Re: A statement of my purpose (#1a)
[10 Jun 1997]

Why I have chosen to speak out.

From: Warrior <>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,nl.scientology
Subject: Re: A statement of my purpose (#1a)
Date: 10 Jun 1997 14:56:22 -0700
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <5nkii6$>

In article <>, says...
>>Warrior <>:
>>I try to post about things I can back up with facts. As I have a pretty
>>good memory, and I have *lots* of files about my Scientology experiences,
>>I try to give 'time, place, event and form' so that it is then impossible
>>for Scientology to refute what I post.
>You do good, Warrior.

Thanks. Judging from the many supportive emails I am receiving, lots
of people tell me that I am speaking with reality. And _all_ the email I
have received has been supportive. I have not received even one email that
has attempted to refute what I've posted.

>>I am a relative newcomer to ars. Back when I was just a lurker, I kept
>>on reading things on ars and would start to reply. Every time, I would
>>let my fears get the better of me. Finally I decided that if I get
>>attacked or sued for what I post to ars, then I will have to stand up
>>for my freedom of speech. After all, I am not posting, and have not posted
>>anything of an infringing nature upon Scientology's *purported* copyrights.
>If enough people speak out, we will succeed in bringing reform to the cult.

That's how I feel. After all, as more and more people come forward
to tell thier stories, after a while a clear pattern of abuse and lies
on the part of Scientology will become very clear. And it will be ever
more difficult for Scientology to attempt to discredit voluminous
testimony of so many ex-members. Perhaps the IRS, FDA, FBI and US Justice
Department will even take notice, if they are not already.

>>It is not necessary, in my opinion, to violate any laws in the course
>>of exposing the lies of Scientology. Fair use laws permit anyone to
>>discuss Scientology (or any other subject) without violating any law.
>Right. But verbatim quotes do make an indelible impression.
>(accompanied by sufficient 'transformative' commentary, of course)

Of course you are absolutely correct. I have no control (short of
succumbing to fear or threats) whether Scientology sues or threatens to
sue me if all I am doing is using fair use quotes with commentary.

>>Now I am not in any way implying that anyone *has* broken any laws.
>The scienos have. Negligent homicide.

It seems very clear to me that Scientology was totally negligent
in allowing Lisa to die. I believe it was senseless and tragic. And
the lack of effective care on Scientology's part is pure, stone cold
evil in my opinion.

From my own study of public information it looks to me like Lisa
cracked due to some activity she was involved in at AMC Publishing.
My take on it is that she realized that she was contributing to something
illegal and that she felt trapped. To me it is obvious that she was held
against her will. The bruises on her wrists look to me as if she was
strapped down. And the bruises and cuts on her fists appear to be as a
result of her pounding on walls while most likely demanding to be let out
of isolation.

Not surprising to me is that many 'friends' and co-workers of Lisa
have not come forward to tell _all_ they know. I mean, why would *anyone*
need a Scientology-paid-for attorney unless there was something to hide?
I feel sorry for those who have knowledge of Lisa's death but have chosen
to remain silent.

I will say that any Scientologist trained in the Data Series tech
would have to admit, if only to themselves, that the McPherson case
is *FULL* of 'out-points', 'omitted data', 'alter-is', falsehoods and
the like. Examining the death of Lisa simply from an objective point
of view I can see that Scientology is *stonewalling*. Meanwhile it
enrages me that the spokespersons (attorneys) have said things to the
effect of "Believe me, we wish we knew what Lisa died from" and "We
are co-operating fully with the investigation". The statements are
BALD-FACED LIES!!! Scientology has not told the truth, the whole truth
and *nothing but* the truth! Even their own definition of truth is
defined as "the exact time, place, form and event". And Scientology's
definition of a LIE is "an alteration of time, place, event and form".

In the laws of the United States, telling the truth means to tell
the truth, the *whole* truth and *nothing but* the truth. I charge
Scientology with being guilty of not telling the whole truth. In fact
I have already seen Scientology's clammed-up clams screw their own code
of silence by opening their bivalve mouths and contradict earlier
statememnts made by the cult's 'spokespersons'. PATHETIC LIARS!!!
Thank *God* the wrongful death suit won't be heard by a jury of

>>Furthermore, I do believe that civil disobedience has its' time and place
>>to be exercised. I admire the courage of all those who are engaged in
>>litigation with the cult of Scientology over alleged copyright violations
>>and/or 'trade secrets'.
>>I am definitely a critic of Scientology. I am not a freezoner. And I am
>>not part of the 'independent field'. I am simply an ex-Sea Org member who
>>was severly betrayed by Hubbard and his organization, Scientology. In my
>>posts I am sure you have seen my use of Scientology terminology when I am
>>writing about Scientology. I am mentioning this here because I want
>>everyone to understand to the best of my ability, the mindset of Scientology
>>and Scientologists.
>But it's best for your own recovery, to stop using his concepts in
>your own real life, if you still are. Express yourself in plain
>english and Elrong's thought patterns will drop away.

I do not use Hubbardspeak in real life, except here on ars. The reason
for this is that I am speaking to Scientologists (however few thay are)
who are reading ars, in addition to ex-members and those who have never
been a member. I feel that by using the terminology in my posts, I show
Scientologists what crap Hubbard's 'tech' is.

To a person who has never been a Scientologist, hearing the terminology
must seem like hearing a foreign language. That's why I either explain
what I am saying when I use Scienospeak, or I put the term in quotation
marks to show how absurd it is.

>> Also, in many of my posts I am using Scientology's own language, their
>>'tech' and their 'reasoning' to show Scientologists how absurd or insane or
>>dangerous or hypocritical or disgusting their founder's philosophy and
>>practices are.
>But speak english in life. The terminology holds the nutty
>concepts in place.

I don't speak Scientologese at home unless I am explaining how
Hubbard re-defined words and/or concepts. I agree that using the
terminology holds the thought patterns in place. What I have done
is re-evaluate what Hubbard wrote (and spoke on tape too) against
reality. By doing so I have had major realizations about why Hubbard
re-defined words and coined so many others. I have to laugh when
I read or hear others say that Scientology doesn't brainwash its members.

>> One spokesperson for Scientology (Leisa Goodman?) said that Scientology
>>supports freedom of speech. I doubt this statement very much. What I have
>>seen to be true is that Scientology supports freedom of speech so long as
>>what is being said or written is not critical of, or an attack upon
>>Scientology, and in fact Hubbard did say something like "So long as one
>>does not attack Scientology, one is safe". A good case in point (there are
>>many) is Jon Atack's story. I owe a debt of gratitude to Jon, as well as to
>>Bent Corydon, Arnie Lerma, Dennis Erlich, Tom Klemesrud, Karin Spaink, Gerry
>>Armstrong, Paulette Cooper, Nibs Hubbard, Bob Penny, Larry Wollersheim,
>>Grady Ward, Keith Henson, Gabe Cazares, Joseph Yanny, Margery Wakefield,
>>Steve Fishman, Andre Tabayoyon, Vaughn Young and Lisa McPherson, just
>>to name a few. Had they all not had the courage to come forward and tell
>>their story, I very likely would not be here on ars today.
>When did you leave the C-org?

I left in September 1983, one month short of 8 years after signing
my contract and joining.

But I did last get audited in early 1988. Since then I have vowed
never to return to Scientology. I have been away from Scientology
completely for just over 9 years with no intention of going back, ever!!

>> More than anything it is due to my reading Jon Atack's excellent book
>>A Piece of Blue Sky, and the publicity caused by the raids on Arnie
>>Lerma (which I first heard about late one night on CNN Headline News),
>>and the raid on Dennis Erlich that I have decided to 'come out'. Had
>>Scientology not done their actions on these individuals, I most likely
>>would be spending my time on something else.
>Your presence is appreciated.
>> At any rate, I will be on ars for as long as it takes to tell my story,
>>to say everything I want to say and to answer any questions that come my way.
>>One of my primary purposes for being here on ars is to let others know
>>my experience in the hopes that they may avoid having to learn the hard way
>>(as I did) what Scientology *really* is all about without the PR, lies,
>>half-truths and 'acceptable truths' that Scientology pushes upon the
>>world through the various media.
>>I will do my best to not say anything that I might regret later on.
>So far so good.

Thanks again.

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <> <>
> <>