***** Tory goes on record defending OSA... *** Part 2 - by "Ralph Dorian"

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Most people, when they get defensive, get disagreeable. They
disagree and disagree with everything.

OSA operatives, in contrast, are trained to get agreeable...
insincerely agreeable. Faux agreement is like magic armor to an
OSA operative. They just put it on and they expect their enemy
won't strike them.

But I'm tired of Tory and all the other operatives hiding safely
in the comfort their magic armor.

If they truly agree, then let them prove it.

:-)

That's why I'm asking questions.

+++

The following post contains several key questions Tory still
refuses to legitimately answer:

+++

In Message-ID:
<k03O9.77561$hK4.6345...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Can Tory see value in OSA's strategy?
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 19:59:12 GMT
Operative Tory Christman <t...@lightlink.com> writes:

>> In Message-ID:
>> <d8JN9.76131$hK4.6221...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:05:45 GMT
>> Subject: Re: Summary of OSA tactics (updated 12/22/02)

Operative Tory Christman writes:
>>
>>>Naming people who expose C of S's abuses as
>>>"OSA" is, whether you realise it or not" an OSA
>>>activity...and gives them "Stats" every time.
>>

Dorian:
>> But what of those who sneak data into their exposés which
>> discredit Scientology critics and criticism? Can't OSA personnel
>> sabotage criticism better than they can answer it? Can't they
>> discredit a genuine critic more effectively by claiming the
>> "better" argument... when in fact their argument is subtly and
>> deliberately flawed?
>>
>> A covert offense is obviously a good defense. Don't you think?
>

Tory:
>OF course it is...and for sure they use these tactics.
>However there is a line that I observed with them, and
>I'm quite sure it is still in tact today.

Dorian:
I think an undercover OSA operative would claim there's a "line"
OSA won't cross. On the other side of that line would be the
activities of the undercover operative.

What about that, Tory? Don't you think an undercover OSA
operative would claim that... to protect their own "op"?

Tory:
>They ~will and do~ sneak people into things,
>such as Gabe...where they hurt
>HIM. They will and do sneak people into
>Paulette Coopers home, where they
>attempted to hurt HER. They will and do covert
>things to destroy others, relationships, anything
>that may be or is critical of them, or exposes their abuses.

Dorian:
I don't think they care as much about "exposure", per se, as they
care about the EFFECTS of exposure.

What do you think?

Tory:
>However, they won't just randomly expose
>TONS of information, facts, videos
>telling of their own nasty abuses.

Dorian:
Why not?

Have you ever heard of button flattening?

All they have to do to invalidate "TONS of information" is sneak
a few lines of obviously "false data" in it. Scientologists will
see the false data and be moved to form a generalization: "'The
critics' don't know what they're talking about." Or, they will
be moved to think that OSA is someone else, that it COULDN'T BE
the person "telling of" those "nasty abuses".

Pretty effective strategy, don't you think, Tory?

Would you like to go on record claiming this IS NOT an effective
strategy?

How about going on record claiming there's absolutely nothing
Scientologists will recognize as false data in the rants of
people I say are OSA operatives? Would you like to do that,
Tory?

Tory:
>No...that they will not do.

Dorian:
But I thought OSA would do just about anything to keep people
from exiting Scientology...?

If there's an effective strategy out there, why not use it?

Tory:
>They spend too much money on their own PR
>to then put up web sites exposing abuses.

Dorian:
What if the effect of "exposing abuses" is the same as that which
happened to the townspeople in the "Boy who cried wolf" story?
They just get plain sick of hearing "WOLF! WOLF!"... and no
longer respond...?

What if a flattened button IS the effect, Tory? Isn't it the EP
that counts in Scientology? Don't you remember, "The way out is
the way THROUGH"??

Tory:
>Will they spend thousands of dollars
>working to turn critics against each
>other? Most certainly.

Dorian:
We both know how you helped stop Bob Minton from communicating
with me.

Explain that EP. :)

Tory:
>But that....is a way different matter.
>You will NEVER see an OSA Op carrying
>a sign that says XENU. You can take that to the bank......

Dorian:
I think all you're telling people is what separates an undercover
OSA operative (like you) from an overt OSA operative (like Phil
Chitester).

Undercovers will DEFINITELY carry a sign that says XENU.

You can take that to the bank.

:-)

Dorian:
>> If you know so much about OSA, tell me why they wouldn't use
>> [a strategy like the one described above]?

Tory:
>PR...and $$$$$. Simple.

Dorian:
What if OSA's "volunteers" are paid primarily with the hope of
getting a performance bonus from Hubbard's Trust?

And what if they only get that bonus if they "dead agent" all
credible sources of "entheta" PR?

???

Tory's answer doesn't make sense.

Let's see if she can explain herself.

;-)

===============================
Source: alt.religion.Scientology and...
Ralph Dorian, original editor of Scientology materials
Current e-addresses: <r_dor...@nym.alias.net> or
<dor...@nym.alias.net>

PGP Key ID: 0x1A7A3ECA, in use since Nov-4-1998
On public keyservers, signatures attached to this key attest to:
1) Bob Minton believing he had found a powerful ally
2) Bob Minton becoming the effect of OSA misdirection
3) OSA's continuing attempts to make the key "worthless"

PGP fingerprint: 222E 252F C976 52F4 B575
CC27 4529 DCC0 1A7A 3ECA

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBPkWaAUUp3MAaej7KEQI6RQCfRCWuURYbFBqPxTMhBfdcpQdieQEAoICq
4ZH1y2q6MMEhfce8uJUaxmbY
=E768
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Mon Feb 10 03:12:42 2003 GMT
From: r_dor...@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBPkcYq05NDhYLYPHNAQFnCAf+L7kagjgXfE8L/uRT6+CPch0RunmxTlNm
7cS3re/XAnqr2Mwu6SDbrhpoglr4Gp/HMc8FBgXFNuuOu/OlJsLec5WuYtFjMF20
6/jx+Y+FtG3UnKG74GeqpBe7dCugdgCC5fDMRRLLB5minZsfSV2xnHyz46FwYvN5
T+LAZJxuKKUJbN5xdfSe6YJd/a+315bmwIYUg907ncmqAPr8MNeqSOjWZtyjX4LT
m0aUIpE1sss5k1gZYT0lqIf5FZLVeL+5Ga8/7qUTSMRDVBiGNm1jqrnYGbM/CDsr
L1HAE7+s2/K1n7avSYfWOMgJcVsFjSCJGhrKR7AANBnMB1ciasz/dQ==
=OFiC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Truth Seeker
===========

Here is a list of the titles of all the articles posted earlier
to this newsgroup that the Church of Scientology does not want you to
read. If you're having a hard time finding them, just do a search on
the title of the article within this newsgroup with your newsreader or
go to Google.com, select "groups" and enter the title of the article.

*- The FAQ for Alt.Religion.Scientology

*- The 4 things you should never do on this newsgroup

*- All about the church of scientology's "Xenu" undercover operation

*- Ways of keeping the church of scientology out of your computer and out of your life

*- How the church of scientology tries to justifies their crimes

*- Names the Church of Scientology is posting under on this newsgroup

*- The basic stance of the church of scientology takes on those who defy their will

*- Want to know how to beat the church of scientology at it's own game?

*- The church of scientology: Alt.Religion.Scientology's thought police

*- Want to see an example of Tory ( Magoo ) getting caught in a lie?

*- The Church of Scientology wants to install Spy Ware on your computer!

*- Want to know how the Church of Scientology makes nothing out of their crimes?

*- The Church of Scientology's criminal "Operation Snow White"

*- Did you know that the scientologists on this newsgroup use communication as a weapon?

*- Watch how the scientologists on this newsgroup work the "Effects Scale"

*- The incredible things the church of scientology believes

*- Is spiritual growth a mechanical process?

*- What happened to Lisa McPherson proves one of these 2 things

*- Another Inconsistency in Tory's story

*- Tory's real mission on this newsgroup

*- Want to know how to tell the real critics from the scientologists pretending to be critics?

*- This is how Tory and the church of scientology brought down Bob Minton

*- Why were these important facts omitted from the book "Dianetics"?

*- More betrayal at the Church of Scientology in Washington DC

*- Here are 10 unscrupulous Scientology staff members I've encountered at the church

*- Want to know what techniques the scientologists use on this newsgroup to silence critics?

*- The Church of Scientology's defence mechanism

*- Want to know how the Church of Scientology makes nothing out of their crimes?

If any of the articles listed in this index cannot be found, it is probably
because the Church of Scientology has illegally canceled it in order to keep
anybody from reading it. Please wait for me to re-post it in the future.

Thank You.

then you go AH HA we got you. It is like watching a bunch of 3rd
graders try and play Matlock. It is funny but noone takes it seriously.

The sad part is you probably dropped out of school after third grade
and went to the scientology version and stopped growing intellectually.

Now you are playing Psyche Ops. You are trying to win a battle of wits
but you are totally unarmed.

:-)

+++

+++

What do you think?

Dorian:
Why not?

Explain that EP. :)

:-)

Tory:
>PR...and $$$$$. Simple.

Dorian:

The way I tell OSA's operatives from genuine Scientology critics is to
look at the effects of their actions. Who is hurt? Who is helped? And
by how much? What's the separation between the two? Who's helped, or
hurt, ON BALANCE, and how significant is that balance?

My starting assumption is that OSA's seek to hurt those who hurt
Scientology more than they hurt Scientology itself, because on
balance, this helps Scientology and that's OSA's job . . . to help
Scientology. On the other side, I assume genuine critics seek to hurt
OSA and Scientology more than they hurt themselves because on balance,
this is what genuine critics are going for: a Church of Scientology
thoroughly reformed (perhaps beyond recognition) with genuine critics
living to tell about it.

But everybody makes mistakes.

A mistake is an unwanted effect that is not what was consciously
intended. The worst mistake a genuine critic can make is to become an
OSA pawn which results from unconsciously taking OSA's implied
commands. But this could still be an "honest mistake". Honest mistakes
are not consciously intended. Awareness and intentions go hand in
hand. When it comes to mistakes, it's conscious intentions that
matter. As long as the genuine critic is unconscious of their mistake
- - --- unaware it's helping Scientology --- it could still be an
honest
mistake.

The easiest way to test awareness and intent is to bring the mistake
to their attention. You could say, "Hey, that's something an OSA
operative would do," then explain why. If you feel in your gut that it
helps Scientology interests and/or hurts Scientology antagonists, tell
them so. Then explain how it achieves this. The genuine critic will
pause to consider the question of whether something they are doing
actually is giving aid and comfort to Scientology, their avowed enemy.
They might be a little defensive at first, but, if you're fair, and
clear, and logical about it, the genuine critic will quickly "come to
their senses" so to speak and attempt the best they can to stop making
the mistake. Or if they can't help themselves for some reason, they'll
just avoid situations that bring on the mistake . . . . for the good
of the anti-Scientology movement.

Then comes the rub. Because it's on the *highlighting* their actual
*effects* that the OSA operative behaves very differently. Bringing
supposed "mistakes" to their attention does NOT bring in them the
slightest pause to consider. It does not matter how fair, and logical,
and clear you may be about it, the hopelessly implanted OSA operative
will simply REFUSE the notion that what they are doing is a "mistake".
And they don't get just a "little defensive" about it. They get a LOT
defensive. Discussing it further with them calls in help from their
fellow OSA's who try incessantly to get you to back off. The OSA's
will all issue implied commands which say, "Stop! STOP! STOP!!" over
and over again, one after another. And the more you persist, the more
time, energy, and attention they devote to stopping you.

So it's really quite simple folks. The shortcut to exposing intent is
in testing awareness. Genuine Scientology critics are stopped by the
realization of committing actions that favor Scientology interests.
OSA's are not. The OSA operative is already aware of what they are
doing and they are aware of why they are doing it. When they spit
venom at an effective Scientology critic, they KNOW they are defending
Scientology. If they compliment the failing Scientology critic,
they're consciously INTENDING to reward what they consciously consider
to be "good" behavior.

Despite the fact that I'm a writer, it's taken me a while to put these
ideas into words because the process is so automatic. It's almost
second nature. But you can do it too. As it turns out, spotting OSA
operatives on ARS is a bit like telling counterfeit currency from the
real thing. You run some simple tests. In the results, a few important
details make all the difference. And you pay for being wrong.