>
>gerry armstrong wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:18:17 GMT, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:17:53 -0800, Paul
>> >
>> >>Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> >I don't like dead-agenting when it's practiced by the Church of
>> >>> >Scientology[tm]. I like it even less when it's practiced here.
>> >>>
>> >>> I love it. Lets judge Abelson by scientology standards.
>> >>
>> >>Your choice, of course, but I think I'd rather live by higher
>> >>standards. By my standards, dead-agenting is disgusting, no matter who
>> >>practices it. YMMV.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes it does. I disagree entirely. Dead Agenting, as originally defined by LRH is
>> >a very workable technique.
>> >
>> >The original definition of DAing is that one points out and documents as
>> >necessary the lies presented by one's opposition. They are then dead agents as
>> >no one believes them.
>> >
>> >The idiots in OSA cannot read. They misinterpret this to mean "Invent some lies
>> >about one's opponents and spread them around".
>> >
>> >Thus they lay themselves bare to DAing as Hubbard defined it.
>> >
>> >I posted a very thorough Dead Agenting of Steve Fishman last year exactly per
>> >the policy.
>> >
>> >He was posting lies and I demonstrated that. He hasn't been treated seriously
>> >since.
>> >
>> >In the year and a half I have been on a.r.s I have not seen an actual properly
>> >done DA by a Scientologist.
>> >
>> >This is probably associated with the observation that I haven't seen many
>> >critics of the CofS post lies.
>> >
>> >When I see them do so then it is usually, from my observation, not from
>> >malicious intent but misinformation.
>> >
>> >Dead Agenting is an ethical and workable procedure.
>> >
>> >
>> What Scientology's rulers call "dead-agenting" is actually what
>> Hubbard called, and is, "black propaganda."
>>
>> As Ralph says, the documenting of falsehoods is workable, and is the
>> actual practice of actually practicing ars personnel.
>
>[...]Yes Gerry, but what might be unfair to Los Angeles Attorney
>Elliot Abelson; is that he has never denied--that I know of--
>being consigliere for Organized Crime.
I sense a sense of humor. Which is a good thing in dark matters.
I just received an email from Warrior on this subject. He started this
wonderful thread with his discovery of the article about Abelson. I'll
answer him this way.
I think it was completely appropriate for this forum to post the
article, which was informative, and, given Scientology's hypocritical
black PRing on the same subject of, e.g., Jeff Jacobsen, very funny.
Your discovery of the article I consider both excellent research and a
Godsend.
Posting the article was not black PR, because it was, as far as I
know, truthful; i.e., it was an accurate rendition of the article with
its source made known. If the article itself was black PR, i.e.,
contained falsehoods about Abelson, is unknown. But even if it was, in
this forum it was completely appropriate to post it. The posting is
not black PR.
I do not think it is advisable to refrain from posting any research
anyone comes up with in the ars forum. With that as the rule, however,
I would say to temper that rule with safety, courtesy and wisdom. Post
the results of your research into the subject of Scientology, unless
it is unsafe (for anyone), discourteous, or unwise to do so.
With that in mind, and anticipating the arguments against, it is not
at all discourteous to Abelson to post the article about him. I say
that because the standards of courtesy are very different, and wisely
so, in this ng, than in other areas of life. It is discourteous to
punch anyone in the face, unless you are in a boxing match forum, in
which case it is unsafe, unwise and discourteous not to.
There is, however, in ars, a very real and very high standard of
courtesy which centers on accuracy and truth in argument and the
wisdom of discernment. Beyond that are all the glorious colors of
language imaginable. Scientology's agents and apologists in ars are
largely terribly discourteous because of their inaccuracy and untruths
in argument, their refusal to acknowledge discernment, and their
resultant refusal to acknowledge wisdom.
>> Gerry
>>
>> >--
>> >
>> >Ralph
>
>Tom Klemesrud SP6
>KoX
Gerry
Copyright © Gerry Armstrong - All Rights Reserved.