Life...
Qbpbdqpd has come amongst us...
From: "Qbpbdqpd" <Qpddbpdp@aol.com.us>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000
Q> The Macpherson Civil Trial will trigger the collapse. You can bet
that it will be the most documented and public trial since OJ's. And like
the OJ civil suit Scientology will loose big time. You must prevent
this from happening at all costs, even if it means sacrificing your life.
Naah.
Lisa's death was very sad. I hope the civil suit goes OK, but I think that your
suggestion of sacrificing my life is a ~tad~ excessive. Maybe I'll kick in a
little more money for the IAS this year.
I guess some people would like to see more extreme behavior by Scientologists (viz
the 'sacrificing your life' shtick that you and Bob harp on) as it would tend to
keep up people's interest.
Bob Minton>>> Without the force of their
movement, its members will cease at once to believe in the dogma for which
yesterday they still were ready to sacrifice their lives.
FT>> Really? Well, I know I wouldn't.
> You can continue believing what you want.
Thank you.
>But Fair Game, etc. will be exposed, and your precious tax exempt status
will be revoked. Scientology will be shamed in the eyes of the world and
you will be labeled a willing adherent. No Scientologist will ever recover
their good? name.
Actually, I'm pleased that you think we might have
possibly built up a good name. Obviously we've had various legal problems in the
past and it's very nice that ~almost~ all of those seem behind us now. If we did
lose our
tax exempt status, well, I'm sure it would be embarrassing - but we've had worse
problems.
What do you mean by being 'labeled a willing adherent'? I hope you aren't
advocating yellow star badges or the forehead brands that Roland once suggested for
Scientologists.
FT>> One of the most basic ideas in Scientology is
that one should only believe things which you have seen for and experienced for
yourself.
> What's so special about that?
Well I was responding to this nonsensical statement from
Bob:
BM>>> Without the force of their
movement, its members will cease at once to believe in the dogma for which
yesterday they still were ready to sacrifice their lives."
>I have that and I didn't need Scientology to get it.
Well good for you. The reason it's important in Scientology
is that we are dealing with the realm of the spirit. We should be careful
to distinguish as accurately as possible between what we know for sure and what
we have merely read. Between what seems clear to us and what
is i fact confusing.
Q> Perhaps this hasn't been your experience because it makes you feel better
to say "yes" to everything that is thrown at you. People like
you are useful to society. It's too bad Scientology got a hold of you
before the military could.
Au contraire, I can be exceptionally stubborn about
something I disagree with. I was once given a non-enturbulation order for
refusing a particular order. The Exective Director, a good man but under some stress at the
time, later got declared for a while. This was back in the early eighties.
May I suggest that you get on with your
own life instead of making ill-founded suggestions about mine?
> Sound like you're making progress up that Bridge. You
will be on it for the next billion years.
That would fine. Just so long as I can have a very light
schedule and can take a few million years off every now and then.
How are you going to spend that billion years? I guess you can start off by
being some ashes in a box on the mantelpiece. But then what?
> > I've never been to Africa, but I have a
reasonable certainty that it exists because of all the books, movies and first
hand reports I've heard - about rampaging herds
of wild elephants; about Tarzan, the Lord of the Jungle; and indeed, about
exciting adventures involving their banking system.
> You don't know anything real about Africa. The only
thing that interests you about that country is some supposed scandal involving
your supposed enemy, Bob Minton.
Actually Qbpbdqpd, I thought of the joke about Bob
~after~ I'd started the example about Africa. It was a serendipitous
coincidence.
>Bob speaks for Lisa Macpherson because you won't. To make him an enemy
because of this will ruin your organization by the time the L. M. Civil Trial[R]
is over.
I like answering Bob's posts because pretty much
everything he says about Scientologists and Scientology seems totally wrong.
It's absolutely fascinating.
As for Lisa McPherson I was very pleased to hear that they have now made
arrangements with a hospital to take people in the future who need medical
attention after a breakdown. I think that's very sensible.
> When I walked out of Scientology in 1976, I felt glee.
I blew from orgs a number of times in early eighties - I
felt the same way.
Abdicating from one's responsibilities can be rather a relief
in the short term.
>My parents and friends let out a collective sigh of relief. Their
feelings were and are more important to me than Hubbard's. That's because
my priorities are in order.
If you and your parents don't want you to do Scientology, that's fine with
me.
Good luck to you. Live long and prosper
Qbpbdqpd and all your kith and kin.
> Yours are not. Your identity is hinged to the herd. You might
even give up your life for the good of it. Is this the life you envisioned
when the Scientology saleswoman said "Scientology can help you with
that"?
Sophomoric arguments. I ~could~ answer them, but I think
most of you know me well enough by now to mock up the kind of points I'd make.
Have a go. What would I say?
That's right. Good work team.
BobMinton>>> The members of Scientology's totalitarian
movement, utterly fanatical as long as their movement exists,
FT>> Well some of us are utterly fanatic and some of
us can only rouse our stumps to wander into the org every now and then for an
event. Still if we get any pickets around here I promise to go and help out
more.
Q> It's the fanatics that are always dangerous. I'm glad you're not one
of them.
I hope you're not either.
BM>>> will not follow the example of religious
fanatics at the demise of Scientology and die the death of martyrs
FT> > Yeaurgh. I really hope that's not going to be necessary.
> Of course it will, and you could be one of them. Is this what you
thought would happen when you signed up for that introductory course?
Do you know something? Yes, I ~could~ be one of them. If the situations in my
country gets very bad - like in China for the members of Falun Gong, then I ~could~
be killed because I'm a Scientologist. I definitely don't relish the idea, but I could.
But is that really so bad? To have
something in your life so precious that it's worth dying for?
I don't think it is.
I wouldn't like to be beaten up in a
Chinese dungeon, but I do admire those guys for standing up in Tianamen Square for
their beliefs in the face of overwhelming suppression, and the knowledge that
they will be going to prison and that they have a fair chance of dying there.
RENTON (voice-over): Choose leisurewear and matching
luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking
fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning.
Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows,
stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it
all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment
to the selfish, fucked-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose
your future. Choose life.
(Trainspotting, screenplay by John Hodge, based on the novel by Irvine Welsh.)
(I've lent out my copy of the book or I'd have used the
original quote. )
Luckily, I don't think my tragic martyrdom will be necessary. I think that with
globalization, religious tolerance will tend to increase around the world.
Therefore I'll be able to feel happy that I might have been persecuted for my
beliefs, but instead I'll be able to live out a peaceful life with my feet up on the
cat.
Freddie