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?
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.
-----
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.
-----
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.
Answered by: Greg Churilov
Asked By: honorarykid
honorarykid asked LarryBergen this private question on 5/1/2000:
-----
End of reply
-----
This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with
nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's
absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the
many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.