[extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists?

[spike]

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of David Lubkin
> Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: Risk averse immortalists?
> 


> As a matter of self-preservation, I keep a short mental list of no-win
> opponents. Foes against whom the best strategy is to never come to their
> attention.
> 
> The various Mafias, the IRS, Microsoft, and the Church of $cientolgy.
...
> -- David Lubkin.


I had it explained to me thus by a colleague who is a former Co$:

Churches have specialties, and the Co$ claims to specialize in 
drug rehab.  Consequently they have more than their share of 
former dopers.  These often think of the Co$ as the influence 
that saved them from certain destruction by addiction.  Former 
dopers are people who have become accustomed to breaking the
law.  Even if they get over the addiction, they are likely
still comfortable with living outside the law.  So if you 
oppose the organization they think saved them, you have a 
seemingly inexhaustible supply of people of uncertain levels 
of sanity, willing and eager to break the law in order to mess 
you up.

My colleague felt he needed to be extremely careful as a 
*former* Co$ for fear of these people.  He never was a doper, 
and so he never really felt like he was fully part of the 
scene.  But he was in a state of constant nervousness. 

In Keith's case, they seem to have gone to absurd lengths 
to damage him, taking measures that absolutely defy reason 
or explanation.  With regard to David's comment on avoiding
attention, I would suggest intentional misspelling of the
term (as for instance I modified his spelling above) in
order to not show up in a google search when commenting
on this topic. 

spike