Phil Scott ( wrote:

> wrote in message
>>     Actuality is what is true.
>>     Reality is what your pc thinks is true.

>Thats hubbard spin...

      Not relevant to this news group.

>selecting one definition of a word to
>obscure the obvious.

      Attribution of an evil intention.

      And wrong to boot.

>reality is also defined as what
>exists... period... same with actuality...

      Not relevant.  Words can have many definitions according to the
context in which they are used.

      There is no morally RIGHT definition.  If I wish to change the
definition of a word to suit some expository purpose of mine, I am
welcome to do so as long as I clearly define the word up front.

      Taking person to task for doing this, is grounds to be thrown out
of the debate.

>>     Axiom 27: ...  The anatomy of Reality is contained in
>> Is-ness.
>> which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness.  Is-ness
>> is an
>> apparency, it is not an actuality.  The Actuality is
>> As-is-ness [which
>> is then] altered so as to obtain a persistency [i.e.
>> reality]

>You are quoting the 'axioms' of an insane person there

      Ad Hominem, grounds for removal.

      Even if Hubbard died insane, which is open to question, this
doesn't mean he was insane at the time of writing the axioms, further
even if he WAS insane at the time of writing the axioms, this doesn't
mean they are wrong.

      Idiot Savantism works in strange ways.

      If you disagree with the axioms, that's fine, post your own
countering axioms.

>Homie...a spin of words....not impressive.  Have you read
>Volney Mathesons remarks on how Hubbard *reversed Mathesons
>previously published and viable insights to wreak havoc on
>people...are you happy with the results Homer?

      Attribution of intention.

      Happy with results?  Have I ever indicated that I am?

>All that is rather clear you know.

      Irrelevant to anything I posted.

>>     (Words in []'s are mine.)
>>     Now maybe there is no way to know for sure what
>> actuality is, but
>> you can for sure find out what the reality of your pc is.

>   Correct in context...but used by the phat fraud to ruin the
>lives of tens of thosands, with lies..and his wide range of
>ruthlessly insane notions...enforced no less on the

      Irrelevant to this forum, and has no bearing on the truth of my
statements, or how freezone clearing practioners act in general.

      You are looking to pick a fight, and ANYTHING that I say is being
made wrong by whatever irrelevant means you can.

      This is a debating high crime and is worth of getting you kick
out of the debate.

      We have heard your point, and acknowledge it.

>>     You simply ask him what he thinks actuality is, and he
>> goes yak,
>> yak, yak, and there you have his reality.

>   Look.... correct... you DO have "HIS reality'... thats spin
>from how hubbard tried to use the word 'reality'.... you cant
>see this Homer?

      Yes, I am using Hubbard's definition.

      I find the definition of reality to be useful in the context in
which I am using it, clearing, what the preclear thinks is true regardless
of what actually is true.

and you persist with the really loopy
>complex, spun argument...    It doesnt appear to be working
>out for anyone connected... the criminal cult is in collapse,
>and the freezone (not the anti freeze)... is full of absolute
>nut cases like Ralphie... who claim to be holding off a fleet
>of marcab mothah ships with is mind beams...

      Your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

      I have only my own reality which is that *I* am making case gain,
and I am sharing my session notes as the gain is being made.

>>     What the preclear has given you is not only what is real to him,
>> but what
>> he thinks is actual.

>     Hubbard was a conn man..,mixing a thin layer of truth,
>and apparent fact with his viciously insane hose job.....  as
>you whine about the nasty results...still promoting the hose

      I am correcting the hose job.  I am operating out of CORRECTION on 
the awareness characteristic chart, that's my sole job.

>  thats sad Homer.  You can do a whole lot better than that.

     Again I ask you, which you will not answer,


      I look forward to your cogent answer that remains on subject and
to the point, and actually answers the question.

>You would do better to focus on the key issue with Hubbard
>first...the eye watering ruin and destruction he had
>founded...the lies.. fraud...ruthlessness and abuse......
>then... if you still want to be associated...... read Volney

     That's your agenda.  I do not care about Hubbard.

      I am not associated with Hubbard.  Your comments are welcome on
a.r.s, but not on a.c.t.

      finding the lies of Hubbards is a good and promising gain,
and basically that's all I am doing also.  Not everything Hubbard
said was useless, wrong or stolen from others.

      The definitions of actuality and reality are very useful in
sessioning people and in talking about what is true generally.

>Matheson... THEN.. if you keep reading, mabye you can scrape
>some of the sugar off of Hubbard poisonous pill and get some
>value from it.. thats if you can separate the sugar layer from
>the poisonous parts... I dont think its possible personally.

      I am doing this.

      I don't feel I need to follow more of the ruin of Hubbard to
report faithfully on my own case gain.

      Thinking about Hubbard and his ill effects is a waste of time for
a planet that needs clearing to work correctly.

      I do not promote Hubbard, I promote clearing.

>> in early
>> sessions.
>> VIEW.

>    good point of course...but replaced with what in the case
>of scientology?   Hubbards mix of fatal error and abject
>ruthless insanity?

      Replaced with a reviewed self determined reality determined to be
true by the pc's own analytical awareness and reevaluation of things.

      You can answer these questions yourself.

      I do not promote Hubbard nor the Church, nor Scientology(TM)
Standard Tech, and certainly not Scientology Ethics or Admin.

>>     Now this is in part why we don't talk about OT powers
>> early on to
>> a new pc, because his world view generally doesn't allow for
>> OT power.

>     Dang Homie...Hubbard LIED about that as well...his range
>of insanity actually obliterates any such powers... thats part
>and parcel of the dark side error..some advance in that
>direction, then collapse on the core level error and
>corruption at the base of it.    The egocentric model fails
>every time.

     Irreelevant to my posting.

     Even if it is true about Hubbard lying about his powers or those
attained in session, what relevance is that to subject of the existence
of those powers and how to attain them, and why preclears in general 
don't want to go near the subject.

>>     So this guy has all his service facs in place in order
>> to control
>> others into helping him and otherwise leave him alone, and
>> they are
>> killing him.  So we wants a better 'solution' that doesn't
>> hurt as
>> much.  You see he doesn't want to get better, he wants a
>> less painful
>> solution to the problems of his life, namely the
>> suppressiveness of
>> the death directed universe around him.

>     Hubbard was quite bright on that score...he then
>proceeded to his own personal self destruction..and that of
>most if not all of his followers...

      Irrelevant to my posting.

>> Someone on your
>> case?  Just
>> think 'nothing there', and it will vanish.

>        a bogus solution proposed by Hubbard....

     Ok, that's your opinion.  I do believe it is possible.
as a highly desirable OT power.

     One that even Roland would like to have.  Then I could
demand he PROVE it!

      It is in fact aligned with the idea that when you solve a problem
in your space with someone, it solves in theirs too even without any
physical communication taking place.  I have observed this magic in my
own life.  Each must live according to their own experiences and
interpretations of them.  Some people are too shallow to have any OT

>>     But his reality doesn't allow for it.

>    spin to set the hooks so the bogus solution sticks.

     No, actually its just the god's honest truth.

     It is way beyond most people to even conceive that they chose
their life and parents, let alone their existence in this universe, let
alone their forgetfulness of that choice.

     Thus their reality is 'I didn't choose', but the actuality is
'I chose.'

     This is the biggest gap between reality and actuality that needs
to be handled on any preclear.

     One can not get rid of a condition that he CHOSE to put there,
with out reawareness of that choice and being able to put it there again.

     People chose to forget they put all these stuff there that they
are suffering from because they WANTED IT at the time.

>>     A being that wants to live forever that has to die
>> forever one
>> day is suffering from infinite charge.

>that assumes a person wants to live forever...thats not
>commonly observed..its a straw man set up by yourself or

      Its not commonly observed by the walking dead suffering from sour

      No one has had time enough for love, it isn't possible to have
had time enough for love, not even you.

      However if a person truely wants to die forever, he can, so he
wouldn't have any charge on that matter.

      ((This was written before TRIAD tech was discovered many years
ago.  There is Mortality, Immortality in time, and Eternality outside
of time.  The word FOREVER is confused to mean immortality which is
highly undesirable and which in fact does not exist as nothing can
outlast the finite while it was created in, and eternality which is highly
desirable as unimpingable peace.

      The preclear has seen that his immortality has become undesirable
through overts and withholds of magnitude, but has lost the ability
to contact his eternality and choice to become immortal again, so he
can't disconnect from the immortality he is stuck in.  Thus he seeks
mortality so he can live with the pretense that he will die one day
for good when his body dies.

      It is an addictive deceit which does not work in the end, and so
he lives many mortal lifetimes in a row dwindling in power and ability
as life times go on, until he can barely control a body at all.

      When most people are asked if they want to live forever, the
idea of never being able to sleep again for as long as they want
drives them hysterical and of course they would rather die forever
than be forced to be awake forever.

      Once they understand that immortality does not actually exist
but can exist for as long as they belive in it and fear it, but
that eternality certainty does exist, they chill out.  Eternality
gives them ability to sleep for ever, as long as they want, and
enter immortal and mortal time game streams at will when they will
all upon their own desire and agreement and appreciation for ludicrous

     So if you ask them if they would like to live forever immortally
they will says NO!, but if you ask them if they would like to live
forever Eternally, they will say 'YES!'.))

> It is infinite charge because
>> it is an infinite loss of an infnite future in an infinite
>> number of finite
>> whiles forever for free.

>more smoke, a mix of spin. a dab of truth, and a lot of bogus

      Nope, for those that want to live eternally forever, it's the 

>I notice you are evading the have not responded
>to my previous expose by point, and have not commented on
>Arnaldo's quotes from Volney Matheson...exposing Hubbards mind
>blowing and destructive *thats relevant.

      I have nothing to comment on, because I don't care what Hubbard


      You are hereby condemned as guilty as charged and removed from
this group on my news server.


Sat Jul 22 01:54:02 EDT 2006

================ ====================
Wed May 11 12:06:01 EDT 2016
Send mail to saying help in body
=========== ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Thu May 12 00:47:30 EDT 2016