Scientology claims to possess the only workable mental health technology. These pages, however, show the pathetic mental state to which Scientology drove one of its members. This site is not affiliated with the Church of Scientology.

This guy, Jeff Lee,
 pretended to offer constructive criticism to me,
 in response to my request on RI-586i.

It turns out that he was only covering up in order
 to fulfill his sick impulse of getting his
 destructive criticism across.

Who needs these covert destroyers?
 They are just cowards, only cowards.

Go and apply for being OSA-staff, Jeff,
 together with your friend Tilman Hausherr.
They are always looking for covert agents
 with these properties.

This is the last time that I have given you
 some trust. You've used it all up.

The only thing you are interested in is
 destroying the creations of others.

You are a perfect follower of L. Ron Hubbard
 in this respect.

And, in this way, the thread for this discussion
 ("Why L. Ron Hubbard wants to destroy your creations")
 was well chosen by me.
It describes what TYPE of suppressive person you are,
 and that is why you reacted to it.

Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind
Copyright 1996 by Koos Nolst Trenite

> Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 15:10:21 -0400
> To: Koos.Trenite@trenite.de, alt.religion.scientology@dispatch.news.demon.net
> From: Jeff Lee <shipbrk@gate.net>
> Subject: Re: RI-586i Why L. Ron Hubbard wants to destroy your creat

Jeff Lee wrote as "constructive" criticism to me:

>
> No, that is not what I mean. What word didn't you understand?

>
> You are avoiding the question. Why can't you confront?

>
> Utter rubbish. Just because some existing phenomenon is not yet known,
> does not mean that it does not exist. It is the *perception* and
> *knowledge* of reality which changed after Marconi's invention, not
> reality itself.

>
> Accounts mean nothing. If I were to write an account of having walked
> through a solid object, is the account good enough "proof" that I had
> actually accomplished the task? Especially if I could not demonstrate
> the task to anyone else?

>
> In other words: you can't do it. I'm not terribly surprised.

>
> (And, by the way, if you *had* told me what word I had written on the
> piece of paper, I would have been extremely impressed, and I certainly
> *would* have given a lot more credence to what you say. You claim I
> would only "pretend" to believe you, which shows that you really don't
> know very much about me.)

>
> You seem to be using "enforced reality" and "agreed upon reality" to
> mean that which others call "belief".

>
> You may be able to construct an "agreed upon reality" for yourself
> wherein you can consume mass quantities of arsenic and strychnine
> without taking any harm, but that "agreed upon reality" won't do you
> much good if you drink a bottle of arsenic in *actual* reality.

>
> No, Koos. I use "reality" to mean one thing only. You are the one who
> appears to be changing definitions to mean whatever suits you at the
> moment.

>
> (And by the use of creative editing, you fail to include my response
> to that. Since you have -- again -- posted this private email to a
> public forum, I shall repeat it here for the amusement of those others
> who are reading this:)

>
> Now, please confront the question.

>
> No, Koos, it's not being used "viciously and destructively" by me.
> Take a poll (a real one, not one of your magical telepathic sessions),
> and see how many agree with you and how many seem... skeptical of your
> claims.

>
> So, in other words, you're unwilling to provide any demonstration of
> the truth of your claims. If you yourself show so little confidence
> in what you say, why should anyone else?

>
> Well, since you brought that up again, here's my response to your
> original statement of it (which again you edited out when bringing
> this conversation to the world):

>
> What data? Koos, all you've done is evade every question, or play
> semantic games by redefining the words you use in your responses.
> I've even given you opportunities for you to prove that what you say
> is valid, but you're unable to do so.

>
> If you don't provide data, how can I examine it?

> -- 
> Jeff Lee (KoX/SP5/INTJ)  shipbrk@gate.net  SCA:Lord Godfrey de Shipbrook
> << Geek Code (v3.1) & PGP public key at http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/ >>
> <<   What kind of church needs an espionage and intelligence branch?  >>
> <<     Read http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/j/berlin.html to find out.    >>