David Miscavige said that Pat Broker was suppressive - but DM trusted that the material Broker had was originally from L. Ron Hubbard?
Von: Barbara Schwarz (barbaraschwarz2004@excite.com) [Profil]
Datum: 03.11.2009 03:54
Message-ID: <0b61c204-407d-4472-8dd5-d999d577bc70@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.clearing.technology nl.scientologyde.soc.weltanschauung.scientology alt.support.ex-cult alt.religion.scientology
Datum: 03.11.2009 03:54
Message-ID: <0b61c204-407d-4472-8dd5-d999d577bc70@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.clearing.technology nl.scientologyde.soc.weltanschauung.scientology alt.support.ex-cult alt.religion.scientology
That paper reports that DM made Broker surrender the last research of L. Ron Hubbard. How come? If Broker was bad, why would Broker not forge papers and would not accept "tech" from any forger or impostor to bring Scientology down? So, why did DM accept "tech" that was completely in the hands of somebody suppressive? Barbara Schwarz Http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1048116.ece[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten
- Dagny Taggart (03.11.2009 04:03)
- Anti-spam but pro fun (03.11.2009 04:06)
- Dagny Taggart (03.11.2009 04:20)
- Dagny Taggart (03.11.2009 04:07)
- Anti-spam but pro fun (03.11.2009 04:09)
- Dagny Taggart (03.11.2009 04:22)
- Anti-spam but pro fun (03.11.2009 04:06)
- Barbara loves Marty (03.11.2009 04:34)