Re: RI-85R-Bi The Institutional Case Carl Kaun

In article <9506200743.AA20898@freenet-a.fim.uni-erlangen.de> Koos Nolst Trenite <ba170@fim.uni-erlangen.de> writes:

>'The Institutional Case Carl Kaun'

Hey, that's me! What's an 'Institutional Case'? Is it good or bad? Is like an award? Is there a medal or something? A banquet?

Hey, Rogue Agent, were you the one asking to be made SP? Have you been declared an 'Institutional Case'? Koos later on says the list of Institutional Cases is long, and he lists lots of names, but yours isn't on it. Maybe he'll let me pass on my award to you. I'll do that, if you like.

Hm, on reading it, it looks like nearly a duplicate of 'The Institutional Case Damon Chetson', except I don't remember all that stuff about 'KNT-Tech for SPs' at the end of his declare. I can't believe Koos might think that applies to me.

Let's find out more about this.

>An institutional case makes the most illogical statements > AS IF THEY ARE NORMAL STATEMENTS.

>You say: "We have built the Golden Gate Bridge now. > And it has been open to traffic for one week."

[repeated endlessly with variations on how an institutional case responds]

I say the Golden Gate Bridge has been open to traffic the better part of 50 years. What do you mean, *you* built it? Isn't yours an illogical statement made AS IF IT WERE NORMAL?

I say "good, now I won't have to take the ferry to Sausalito". You think this is illogical because you don't know that Sausalito is on the other end of the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, or because you think I have no business in Sausalito, or maybe because you don't know there are ferries that go to Sausalito?

I say Koos does not understand, nor trouble himself to understand the context in which these statements are entirely logical and true, and even necessary.

Koos says that the institutional cases write such unbelievably insane things AS IF THEY ARE NORMAL STATEMENTS that people who enter this newsgroup tend to get upset and repelled.

Carl asks if Koos has really been reading a.r.s or is smoking something? Carl read Koos on a.c.t stating that Koos didn't read a.r.s. How then does Koos know these things?

Koos states he likes us institutional cases more than we like ourselves, that we hate ourselves like hell. Koos doesn't know us and understand how we are happy, loving persons Perhaps Koos is projecting his own feelings

Koos cannot understand our gentle fun, or our humour. Koos cannot develop the context required to understand these. Can Koos say "haha"? Perhaps it would be good to be able to do so. The reason Koos cannot do this is that he has lost all his BT's Only BT's can react to different contexts and detect humour, and stimulate the reaction of laughter.

Koos thinks we hate. We do not hate, we love.

We do not hate Woody - he does not threaten us, and he gives us pleasure. We love Woody, (although we killfile him) and think that even Woody might at some time find his BTs and join us in the pleasure of love and laughter.

And we love Andy - even though he is a terrible liar by every meaning of the word 'terrible'. It is so much fun to discover his transparent ruses. What would a.r.s be without him?

We don't love Chris Miller as much because we haven't found *the* person behind Chris Miller and because Chris Miller is often nasty But we believe in the possible redemption of all creatures And we don't hate Chris Miller.

We love Ken Long. Ken Long does not threaten us, and is patient in explaining Scientology to us, and is never mean-spirited. A church of Ken Longs would be much better for the world Than the one we see.

And we love Koosie. We frequently don't understand him, But he doesn't threaten us in a way we fear, And so we love him. We can't help ourselves, it's the way we are.

Koos is OT - a god, capable of creating and destroying life itself (if Koos is not OT, how can he be Ron's reviewer?) Hubbard said OTs were thus.

If Koos *is* a god, why does Koos need to talk with Ron to deal with things here? why doesn't Koos use his superior powers to arrange things better? when Koos says he has removed Miscavige, what does he mean? Why does the church remain the same, if Miscavige is gone?

Perhaps the promise to save the planet weighs heavy on Koos. And Koos is sad, and tired, and lonely and Ron's words are not a help And Koos yearns to laugh and love again If this be so, Koos can make it happen, to change his heart, and understand insanity And join us in love, and true joy and brotherhood.

Or Koos can do as he does now and make his endless pronouncements and be regarded as a 'kook' by all sides of the Scientology discussions and dwell in his sterile imaginings of the world and be sad, and tired, and lonely. We would not sentence Koos thus harshly. He does it himself.

-------

Aside:
  Hey, I'm an 'institutional case', aren't I? 
  Don't I have to live up to it?