And also grasp that it is out tech to use a "dinky dictionary."
On 02 Feb 2001 06:56:29 GMT, email@example.com (LRonsScam) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Victory for Mo & ARS
>>From: "John" firstname.lastname@example.org
>>Date: 2/2/01 1:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>I'll admit, I'm intrigued by "Small Words Training".
>>"Today's lesson, 'Of'."
>Actually you aren't far off from what Hubbard's study tech is about. Scn'gsts
>believe that you should know what *every* word means. Like what does 'should'
>mean, or what does 'of' mean or 'to' mean. And you're supposed to know the
>meaning of each use. I took a glance at "of" and it has many, many, many
>meanings. You are wrong only because you believe the teacher can teach such a
>huge word in a day. It probably takes a whole week on the word 'of.'
And also grasp that it is out tech to use a "dinky dictionary." My big
dictionary for example has 7 column inches for "butt."
And the definition of "of" is 10 inches. And this is in, like, 6 point
"Point," by the way has 25 column inches.
The point being that the poor guy "word clearing" "of" has to look up
and word clear every word in the definition of "of" he doesn't know.
Since the, as I say, poor guy, is already convinced he doesn't know
what "of" means (otherwise, why be looking it up and spending all this
time "clearing" it?) he is certain he doesn't know what any word in
"of's" definition longer than "of" means either. So each one of these
words he encounters in the definition of "of" he also has to look up
in his somethingdifferentfromdinky dictionary and and word clear those
definitions. And each word in those definitions he doesn't know (and
by know, the clam cultists mean, to fully understand, be able to
instantly define, and instantly use in a sentence) he has to look up
and word clear. And each word in those definitions he doesn't know he
has to look up and word clear. And each word in those definitions he
doesn't know he has to look up and word clear. And each word in those
definitions he doesn't know he has to look up and word clear. And each
word in those definitions he doesn't know he has to look up and word
I remember one $ea Org member who was literally (nyuk, nyuk) stuck for
months on "a" or "the" or "of," chasing the ridiculous promise of
becoming "superliterate." I never observed one person become
superliterate the whole time I was in $cientology.
>I'm going to assume that is what 'small words training'' means. Although I have
>never heard that term used before.
Hubbard theorized somewhere, and clams repeat the theory (although to
clams only criminals call Hubbard's theories theories), that it is the
"small words" which really cause people to goof the floof. If you
don't know what "of" means, the theory states, you will commit every
crime known to man.
In the crime cult it is a high crime for a clam to go past a word he
doesn't understand. At any minute someone can ask him, "What does "of"
mean?" And if the poor clam hesitates, wham! Off to the slammer!
That's how the clams want wogs (R) educated. To which I say, "Nuts!"
>I think that Hubbard's study tech is the reason why when you ask a Scn'gst how
>to explain Scn'gy to you, he not only will not but cannot. He has only learned
>Scn'gy in a fragmented, dissasociated way. He knows what the words say but not
>what the conceptual idea and the figurative meaning of it is. The blank space
>after reading with the study tech if filled in by Hubbard. At the end of the
>day you're a blank pad ready for any 'stable datum.'
It is true that $cientology makes people stupid.
>Read that site and it will reveal a lot about Scn'gy. It's really sad how the
>act of learning can be so totally distorted that intelligent people don't even
>BTW, Ethics is applied in those schools as well. And we all know that ethic
>handling has one ulterior motive, and that is to blame all the problems of the
>tech on the Scn'gst. The tech is perfect. It's perfect because ethics says it
>is perfect. And ethics is perfect because Scn'gy says it is perfect.
And Ron is perfect because he's the source of all that is perfect.
Isn't that perfect?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.