it only makes it more convoluted.

And while we are on this, the statements by the Church contradict their attorney's argument that Debbie Cook had the intentions from the start to violate the NDA.

It only adds stupidity to the whole situation. I hope they consulted him first to determine that this was a good move legally.

Spencer probably would not be too happy to know that the Church did a lame brain thing like this especially since his grilling of Debbie Cook had that in there. He will probably never be able to bring that three dollar bill out to the crap shoot ever again.

Rd00

[RogerB]

Well . . . we all change with the passage of time and the acquisition of more knowledge, facts, and truth . . . .

Watching Debbie, I can't help feeling she has been on a learning curve . . . and while she still sees/believes in the absolute workability of "the tech," it seems she has come to the truth that the current scene of the $cn enterprise is wrong and criminal.

We should allow her the win of her progress . . .

We should help her screw the current goings-on in the cult and help her free those in "the hole" . . . these are all things we ought want and support.

Her recognition that $cn is a deceitful fraud can come later . . .

RogerB

PS: RD, you mojo piece was a hoot! Way clever and funny!

[Mark A. Baker]

I would be totally buying into this statement of yours except there is one thing holding me back from buying into it.

The fact that someome in the Church is lieing and someone in the Church knows that they are obviously lieing however the lie in their eyes is not doing a very good job of vanishing as you state it will "accordingly". ...

It sounds like you have some interpretation worked out where the lie has some sort of an 'objective existence', at least until it vanishes. That is not the case. Lies are ideas and as ideas exist only in a mind. Spotting the truth of a lie causes the lie to vanish within the mind, not as some object or particle within the physical universe. That is why one person may 'vanish' a lie, yet another person will still be the effect of it.

The liar has a completely different experience from that of the person to whom a lie has been told. The liar knows from the beginning that the lie is a lie. It is something he has 'mocked up' and as long as he retains the knowledge of his own creation & responsibility the lie has no ability to mislead him. The lie holds no element of truth for him.

The acknowledgement of his own culpability in creating the lie, i.e. knowing the truth or source of the lie, defeats any effect which the lie might have to persuade him of its truth. The liar can only come to believe his own lie should he forget his own culpability in having created the lie in the first place. That is the epitome of self-delusion. That can only be overcome by 'spotting the source'. i.e. that it's his own lie.

That represents a very different perspective to that of a person who, not knowing the truth, has come to believe a lie. It is only from the perspective of a person who is ignorant of a truth and the subsequent experience of learning the truth that the 'vanishing of a lie' can be said to occur.

For each person as he spots his own truths the lies vanish. That is the very mechanism of cognition and that is from which arises the sense of lightness & brightness which is often experienced during a cognition.


Mark A. Baker

[Terril park]

Oh I know. My worst nightmare is to have everything that comes out of my mouth be on video. :nervous:

It would convince everyone I know - especially me - that I was a total bipolar lunatic.

You and Panda are the sanest here. :)

[Terril park]

Her recognition that $cn is a deceitful fraud can come later . . .

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.

[Rene Descartes]

Mr Bqaker,

I am only goign to cover one part of your post. It follows below...

"...as long as he retains the knowledge of his own creation & responsibility the lie has no ability to mislead him."

Are you referring to a fib?

Or are you referring to telling a childabout Santa Claus?

Did you ever see the Star Trek Voager episode where they ended up breifly within a society where fiction stories were forbidden because they were considered to be lies? If so is this what you are referring to?

I'm thinking this is what you are referring to because when you state that "the lie has no ability to mislead him" I am thinking that this is the only kind of lie that might not be able to lislead him.

There is no convoluton in that "lie".

There is not even any "vaishing".

Let's talk about real honest to goodness lies. The kinds that not only does one have to lie and continue to lie but they have to throw in certain truths in order to make the lies appear to betruths and they have to throw in even more lies to make their lies appear to be truths.

That convolution isn't going to stand up to time. It is going to eventually implode unless everything else iaround t disappears before it gets a chance to implode.

Kind of like Spencer and the CoS. The will mutually self destruct each other, forgive me for the oxymoron.

The woof and warp of their convolution is going to collapse.

Rd00

[Mark A. Baker]

... That convolution isn't going to stand up to time. It is going to eventually implode unless everything else iaround t disappears before it gets a chance to implode. ...

It's going to vanish as individuals spot the lie for what it is. That is correct.


Mark A. Baker

[GreyWolf]

Thanks M.A.B.



The liar can only come to believe his own lie should he forget his own culpability in having created the lie in the first place. That is the epitome of self-delusion.


This describes L.R.H. perfectly.

[GreyWolf]

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.

:angry: And you would deny people their right to their anger and pain that they had been victims of the Charlatan, L.R.H. There is too much evidence out now that the abuses visited upon Staff, S.O. and Public were not started by DM, but by the Cloven Hoofed God of Scientology, Mr. L. Ron Hubbard.

[Mark A. Baker]

Thanks M.A.B.

This describes L.R.H. perfectly.

Quite possibly. Or perhaps not. Hard to say since he was clearly complex, messed up, and manipulative.


Mark A. Baker

[anonomog]

...the Cloven Hoofed God of Scientology, Mr. L. Ron Hubbard.

Love that description.

[Rene Descartes]

It's going to vanish as individuals spot the lie for what it is. That is correct.


Mark A. Baker

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

[Rene Descartes]

Quite possibly. Or perhaps not. Hard to say since he was clearly complex, messed up, and manipulative.


Mark A. Baker

Mr Baker,

Are you calling him a liar?

Wait let me vary the question.

Are you saying he told lies?

Are you saying he told fibs?

Are you saying he told acceptable truths?

Are you saying he withheld truth that was pertinent to statements that he made?

Are you saying thast he lied to protect others?

Are you saying that he lied to protect himself?

Are you saying that he lied but did not realize he was lieing?

Let me know what kind of reads came up.

Rd00

[Hatshepsut]

Rd00

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

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/johndee007.pnghttp://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/johndeetwo.png

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

[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 :thumbsup:

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. :yes:

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. :yes:

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. :eyeroll:


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.

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? :duh: 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? :duh: 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

[Mark A. Baker]

You have no understanding of me at all. ...

The way you have been acting out publicly why should anyone care to get to know you, BB?

I know you can be a real sweet guy, BB. But for quite some time now you sure have been doing a great job of hiding that fact.


Mark A. Baker :no:

[HelluvaHoax!]

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.



:clapping::clapping::clapping: freaking hilarious! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

[Auditor's Toad]

<snip>
That you deal in insults reflects badly on you!


Coming from that one ?
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao:
:hysterical::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao::hysteri cal::roflmao::hysterical::roflmao: