Notice: Fredric Rice may have removed segments of the replies given to questions if they contained copyrighted materials. After a very short while, Scientology "experts" refused to answer questions and started cut-and-pasting copyrighted cult propaganda. Additionally I removed URLs in some of the replies, and left them in others. And it's also important to note that eventually the unfortunate "Greg Churilov" cultist was ejected from askme.com for his typical Scientological behavior.

Subject: Is this an example of ARC?
Answered by: Greg Churilov
Asked By: honorarykid

honorarykid asked this question on 5/1/2000:

Is this what Scientologists call ARC? Affinity, reality, and communication?

If this really is what ARC is all about, I can't say I much care for it.

-----
honorarykid asked LarryBergen this private question on 5/1/2000:
-----

In your answer to the question "Critics" you wrote: "I enjoy debates normally just not when they are antagonistic. It's like arguing with a drunkard. He doesn't understand you and you can't help wondering why he doesn't bathe. It's pointless."

Speaking of antagonistic, wasn't it you and your fellow Scientologists who, in the past month, have called me "horny kid, hateful, bigoted, and liar?" Wasn't it you who personally equated me with Hitler? And now here you are once again, comparing a discussion with me and other critics to carrying on a conversation with a smelly drunkard.

I hope you will see a measure of hypocrisy in your own words. Who is really being more antagonistic here? Why do you feel it advances your position to make such distasteful and obviously inaccurate equations about Scientology critics?

It is not pointless to debate with us. If you claim I, or my fellow critical experts are wrong, then make your case, point out what you think are untruths and specific areas of disagreement.

I think, given Scientology's obsession with controlling its enemies, a topic like Scientology demands a bit of confrontational rhetoric to be fully understood. But we don't have to be personally mean and insulting to one another to have a spirited debate.

But if you insist on refusing to engage in debate, instead relying only on unfounded name calling, then I think that will hurt your cause in the long run. People will see what you are doing, and tend to be less impressed with your claims of being a better person as a result of Scientology training.

It's simply too easy to purposefully ignore criticisms. It's too easy to say it's "pointless" to actually engage in debate with ignorant, smelly, "drunkard"-like critics. It's much more difficult to respond with integrity, responsibility, and reasoned counter-arguments. Please try, won't you?

----- End of question ----- Beginning of reply -----

larrybergen declined to answer on 5/1/2000:

expert currently desires no communication with critic.

-----
End of reply
-----

Greg Churilov gave this response on 5/2/2000:

Don't be silly, Kid.

This is not an example of ARC, but the lack of it.

I see no reason why Larry Bergen should treat you with kindness. All you are doing is trying to undermine our efforts to truthfully inform the public, and spreading biased and hateful lies.

ARC stands for Affinity, Reality and Communication.

Would you say that you are by your actions spreading love and joy?

C'mon, Mr. "the overt speaks loudest in accusation", get real.

Spirit

honorarykid asked this follow-up question on 5/2/2000:

Hi Spirit,

Is it an unspoken, unwritten part of the tech that you should only communicate with those who already agree with you?

I understand that LarryBergen has had an ARC Break. From now on, any claims he might make about learning how to communicate better because of Scientology should now be viewed with suspicion, don't you agree? His example is clearly not one of improved communication.

You mention the ARC triangle. My answers clearly and unequivocally serve two of the loci, reality and communication. I have not refused to answer a single question in this forum, and I tell the real truth about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.

The third loci, Affinity, is a bit harder to nail down, I agree, because of the emotional commitments made by Scientologists to your organization.

So in one sense, I agree with you. I see no reason why Larry should like me. I am saying things that challenge his deeply held beliefs, and this might cause him some hurt.

But I'm not here to debunk him or answer him personally. I'm answering the claims of an organization, for which he is only a spokesman. There is nothing personal between he and I.

I think I deserve some common courtesy. I have not called him or you names. He has not returned that courtesy. If he wishes to claim I lack affinity, why should anyone respect that opinion when his affinity is so lacking?

More importantly, what I'm saying is true. Does that count for nothing? Is affinity with Scientologists to be bought at the cost of reason and objective truth?

Are you saying the only way you will agree to be courteous or friendly with me is if I tell lies, or sit silently by while you do? Can I only expect your affinity if I agree lie to myself and hypnotize myself to believe in the greatness of L. Ron Hubbard and his creation, Scientology, as you have? That's too big a price to pay, spirit.

Please believe that I do have an affinity for Scientologists. It's just that it is not found in an easy place for you. It's found in the truth of my answers. One day, I hope you will put aside your intense prejudices and filters, and actually read and understand my answers.

Also, I will point out that my telling the truth about the turpitude of L. Ron Hubbard and the CoS shows very real affinity for the potential customers Scientology seeks to snare into it's mental indoctrination programs. Some of them have thanked me for my answers here on AskMe.com.

Greg Churilov gave this insane, typical cop-out on 5/2/2000:

First off, this is likely my last communication with you. You annoy me.

Having said that:

"I think I deserve some common courtesy. I have not called him or you names. He has not returned that courtesy."

No. I don't see why you deserve courtesy. You openly insult and smear with lies those things that Scientologists hold dear. This makes you deservant of contempt, not our respect.

"More importantly, what I'm saying is true. Does that count for nothing? "

Kid, you LIE LIKE A RUG in each and every one of your anwers.

I understand you feel a compulsion to attack that which I most cherish and value. I can even forgive that.

But get real, don't expect me to be your buddy.

Spirit

honorarykid asked this follow-up question on 5/2/2000:

Spirit replied:

"Kid, you LIE LIKE A RUG in each and every one of your anwers"

Where have I lied? Please point out one or two specific examples. If I lie in every single answer, as you say, this should not be difficult for you.

And I never expected you to be my buddy. Only to engage in forthright communication on the subject at hand.

Greg Churilov gave this response on 5/2/2000:

What you fail to understand is that you are here uninvited, you are NOT accepted as a fellow expert, and it is not my goal (as I am sure it is not Larry's, to engage in "forthright" (give me a break, after all your calumny and hypocricy) communication on the subject at hand with you.

Go back to ARS where you belong.

This is a public board for people that seek information about Scientology. Not a forum for disgruntled apostates.

Spirit

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.