2. The statements herein are of my own personal knowledge and if called upon as a witness I can testify competently thereto.
3. In November 2000, I entered the LMT LITERATI 2000 contest and submitted my essay called Scientology: Soul Hackers under the pseudonym "antivirus." That essay was awarded second prize in the contest and was posted on the Lisa McPherson Trust website at the following url: http://www.lisatrust.net/literaticontest/contest2000/00antivirus.html. The contest closed on November 30, 2000, and the essay was posted soon after that date.
4. The entire reason for my posting of the essay under a pseudonym was to remain anonymous. I carefully refrained from including personal information in that essay that would allow Scientology to identify me. Scientology strictly enforces their internal policy that requires their members to disconnect from critics, regardless of familial connections. My adult daughter, Ann Reinertsen, is a Scientologist, and I was very concerned about the steps that Scientology would take to destroy my relationship with Ann should they became aware of my critical essay.
5. As any Scientologist in good standing, Ann believes that her spiritual eternity depends upon strict adherence to the policies of Scientology. Those policies include the purging from their relationships anyone who is openly critical of their beliefs. Scientology labels their members "Potential Trouble Source" (PTS) when they have such connections. The PTS persons are dealt with in Scientology's Ethics department and are coercively forced to change their relationship and associations in accordance with Hubbard's policies, before they can continue with their Scientology training and counseling. No "Potential Trouble Source" can receive auditing or training in Scientology, except for that which is designed strictly to alter their PTS situation. In the event that the member is connected with a critic, the only solution for the member is to disconnect from them. If the member fails to disconnect, they are refused Scientology training or auditing. They also run the risk of being labeled a "suppressive person" themselves by reason of non-compliance with Scientology 's disconnection policy regarding critics. L. Ron Hubbard covers many of these policies in his book called Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
6. Although we live on opposite sides of the US, Ann and I enjoyed a loving mother-daughter relationship and communicated regularly by phone and e-mail up to January 20, 2001. At no time prior to January 20, 2001 did I discuss with Ann my disillusionment with Scientology, because I feared repercussions with Scientology, and the tremendous pressure they would bring to bear on Ann to disconnect from me. I specifically did not mention anything to her about the essay that I had written. I did not speak with any Scientology member in good standing about the essay; they would have been forced by policy to alert Scientology officials, which would set in motion exactly what I was trying to avoid. I also refrained from using or making known my pseudonym of "antivirus" to any members of Scientology in good standing.
7. Alt.religion.scientology is an Internet newsgroup frequented by both specially trained Scientologists and critics of Scientology. By specially trained Scientologists I wish to point out that lay Scientologists are enjoined from reading critical material about Scientology on the Internet. Scientology software exists that filters out critical Internet content and Scientology management encourages Scientologists to install this software on their computers.
8. The Scientology personnel that frequent alt.religion.scientology are to my understanding trained by the Office of Special Affairs of Scientology to dead agent in various ways the messages posted by critics. I do not have first hand knowledge of this ongoing OSA project. However, Tory Bezazian, now a critic, has recently posted to alt.religion.scientology her account of her experience with that OSA project while she was still a member. In her statements she recounted that she was involved in procuring "throwaway" e-mail addresses for use by OSA operatives on alt.religion.scientology.
9. I had known of alt.religion.scientology prior to entering the contest and had visited a website a few times to browse some of the messages being posted there. This is a very active and prolific group, with many heated arguments going back and forth between critics and Scientologists. I subscribed to the newsgroup in April 2001.
10. A Scientologist with the e-mail address of "AJ" <AJ_mem...@newsguy.com> posted several messages between November 2000 and January 12, 2001 with respect to an effort he was making to identify the person who wrote Scientology: Soul Hackers. On 1/12/2001 "AJ" announced to alt.religion.scientology, "It took some work to piece together all of the clues in Anti-Virus' essay but I can confirm that the individual who placed second in the LMT 2000 Literati Contest is Caroline Reinertsen. That's the name I knew her by some years ago. Hopefully she will declare this income on her tax return."
11. I don't know any person with the real name of "AJ", and the person who posted the message has never identified himself or herself. "Reinertsen" is my married name. I reverted back to my maiden name when I divorced Eric Reinertsen. This was shortly after I left the Sea Organization in 1988.
12. I understand now from reviewing previous alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
13. I do not have first hand knowledge of what other actions OSA may have taken to confirm my identity.
14. On January 20, 2001, Ann called me and told me that she was getting handled in the Ethics Office. I immediately realized from her voice that she was very upset. She said that the Ethics Officer had shown her a Scientology ethics issue stating that I had written a bad essay about Scientology and that this was now on the Internet. She also told me that she knew I had attempted suicide. She asked me if it was true, asking it in an accusatory way that one would ask someone to admit guilt for a known act. I did not answer her question at that point but instead told her that I would call her back in a few minutes, which I did. In the interim few minutes, I composed myself in the best way I could as now I knew the worst had happened. I was absolutely shocked that these two accusations would be connected in any way, and that the ethics issue would include such distorted and damaging information about my past. I was not going to have the opportunity to calmly explain to Ann about my disillusionment with Scientology in my own way and time, and I was also now forced into a defensive position because of whatever the Ethics officer had announced to her. I also knew from Ann's statements that Scientology had painted a picture of me to her that I was currently insane, and that anything I said to her would be viewed as the words of an insane person. I knew that anything I said to Ann would be relayed back to the Ethics officer, as she was calling me as part of her Ethics handling. I also suspected that an Ethics officer or other Scientology personnel were monitoring my conversation with Ann as Ann did not want me to call back in a few minutes-she wanted to have the conversation right then and there. Regardless, I did call her back in a few minutes. At that time she asked me again to admit that I had written the essay, which I did. When I told her that the information she was given by the Ethics officer referred to a situation that occurred years before I became involved with Scientology. Ann seemed very surprised to hear that, but she was so upset overall that I was not able to fully establish and correct the facts that she was given and shown by the Ethics officer.
15. In January 1975, I became involved in Scientology in Vancouver, B.C., when I was nineteen years old. My pre-Scientology history was the subject of a petition that I was required to write to Jane Kember, head of the Guardian's Office Worldwide in order to continue with the first Scientology course that I had already purchased and enrolled on. The purpose of the petition was to allow Scientology's intelligence arm to consider my history and thereby establish my eligibility for Scientology services, according to Scientology's policy on these matters. Jane Kember approved my petition and I was cleared to receive Scientology services.
16. Subsequent to the initial petition, I wrote at least two other petitions for security clearance per Scientology's policies on security. For example, I wrote a petition to the Guardian (Jane Kember) for permission to join the Sea Organization. All petitions were approved, and I was told that I was not an "illegal preclear" by reason of my pre-Scientology history. I was given a high security clearance in Scientology's elite organization, the "Sea Org." I trained in Scientology's confidential levels and was posted as a New Era Dianetics for OTs (NOTs) auditor, where I delivered Scientology's confidential levels to paying Scientologists.
17. I had never before discussed this aspect of my past with Ann. Nor did I openly discuss with other Scientologists the details of my past. There are only a couple sources for my complete disclosure to
>2. The statements herein are of my own personal knowledge and if >called upon as a witness I can testify competently thereto.
>3. In November 2000, I entered the LMT LITERATI 2000 contest and >submitted my essay called Scientology: Soul Hackers under the pseudonym >"antivirus." That essay was awarded second prize in the contest and was >posted on the Lisa McPherson Trust website at the following url: >http://www.lisatrust.net/literaticontest/contest2000/00antivirus.html. The >contest closed on November 30, 2000, and the essay was posted soon after >that date.
>4. The entire reason for my posting of the essay under a >pseudonym was to remain anonymous. I carefully refrained from including >personal information in that essay that would allow Scientology to identify >me. Scientology strictly enforces their internal policy that requires their >members to disconnect from critics, regardless of familial connections. My >adult daughter, Ann Reinertsen, is a Scientologist, and I was very concerned >about the steps that Scientology would take to destroy my relationship with >Ann should they became aware of my critical essay.
>5. As any Scientologist in good standing, Ann believes >that her spiritual eternity depends upon strict adherence to the policies of >Scientology. Those policies include the purging from their relationships >anyone who is openly critical of their beliefs. Scientology labels their >members "Potential Trouble Source" (PTS) when they have such connections. >The PTS persons are dealt with in Scientology's Ethics department and are >coercively forced to change their relationship and associations in >accordance with Hubbard's policies, before they can continue with their >Scientology training and counseling. No "Potential Trouble Source" can >receive auditing or training in Scientology, except for that which is >designed strictly to alter their PTS situation. In the event that the >member is connected with a critic, the only solution for the member is to >disconnect from them. If the member fails to disconnect, they are refused >Scientology training or auditing. They also run the risk of being labeled a >"suppressive person" themselves by reason of non-compliance with Scientology >'s disconnection policy regarding critics. L. Ron Hubbard covers many of >these policies in his book called Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
>6. Although we live on opposite sides of the US, Ann and I >enjoyed a loving mother-daughter relationship and communicated regularly by >phone and e-mail up to January 20, 2001. At no time prior to January 20, >2001 did I discuss with Ann my disillusionment with Scientology, because I >feared repercussions with Scientology, and the tremendous pressure they >would bring to bear on Ann to disconnect from me. I specifically did not >mention anything to her about the essay that I had written. I did not speak >with any Scientology member in good standing about the essay; they would >have been forced by policy to alert Scientology officials, which would set >in motion exactly what I was trying to avoid. I also refrained from using >or making known my pseudonym of "antivirus" to any members of Scientology in >good standing.
>7. Alt.religion.scientology is an Internet newsgroup >frequented by both specially trained Scientologists and critics of >Scientology. By specially trained Scientologists I wish to point out that >lay Scientologists are enjoined from reading critical material about >Scientology on the Internet. Scientology software exists that filters out >critical Internet content and Scientology management encourages >Scientologists to install this software on their computers.
This is true. Not only does Scientology encourage members to use the software filter, but the cult has written policies and programs intended to prevent its members from subscribing to this newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology.
>8. The Scientology personnel that frequent >alt.religion.scientology are to my understanding trained by the Office of >Special Affairs of Scientology to dead agent in various ways the messages >posted by critics. I do not have first hand knowledge of this ongoing OSA >project. However, Tory Bezazian, now a critic, has recently posted to >alt.religion.scientology her account of her experience with that OSA project >while she was still a member. In her statements she recounted that she was >involved in procuring "throwaway" e-mail addresses for use by OSA operatives >on alt.religion.scientology.
>9. I had known of alt.religion.scientology prior to >entering the contest and had visited a website a few times to browse some of >the messages being posted there. This is a very active and prolific group, >with many heated arguments going back and forth between critics and >Scientologists. I subscribed to the newsgroup in April 2001.
>10. A Scientologist with the e-mail address of "AJ" ><AJ_mem...@newsguy.com> posted several messages between November 2000 and >January 12, 2001 with respect to an effort he was making to identify the >person who wrote Scientology: Soul Hackers. On 1/12/2001 "AJ" announced to >alt.religion.scientology, "It took some work to piece together all of the >clues in Anti-Virus' essay but I can confirm that the individual who placed >second in the LMT 2000 Literati Contest is Caroline Reinertsen. That's the >name I knew her by some years ago. Hopefully she will declare this income >on her tax return."
I recall seeing this posting made by the Scientologist using the user-ID of "AJ" to post to alt.religion.scientology from a Newsguy account.
>11. I don't know any person with the real name of "AJ", and >the person who posted the message has never identified himself or herself.
This is similar to the anonymous accusations that have been made against me by Scientologists using anonymous user-IDs. A few of these anonymous accounts used have been "Rod Fletcher", "wgert", "rodf" and "justin". There are many others.
In addition to making accusations against me on the newsgroup known as alt.religion.scientology, I have had threatening messages sent to me while I have been logged into the internet relay chat ("irc chat") channel scientology on undernet.
In fact, a Scientologist using the name "rodf" said through "irc chat" that he knew me when I was on staff at Scientology's American Saint Hill Organization ("ASHO") and that he was a "public Scientologist" (a member who is not staff) on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course ("SHSBC") at the time I was in the Sea Organization on staff at ASHO.
I have never known a Scientologist named Rod whose last name begins with the letter "F".
>"Reinertsen" is my married name. I reverted back to my maiden name when I >divorced Eric Reinertsen. This was shortly after I left the Sea >Organization in 1988.
I knew Eric Reinertsen when I was on staff at ASHO Day in Los Angeles.
>12. I understand now from reviewing previous >alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis >software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA >post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software >they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
>13. I do not have first hand knowledge of what other actions >OSA may have taken to confirm my identity.
>14. On January 20, 2001, Ann called me and told me that she >was getting handled in the Ethics Office. I immediately realized from her >voice that she was very upset. She said that the Ethics Officer had shown >her a Scientology ethics issue stating that I had written a bad essay about >Scientology and that this was now on the Internet. She also told me that >she knew I had attempted suicide. She asked me if it was true, asking it in >an accusatory way that one would ask someone to admit guilt for a known act. >I did not answer her question at that point but instead told her that I >would call her back in a few minutes, which I did. In the interim few >minutes, I composed myself in the best way I could as now I knew the worst >had happened. I was absolutely shocked that these two accusations would be >connected in any way, and that the ethics issue would include such distorted >and damaging information about my past. I was not going to have the >opportunity to calmly explain to Ann about my disillusionment with >Scientology in my own way and time, and I was also now forced into a >defensive position because of whatever the Ethics officer had announced to >her. I also knew from Ann's statements that Scientology had painted a >picture of me to her that I was currently insane, and that anything I said >to her would be viewed as the words of an insane person. I knew that >anything I said to Ann would be relayed back to the Ethics officer, as she >was calling me as part of her Ethics handling. I also suspected that an >Ethics officer or other Scientology personnel were monitoring my >conversation with Ann as Ann did not want me to call back in a few >minutes-she wanted to have the conversation right then and there. >Regardless, I did call her back in a few minutes. At that time she asked me >again to admit that I had written the essay, which I did. When I told her >that the information she was given by the Ethics officer referred to a >situation that occurred years before I became involved with Scientology. >Ann seemed very surprised to hear that, but she was so upset overall that I >was not able to fully establish and correct the facts that
antivirus wrote: > DECLARATION OF CAROLINE LETKEMAN
> I, Caroline Letkeman, declare as follows:
> (Please forgive the big snip, but I wanted to focus on No. 19 & 20)
> 19. Some time early 1999, I first broke Scientology's rule > about not exposing myself to critical information about Scientology. In the > breaking of Scientology's "critical blackout" rule, I became aware of many > incontrovertible facts about L. Ron Hubbard and of Scientology, facts that > were absolutely appalling to me in a deeply personal way. I was utterly > devastated when I came to realize that my committed contributions to > Scientology were actually contributions to a dangerous and criminal > organization.
This is the reaction of an honest human being who, upon learning the truth about an organization they have given support and money, feels regret and remorse. How unlike some of our resident scientology apologists.
> 20. Nevertheless, learning the truth about Hubbard and > Scientology led me to the inevitable conclusion that I could no longer be > part of Scientology. I agonized silently for months about how to > communicate the truth to my daughter and to others. I felt a personal > obligation to help correct the wrongs that I had done. I also felt a need > to try and uncover the reasons why I had been so completely tricked and > defrauded by Scientology, and why I had spent my entire adult life trapped > in the mind control of Hubbard's organization. Having been an advanced > auditor with a good grasp of Hubbard's technology, I needed to try and more > completely decode the technical basis for the mind control of which I was > both a victim and unwitting perpetrator. I felt that I had to come to a > technical understanding of why the action of leaving Scientology did not > resolve, but amplified the emotional pain I was experiencing. I knew from > reading others stories on the Internet that mine was not a unique situation. > The essay that I submitted to the Literati Contest 2000 was a summary of my > ongoing research to that point.
I am deeply saddened by the price you've been made to pay for simply telling the truth.
Great post and thanks for sharing with us some your experiences. It would be great if you could do a video of your experiences and send it to LMT to be posted along with the rest of the testimonials of the "survivors". You have been around for such a time and know so much that would help others to see the truth of the "most ethical group on the planet".
If each Scientologists who leaves was to tell their story that would be so helpful in assisting others in leaving and getting free of the cult.
Thanks again for sharing your testimonial and I hope that your daughter will come to her senses some day, since we have been out more and more of our friends are leaving and pretty soon all will be out, the more who leave and tell about it the more it helps to take that leap.
I can only share with you what has worked for us and others and that is to speak out about what we know and what is true because the more we do that the more we are free and the more others go free and away we go...............
Hubbard or whom ever was correct about at least one thing...communication is the universal solvent it washes everything away....and the more we communicate about the truth about the COS the more it gets washed away.
>>2. The statements herein are of my own personal knowledge and if >>called upon as a witness I can testify competently thereto.
>>3. In November 2000, I entered the LMT LITERATI 2000 contest and >>submitted my essay called Scientology: Soul Hackers under the pseudonym >>"antivirus." That essay was awarded second prize in the contest and was >>posted on the Lisa McPherson Trust website at the following url: >>http://www.lisatrust.net/literaticontest/contest2000/00antivirus.html. The >>contest closed on November 30, 2000, and the essay was posted soon after >>that date.
>>4. The entire reason for my posting of the essay under a >>pseudonym was to remain anonymous. I carefully refrained from including >>personal information in that essay that would allow Scientology to identify >>me. Scientology strictly enforces their internal policy that requires their >>members to disconnect from critics, regardless of familial connections. My >>adult daughter, Ann Reinertsen, is a Scientologist, and I was very concerned >>about the steps that Scientology would take to destroy my relationship with >>Ann should they became aware of my critical essay.
>>5. As any Scientologist in good standing, Ann believes >>that her spiritual eternity depends upon strict adherence to the policies of >>Scientology. Those policies include the purging from their relationships >>anyone who is openly critical of their beliefs. Scientology labels their >>members "Potential Trouble Source" (PTS) when they have such connections. >>The PTS persons are dealt with in Scientology's Ethics department and are >>coercively forced to change their relationship and associations in >>accordance with Hubbard's policies, before they can continue with their >>Scientology training and counseling. No "Potential Trouble Source" can >>receive auditing or training in Scientology, except for that which is >>designed strictly to alter their PTS situation. In the event that the >>member is connected with a critic, the only solution for the member is to >>disconnect from them. If the member fails to disconnect, they are refused >>Scientology training or auditing. They also run the risk of being labeled a >>"suppressive person" themselves by reason of non-compliance with Scientology >>'s disconnection policy regarding critics. L. Ron Hubbard covers many of >>these policies in his book called Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
>>6. Although we live on opposite sides of the US, Ann and I >>enjoyed a loving mother-daughter relationship and communicated regularly by >>phone and e-mail up to January 20, 2001. At no time prior to January 20, >>2001 did I discuss with Ann my disillusionment with Scientology, because I >>feared repercussions with Scientology, and the tremendous pressure they >>would bring to bear on Ann to disconnect from me. I specifically did not >>mention anything to her about the essay that I had written. I did not speak >>with any Scientology member in good standing about the essay; they would >>have been forced by policy to alert Scientology officials, which would set >>in motion exactly what I was trying to avoid. I also refrained from using >>or making known my pseudonym of "antivirus" to any members of Scientology in >>good standing.
>>7. Alt.religion.scientology is an Internet newsgroup >>frequented by both specially trained Scientologists and critics of >>Scientology. By specially trained Scientologists I wish to point out that >>lay Scientologists are enjoined from reading critical material about >>Scientology on the Internet. Scientology software exists that filters out >>critical Internet content and Scientology management encourages >>Scientologists to install this software on their computers.
>This is true. Not only does Scientology encourage members to use the >software filter, but the cult has written policies and programs intended >to prevent its members from subscribing to this newsgroup, >alt.religion.scientology.
>>8. The Scientology personnel that frequent >>alt.religion.scientology are to my understanding trained by the Office of >>Special Affairs of Scientology to dead agent in various ways the messages >>posted by critics. I do not have first hand knowledge of this ongoing OSA >>project. However, Tory Bezazian, now a critic, has recently posted to >>alt.religion.scientology her account of her experience with that OSA project >>while she was still a member. In her statements she recounted that she was >>involved in procuring "throwaway" e-mail addresses for use by OSA operatives >>on alt.religion.scientology.
>This is true.
>>9. I had known of alt.religion.scientology prior to >>entering the contest and had visited a website a few times to browse some of >>the messages being posted there. This is a very active and prolific group, >>with many heated arguments going back and forth between critics and >>Scientologists. I subscribed to the newsgroup in April 2001.
>>10. A Scientologist with the e-mail address of "AJ" >><AJ_mem...@newsguy.com> posted several messages between November 2000 and >>January 12, 2001 with respect to an effort he was making to identify the >>person who wrote Scientology: Soul Hackers. On 1/12/2001 "AJ" announced to >>alt.religion.scientology, "It took some work to piece together all of the >>clues in Anti-Virus' essay but I can confirm that the individual who placed >>second in the LMT 2000 Literati Contest is Caroline Reinertsen. That's the >>name I knew her by some years ago. Hopefully she will declare this income >>on her tax return."
>I recall seeing this posting made by the Scientologist using the user-ID >of "AJ" to post to alt.religion.scientology from a Newsguy account.
>>11. I don't know any person with the real name of "AJ", and >>the person who posted the message has never identified himself or herself.
>This is similar to the anonymous accusations that have been made against >me by Scientologists using anonymous user-IDs. A few of these anonymous >accounts used have been "Rod Fletcher", "wgert", "rodf" and "justin". >There are many others.
>In addition to making accusations against me on the newsgroup known as >alt.religion.scientology, I have had threatening messages sent to me while >I have been logged into the internet relay chat ("irc chat") channel >scientology on undernet.
>In fact, a Scientologist using the name "rodf" said through "irc chat" >that he knew me when I was on staff at Scientology's American Saint Hill >Organization ("ASHO") and that he was a "public Scientologist" (a member >who is not staff) on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course ("SHSBC") at >the time I was in the Sea Organization on staff at ASHO.
>I have never known a Scientologist named Rod whose last name begins >with the letter "F".
>>"Reinertsen" is my married name. I reverted back to my maiden name when I >>divorced Eric Reinertsen. This was shortly after I left the Sea >>Organization in 1988.
>I knew Eric Reinertsen when I was on staff at ASHO Day in Los Angeles.
>>12. I understand now from reviewing previous >>alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis >>software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA >>post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software >>they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
>>13. I do not have first hand knowledge of what other actions >>OSA may have taken to confirm my identity.
>>14. On January 20, 2001, Ann called me and told me that she >>was getting handled in the Ethics Office. I immediately realized from her >>voice that she was very upset. She said that the Ethics Officer had shown >>her a Scientology ethics issue stating that I had written a bad essay about >>Scientology and that this was now on the Internet. She also told me that >>she knew I had attempted suicide. She asked me if it was true, asking it in >>an accusatory way that one would ask someone to admit guilt for a known act. >>I did not answer her question at that point but instead told her that I >>would call her back in a few minutes, which I did. In the interim few >>minutes, I
> Great post and thanks for sharing with us some your experiences. It would be > great if you could do a video of your experiences and send it to LMT to be > posted along with the rest of the testimonials of the "survivors". You have > been around for such a time and know so much that would help others to see the > truth of the "most ethical group on the planet".
> If each Scientologists who leaves was to tell their story that would be so > helpful in assisting others in leaving and getting free of the cult.
I would also like to see everyone who's IN Scn post some of their experiences and I DON'T just mean the positive ones.
There is conditioning extant in CofS which discourages freedom of speech.
That is incredibly ironic in view of the Creed, the ARC triangle, the concept of Pan determinism, the tone scale, LRH's comment that there's no liability in talking to anybody.
Mark Twain had commented about Christianity something to the effect that it would be a good idea if only CHRISTIANS would practice it.
This could and should be said about Scientology/CofS.
> Thanks again for sharing your testimonial and I hope that your daughter will > come to her senses some day, since we have been out more and more of our friends > are leaving and pretty soon all will be out, the more who leave and tell about > it the more it helps to take that leap.
No one should EVER feel that they should not or could not speak about their experiences in CofS. However, to my everlasting heartbreak and regret- people DO feel that way because they ARE discouraged from saying anything critical about Scn even if there were three dozen witnesses all signing affidavits in triplicate and eleven tv cameras recording the whole deal. It STILL would not be all right with the church for any negativity reflecting on them to be discussed openly. And even when one discusses such things within church channels it does not always go well for the person making the observation.
It's obvious to me that anything that happened is grounds for open discussion and it's an opinion of mine that it matters how other people feel about the church and about anything else and that if they want to discuss those thing, why then, they should.
Discussion of a large organization like CofS can only harm it if negative allegations are substantiated. And when and if they are substantiated then the solution becomes obvious. Those things shouldn't have been done in the first place, and they obviously should not continue.
There now. I've just handed the Church the cure for the entire critic "sit".
The Justice Chief in Clearwater (Cara Golasheshky) stated in a recent letter to me that Flag's Ethics office acted on AJ's alt. religion.scientology posts that revealed my identity. She enclosed copies of AJ's posts in her letter.
I have answered that letter and am currently awaiting response from Ms. Golashesky to some specific requests I made. Ms. Golasheshky: Your early response to my letter will be appreciated.
antivirus
"antivirus" <unclevi...@email.com> wrote in message
> 2. The statements herein are of my own personal knowledge and if > called upon as a witness I can testify competently thereto.
> 3. In November 2000, I entered the LMT LITERATI 2000 contest and > submitted my essay called Scientology: Soul Hackers under the pseudonym > "antivirus." That essay was awarded second prize in the contest and was > posted on the Lisa McPherson Trust website at the following url: > http://www.lisatrust.net/literaticontest/contest2000/00antivirus.html. The > contest closed on November 30, 2000, and the essay was posted soon after > that date.
> 4. The entire reason for my posting of the essay under a > pseudonym was to remain anonymous. I carefully refrained from including > personal information in that essay that would allow Scientology to identify > me. Scientology strictly enforces their internal policy that requires their > members to disconnect from critics, regardless of familial connections. My > adult daughter, Ann Reinertsen, is a Scientologist, and I was very concerned > about the steps that Scientology would take to destroy my relationship with > Ann should they became aware of my critical essay.
> 5. As any Scientologist in good standing, Ann believes > that her spiritual eternity depends upon strict adherence to the policies of > Scientology. Those policies include the purging from their relationships > anyone who is openly critical of their beliefs. Scientology labels their > members "Potential Trouble Source" (PTS) when they have such connections. > The PTS persons are dealt with in Scientology's Ethics department and are > coercively forced to change their relationship and associations in > accordance with Hubbard's policies, before they can continue with their > Scientology training and counseling. No "Potential Trouble Source" can > receive auditing or training in Scientology, except for that which is > designed strictly to alter their PTS situation. In the event that the > member is connected with a critic, the only solution for the member is to > disconnect from them. If the member fails to disconnect, they are refused > Scientology training or auditing. They also run the risk of being labeled a > "suppressive person" themselves by reason of non-compliance with Scientology > 's disconnection policy regarding critics. L. Ron Hubbard covers many of > these policies in his book called Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
> 6. Although we live on opposite sides of the US, Ann and I > enjoyed a loving mother-daughter relationship and communicated regularly by > phone and e-mail up to January 20, 2001. At no time prior to January 20, > 2001 did I discuss with Ann my disillusionment with Scientology, because I > feared repercussions with Scientology, and the tremendous pressure they > would bring to bear on Ann to disconnect from me. I specifically did not > mention anything to her about the essay that I had written. I did not speak > with any Scientology member in good standing about the essay; they would > have been forced by policy to alert Scientology officials, which would set > in motion exactly what I was trying to avoid. I also refrained from using > or making known my pseudonym of "antivirus" to any members of Scientology in > good standing.
> 7. Alt.religion.scientology is an Internet newsgroup > frequented by both specially trained Scientologists and critics of > Scientology. By specially trained Scientologists I wish to point out that > lay Scientologists are enjoined from reading critical material about > Scientology on the Internet. Scientology software exists that filters out > critical Internet content and Scientology management encourages > Scientologists to install this software on their computers.
> 8. The Scientology personnel that frequent > alt.religion.scientology are to my understanding trained by the Office of > Special Affairs of Scientology to dead agent in various ways the messages > posted by critics. I do not have first hand knowledge of this ongoing OSA > project. However, Tory Bezazian, now a critic, has recently posted to > alt.religion.scientology her account of her experience with that OSA project > while she was still a member. In her statements she recounted that she was > involved in procuring "throwaway" e-mail addresses for use by OSA operatives > on alt.religion.scientology.
> 9. I had known of alt.religion.scientology prior to > entering the contest and had visited a website a few times to browse some of > the messages being posted there. This is a very active and prolific group, > with many heated arguments going back and forth between critics and > Scientologists. I subscribed to the newsgroup in April 2001.
> 10. A Scientologist with the e-mail address of "AJ" > <AJ_mem...@newsguy.com> posted several messages between November 2000 and > January 12, 2001 with respect to an effort he was making to identify the > person who wrote Scientology: Soul Hackers. On 1/12/2001 "AJ" announced to > alt.religion.scientology, "It took some work to piece together all of the > clues in Anti-Virus' essay but I can confirm that the individual who placed > second in the LMT 2000 Literati Contest is Caroline Reinertsen. That's the > name I knew her by some years ago. Hopefully she will declare this income > on her tax return."
> 11. I don't know any person with the real name of "AJ", and > the person who posted the message has never identified himself or herself. > "Reinertsen" is my married name. I reverted back to my maiden name when I > divorced Eric Reinertsen. This was shortly after I left the Sea > Organization in 1988.
> 12. I understand now from reviewing previous > alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis > software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA > post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software > they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
> 13. I do not have first hand knowledge of what other actions > OSA may have taken to confirm my identity.
> 14. On January 20, 2001, Ann called me and told me that she > was getting handled in the Ethics Office. I immediately realized from her > voice that she was very upset. She said that the Ethics Officer had shown > her a Scientology ethics issue stating that I had written a bad essay about > Scientology and that this was now on the Internet. She also told me that > she knew I had attempted suicide. She asked me if it was true, asking it in > an accusatory way that one would ask someone to admit guilt for a known act. > I did not answer her question at that point but instead told her that I > would call her back in a few minutes, which I did. In the interim few > minutes, I composed myself in the best way I could as now I knew the worst > had happened. I was absolutely shocked that these two accusations would be > connected in any way, and that the ethics issue would include such distorted > and damaging information about my past. I was not going to have the > opportunity to calmly explain to Ann about my disillusionment with > Scientology in my own way and time, and I was also now forced into a > defensive position because of whatever the Ethics officer had announced to > her. I also knew from Ann's statements that Scientology had painted a > picture of me to her that I was currently insane, and that anything I said > to her would be viewed as the words of an insane person. I knew that > anything I said to Ann would be relayed back to the Ethics officer, as she > was calling me as part of her Ethics handling. I also suspected that an > Ethics officer or other Scientology personnel were monitoring my > conversation with Ann as Ann did not want me to call back in a few > minutes-she wanted to have the conversation right then and there. > Regardless, I did call her back in a few minutes. At that time she asked me > again to admit that I had written the essay, which I did. When I told her > that the information she was given by the Ethics officer referred to a > situation that occurred years before I became involved with Scientology. > Ann seemed very surprised to hear that, but she was so upset overall that I > was not able to fully establish and correct the facts that she was given and > shown by the Ethics officer.
> 15. In January 1975, I became involved in Scientology in > Vancouver, B.C., when I was nineteen years old. My pre-Scientology history > was the subject of a petition that I was required to write to Jane Kember, > head of the Guardian's Office Worldwide in order to continue with the first > Scientology course that I had already purchased and enrolled on. The > purpose of the petition was to allow Scientology's intelligence arm to > consider my history and thereby establish my eligibility for Scientology > services, according to Scientology's policy on these matters. Jane Kember > approved my petition and I was cleared to receive Scientology services.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:52:04 GMT, "antivirus" <unclevi...@email.com> wrote in <odjG6.183$gD1.159...@typhoon.we.rr.com>:
>12. I understand now from reviewing previous >alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis >software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA >post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software >they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
I doubt this and I didn't understand it the first time you mentioned it. If they had such a software and would know how to use it, they would have to process it against the writings of hundreds of people. (And of course enter these writings first into a computer). And remember that scientology is very anti-intellectual. High-tech terrorism is rather the exception.
What I rather assume is that someone recognised you from the choice of words (the unabomber was caught not because of FBI skills, but because his brother found the writings familiar), or that someone stole information at the LMT (e.g. at the bank).
>> Great post and thanks for sharing with us some your experiences. It would >> be great if you could do a video of your experiences and send it to LMT to >> be posted along with the rest of the testimonials of the "survivors". You >> have been around for such a time and know so much that would help others to >> see the truth of the "most ethical group on the planet".
Yes.
>> If each Scientologists who leaves was to tell their story that would be so >> helpful in assisting others in leaving and getting free of the cult.
In article <3aea491...@news2.lightlink.com>, "Fluffygirl" says...
>I would also like to see everyone who's IN Scn post some of their >experiences and I DON'T just mean the positive ones.
There are several former high-ranking Scientologists I'd like to hear from. Boy oh boy I'd sure like for Herbie Parkhouse to write his memoirs. Why doesn't he say something? Is he gagged?
Heck... I was a guinea pig in the first ever Purification Rundown pilot in LA, and the man who supervised the "rundown" is a declared SP and gagged by Scientology. So, I can't even have a conversation with a man who was a part of and who influenced my life.
>There is conditioning extant in CofS which discourages freedom of speech.
Yes, and isn't this quite odd? I personally find this unconstitutional and therefor unacceptable.
>That is incredibly ironic in view of the Creed, the ARC triangle, the >concept of Pan determinism, the tone scale, LRH's comment that there's no >liability in talking to anybody.
Does not the Scientology Creed say in part,
"We of the church [sic] believe that all men have the inalienable right ... speak freely, to write freely and to counter or utter upon the words of others" ?
I promise you it does. Scientology pays lip service to this, our right.
I'd like to say clearly, and for the record, that my intent in posting is to communicate. It's my Constitutional right. And within the cult my communications were suppressed. Free speech was heavily discouraged.
I post now because I *can* freely exercise my right to speak. And I intend no one any harm nor ill will.
>Mark Twain had commented about Christianity something to the effect that it >would be a good idea if only CHRISTIANS would practice it.
>This could and should be said about Scientology/CofS.
Agreed. No real church has ever investigated me before for speaking about my experiences as a member.
>> Thanks again for sharing your testimonial and I hope that your daughter >> will come to her senses some day, since we have been out more and more >> of our friends are leaving and pretty soon all will be out, the more who >> leave and tell about it the more it helps to take that leap. >No one should EVER feel that they should not or could not speak about their >experiences in CofS. However, to my everlasting heartbreak and regret- >people DO feel that way because they ARE discouraged from saying anything >critical about Scn even if there were three dozen witnesses all signing >affidavits in triplicate and eleven tv cameras recording the whole deal. It >STILL would not be all right with the church for any negativity reflecting >on them to be discussed openly. And even when one discusses such things >within church channels it does not always go well for the person making the >observation.
Exactly right!
After sometime in 1979 my complaints to upper cult management were almost always unacknowledged -- so long as I complied with the "blunt threat of punishment, alone and unmistakable [to] get stats up!" This was date coincident with David Miscavige assuming control of Scientology. At least that's the first time I noticed him issuing orders directly to the "Church of Scientology The American Saint Hill Organization".
During this time orders were coming from David Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock, the (anonymous) "Board of Directors", from "WatchDog Committee", etc.
After querying their *squirrel* policies for two years and never receiving an answer, I left Scientology (temporarily) in disgust.
After almost three years (by late 1982) I was told that the squirrel policies were largely written by individuals (like Miscavige and Spurlock), and that I should "come back on staff at ASHO Day because the SPs were gotten off the lines, the suppressive policies had been cancelled and things were 'better now'".
Mind you, it was "Hubbard" who said so... in his Finance Series HCO PL "Changing Workable Finance Systems". Other Scientology executives told me the same thing to reinforce this deception.
I did briefly go back into the Sea Org...for nine months...
I think the entirety of the Sea Org staff at ASHO Day were in a complete state of robotic compliance to the Miscavige Regime of Terror.
Things *weren't better. They were more insane.
The "SPs" were not only NOT removed from "the [finance] lines", but they remain in control of Scientology to this very day.
>It's obvious to me that anything that happened is grounds for open >discussion and it's an opinion of mine that it matters how other people feel >about the church and about anything else and that if they want to discuss >those thing, why then, they should.
They should be able to.
>Discussion of a large organization like CofS can only harm it if negative >allegations are substantiated. And when and if they are substantiated then >the solution becomes obvious. Those things shouldn't have been done in the >first place, and they obviously should not continue.
>There now. I've just handed the Church the cure for the entire critic "sit".
>Yes, yes, you're welcome.
>Claire
Claire, you've demonstrated there's goodness in people, and you've shown me that free speech is important. I appreciate that!
> > Great post and thanks for sharing with us some your experiences. It would > be > > great if you could do a video of your experiences and send it to LMT to be > > posted along with the rest of the testimonials of the "survivors". You > have > > been around for such a time and know so much that would help others to see > the > > truth of the "most ethical group on the planet".
> > If each Scientologists who leaves was to tell their story that would be so > > helpful in assisting others in leaving and getting free of the cult.
> I would also like to see everyone who's IN Scn post some of their > experiences and I DON'T just mean the positive ones.
> There is conditioning extant in CofS which discourages freedom of speech.
> That is incredibly ironic in view of the Creed, the ARC triangle, the > concept of Pan determinism, the tone scale, LRH's comment that there's no > liability in talking to anybody.
> Mark Twain had commented about Christianity something to the effect that it > would be a good idea if only CHRISTIANS would practice it.
> This could and should be said about Scientology/CofS.
> > Thanks again for sharing your testimonial and I hope that your daughter > will > > come to her senses some day, since we have been out more and more of our > friends > > are leaving and pretty soon all will be out, the more who leave and tell > about > > it the more it helps to take that leap.
> No one should EVER feel that they should not or could not speak about their > experiences in CofS. However, to my everlasting heartbreak and regret- > people DO feel that way because they ARE discouraged from saying anything > critical about Scn even if there were three dozen witnesses all signing > affidavits in triplicate and eleven tv cameras recording the whole deal. It > STILL would not be all right with the church for any negativity reflecting > on them to be discussed openly. And even when one discusses such things > within church channels it does not always go well for the person making the > observation.
> It's obvious to me that anything that happened is grounds for open > discussion and it's an opinion of mine that it matters how other people feel > about the church and about anything else and that if they want to discuss > those thing, why then, they should.
> Discussion of a large organization like CofS can only harm it if negative > allegations are substantiated. And when and if they are substantiated then > the solution becomes obvious. Those things shouldn't have been done in the > first place, and they obviously should not continue.
> There now. I've just handed the Church the cure for the entire critic "sit".
> Yes, yes, you're welcome.
> Claire
Claire - they don't care. Those at the helm have a fixed course to follow, and it's leading them straight onto the rocks. Hubbard said to manufacture evidence and to "ruin them utterly", and ruin them utterly they shall, oblivious to the damage they are doing to the thing they profess to love. It's already too late.
Tommy -- Church of $cientology's "ecclesiastical leader" David Miscavige on the death of Lisa McPherson, a church member locked up until she died:
"At the time I don't think it was really thought to be that significant an issue. She died. People die."
>>12. I understand now from reviewing previous >>alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis >>software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA >>post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software >>they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
>I doubt this and I didn't understand it the first time you mentioned it. >If they had such a software and would know how to use it, they would >have to process it against the writings of hundreds of people. (And of >course enter these writings first into a computer). And remember that >scientology is very anti-intellectual. High-tech terrorism is rather the >exception. >What I rather assume is that someone recognised you from the choice of >words (the unabomber was caught not because of FBI skills, but because >his brother found the writings familiar), or that someone stole >information at the LMT (e.g. at the bank).
Tilman is right: I doubt there is any such software. It may be they did this with very low tech methods i.e. manually searching out uses of obscure words (they boasted they had identified one contributor as ptsc by this method).... or this is a cover story, and they got the name by theft of information.
|~/ |~/ ~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~ P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:24:42 +0100, Dave Bird <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote in <$5sNryB6Cu66E...@xemu.demon.co.uk>:
> Tilman is right: I doubt there is any such software. It may be they > did this with very low tech methods i.e. manually searching out uses > of obscure words (they boasted they had identified one contributor as > ptsc by this method).... or this is a cover story, and they got the > name by theft of information.
They often use cover stories ("shore story"). For example, they claim that they got the "Kevin Files" mailings because "Kevin Baker" died and they got his computer. However, one netizen found out that one of the e-mails was written *after* Kevin was unsubscribed from the list. Me, I suspect that the list was hacked, and maybe still is.
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:52:04 GMT, "antivirus" <unclevi...@email.com> > wrote in <odjG6.183$gD1.159...@typhoon.we.rr.com>:
> >12. I understand now from reviewing previous > >alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis > >software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA > >post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software > >they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
> I doubt this and I didn't understand it the first time you mentioned it. > If they had such a software and would know how to use it, they would > have to process it against the writings of hundreds of people. (And of > course enter these writings first into a computer). And remember that > scientology is very anti-intellectual. High-tech terrorism is rather the > exception.
I agree. This software analysis story does not sound at all plausible. Caroline, I believe you need to re think your outing.
A more likely scenario could be
That some of your Scn friends knew that you were a bit disaffected so you went on a short list of potential disaffected types to watch. OR
Someone who knows your writing style read the essays and pegged you. OR
Someone at LMT screwed up somehow and exposed you OR
LMT has a plant and exposed you.
Any one of these is a more likely scenario than this software analysis program. I wish you would look into this further. You are obviously a researcher and I think you cut your research off too early on this one.
> What I rather assume is that someone recognised you from the choice of > words (the unabomber was caught not because of FBI skills, but because > his brother found the writings familiar), or that someone stole > information at the LMT (e.g. at the bank).
Yes, I believe Tilman has it right.
Cerridwen
________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:52:04 GMT, "antivirus" <unclevi...@email.com> > wrote in <odjG6.183$gD1.159...@typhoon.we.rr.com>:
> >12. I understand now from reviewing previous > >alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis > >software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA > >post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software > >they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
> I doubt this and I didn't understand it the first time you mentioned it. > If they had such a software and would know how to use it, they would > have to process it against the writings of hundreds of people. (And of > course enter these writings first into a computer). And remember that > scientology is very anti-intellectual. High-tech terrorism is rather the > exception.
> What I rather assume is that someone recognised you from the choice of > words (the unabomber was caught not because of FBI skills, but because > his brother found the writings familiar), or that someone stole > information at the LMT (e.g. at the bank).
How about from preclear information? Maybe someone who was auditing, or knows you also was a regular here on the a.r.s.. Upon reading it here maybe, they recognized your particular speech patterns?
> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in message > news:hklketcd0rpmr85pesrp5dgb09ih6hn6qm@4ax.com... > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:52:04 GMT, "antivirus" <unclevi...@email.com> > > wrote in <odjG6.183$gD1.159...@typhoon.we.rr.com>:
> > >12. I understand now from reviewing previous > > >alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis > > >software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other > OSA > > >post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software > > >they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
> > I doubt this and I didn't understand it the first time you mentioned it. > > If they had such a software and would know how to use it, they would > > have to process it against the writings of hundreds of people. (And of > > course enter these writings first into a computer). And remember that > > scientology is very anti-intellectual. High-tech terrorism is rather the > > exception.
> > What I rather assume is that someone recognised you from the choice of > > words (the unabomber was caught not because of FBI skills, but because > > his brother found the writings familiar), or that someone stole > > information at the LMT (e.g. at the bank).
> How about from preclear information? Maybe someone who was auditing, or > knows you also was a regular here on the a.r.s.. Upon reading it here maybe, > they > recognized your particular speech patterns?
I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted the ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since auditing sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think preclear records could be considered a definitive source for a word usage investigation.
I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could call AJ to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to confirm my identity.
> 2. The statements herein are of my own personal knowledge and if > called upon as a witness I can testify competently thereto.
> 3. In November 2000, I entered the LMT LITERATI 2000 contest and > submitted my essay called Scientology: Soul Hackers under the pseudonym > "antivirus." That essay was awarded second prize in the contest and was > posted on the Lisa McPherson Trust website at the following url: > http://www.lisatrust.net/literaticontest/contest2000/00antivirus.html. The > contest closed on November 30, 2000, and the essay was posted soon after > that date.
> 4. The entire reason for my posting of the essay under a > pseudonym was to remain anonymous. I carefully refrained from including > personal information in that essay that would allow Scientology to identify > me. Scientology strictly enforces their internal policy that requires their > members to disconnect from critics, regardless of familial connections. My > adult daughter, Ann Reinertsen, is a Scientologist, and I was very concerned > about the steps that Scientology would take to destroy my relationship with > Ann should they became aware of my critical essay.
> 5. As any Scientologist in good standing, Ann believes > that her spiritual eternity depends upon strict adherence to the policies of > Scientology. Those policies include the purging from their relationships > anyone who is openly critical of their beliefs. Scientology labels their > members "Potential Trouble Source" (PTS) when they have such connections. > The PTS persons are dealt with in Scientology's Ethics department and are > coercively forced to change their relationship and associations in > accordance with Hubbard's policies, before they can continue with their > Scientology training and counseling. No "Potential Trouble Source" can > receive auditing or training in Scientology, except for that which is > designed strictly to alter their PTS situation. In the event that the > member is connected with a critic, the only solution for the member is to > disconnect from them. If the member fails to disconnect, they are refused > Scientology training or auditing. They also run the risk of being labeled a > "suppressive person" themselves by reason of non-compliance with Scientology > 's disconnection policy regarding critics. L. Ron Hubbard covers many of > these policies in his book called Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
> 6. Although we live on opposite sides of the US, Ann and I > enjoyed a loving mother-daughter relationship and communicated regularly by > phone and e-mail up to January 20, 2001. At no time prior to January 20, > 2001 did I discuss with Ann my disillusionment with Scientology, because I > feared repercussions with Scientology, and the tremendous pressure they > would bring to bear on Ann to disconnect from me. I specifically did not > mention anything to her about the essay that I had written. I did not speak > with any Scientology member in good standing about the essay; they would > have been forced by policy to alert Scientology officials, which would set > in motion exactly what I was trying to avoid. I also refrained from using > or making known my pseudonym of "antivirus" to any members of Scientology in > good standing.
> 7. Alt.religion.scientology is an Internet newsgroup > frequented by both specially trained Scientologists and critics of > Scientology. By specially trained Scientologists I wish to point out that > lay Scientologists are enjoined from reading critical material about > Scientology on the Internet. Scientology software exists that filters out > critical Internet content and Scientology management encourages > Scientologists to install this software on their computers.
> 8. The Scientology personnel that frequent > alt.religion.scientology are to my understanding trained by the Office of > Special Affairs of Scientology to dead agent in various ways the messages > posted by critics. I do not have first hand knowledge of this ongoing OSA > project. However, Tory Bezazian, now a critic, has recently posted to > alt.religion.scientology her account of her experience with that OSA project > while she was still a member. In her statements she recounted that she was > involved in procuring "throwaway" e-mail addresses for use by OSA operatives > on alt.religion.scientology.
> 9. I had known of alt.religion.scientology prior to > entering the contest and had visited a website a few times to browse some of > the messages being posted there. This is a very active and prolific group, > with many heated arguments going back and forth between critics and > Scientologists. I subscribed to the newsgroup in April 2001.
> 10. A Scientologist with the e-mail address of "AJ" > <AJ_mem...@newsguy.com> posted several messages between November 2000 and > January 12, 2001 with respect to an effort he was making to identify the > person who wrote Scientology: Soul Hackers. On 1/12/2001 "AJ" announced to > alt.religion.scientology, "It took some work to piece together all of the > clues in Anti-Virus' essay but I can confirm that the individual who placed > second in the LMT 2000 Literati Contest is Caroline Reinertsen. That's the > name I knew her by some years ago. Hopefully she will declare this income > on her tax return."
> 11. I don't know any person with the real name of "AJ", and > the person who posted the message has never identified himself or herself. > "Reinertsen" is my married name. I reverted back to my maiden name when I > divorced Eric Reinertsen. This was shortly after I left the Sea > Organization in 1988.
> 12. I understand now from reviewing previous > alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word analysis > software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one other OSA > post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the software > they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
> 13. I do not have first hand knowledge of what other actions > OSA may have taken to confirm my identity.
> 14. On January 20, 2001, Ann called me and told me that she > was getting handled in the Ethics Office. I immediately realized from her > voice that she was very upset. She said that the Ethics Officer had shown > her a Scientology ethics issue stating that I had written a bad essay about > Scientology and that this was now on the Internet. She also told me that > she knew I had attempted suicide. She asked me if it was true, asking it in > an accusatory way that one would ask someone to admit guilt for a known act. > I did not answer her question at that point but instead told her that I > would call her back in a few minutes, which I did. In the interim few > minutes, I composed myself in the best way I could as now I knew the worst > had happened. I was absolutely shocked that these two accusations would be > connected in any way, and that the ethics issue would include such distorted > and damaging information about my past. I was not going to have the > opportunity to calmly explain to Ann about my disillusionment with > Scientology in my own way and time, and I was also now forced into a > defensive position because of whatever the Ethics officer had announced to > her. I also knew from Ann's statements that Scientology had painted a > picture of me to her that I was currently insane, and that anything I said > to her would be viewed as the words of an insane person. I knew that > anything I said to Ann would be relayed back to the Ethics officer, as she > was calling me as part of her Ethics handling. I also suspected that an > Ethics officer or other Scientology personnel were monitoring my > conversation with Ann as Ann did not want me to call back in a few > minutes-she wanted to have the conversation right then and there. > Regardless, I did call her back in a few minutes. At that time she asked me > again to admit that I had written the essay, which I did. When I told her > that the information she was given by the Ethics officer referred to a > situation that occurred years before I became involved with Scientology. > Ann seemed very surprised to hear that, but she was so upset overall that I > was not able to fully establish and correct the facts that she was given and > shown by the Ethics officer.
> 15. In January 1975, I became involved in Scientology in > Vancouver, B.C., when I was nineteen years old. My pre-Scientology history > was the subject of a petition that I was required to write to Jane Kember, > head of the Guardian's Office Worldwide in order to continue with the first > Scientology course that I had already purchased and enrolled on. The > purpose of the petition was to allow Scientology's intelligence arm to > consider my history and thereby establish my eligibility for Scientology > services, according to Scientology's policy on these matters. Jane Kember > approved my petition and I was cleared to receive Scientology services.
> 16. Subsequent to the initial petition, I wrote at least two > other petitions for security clearance per Scientology's policies on > security. For example, I wrote a petition to the Guardian (Jane Kember) for > permission to join the Sea Organization. All petitions were approved, and I > was told that I was not an "illegal preclear" by reason of my > pre-Scientology history. I was given a high security clearance in > Scientology's elite organization, the "Sea
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:44:34 -0400, cerrid...@freedom.net wrote:
>"Tilman Hausherr" <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in message >news:hklketcd0rpmr85pesrp5dgb09ih6hn6qm@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:52:04 GMT, "antivirus" <unclevi...@email.com> >> wrote in <odjG6.183$gD1.159...@typhoon.we.rr.com>:
>> >12. I understand now from reviewing previous >> >alt.religion.scientology messages, that OSA personnel use word >analysis >> >software to identify anonymous posters. I have seen at least one >other OSA >> >post to alt.religion.scientology that showed the results of the >software >> >they used for identifying another anonymous critic.
>> I doubt this and I didn't understand it the first time you mentioned >it. >> If they had such a software and would know how to use it, they would >> have to process it against the writings of hundreds of people. (And >of >> course enter these writings first into a computer). And remember >that >> scientology is very anti-intellectual. High-tech terrorism is rather >the >> exception.
>I agree. This software analysis story does not sound at all >plausible. Caroline, I believe you need to re think your outing.
>A more likely scenario could be
>That some of your Scn friends knew that you were a bit disaffected so >you went on a short list of potential disaffected types to watch. OR
>Someone who knows your writing style read the essays and pegged you. >OR
>Someone at LMT screwed up somehow and exposed you OR
>LMT has a plant and exposed you.
OR
LMT's Bank has a plant who got access to the check they paid for winning the writing contest
>Any one of these is a more likely scenario than this software analysis >program. I wish you would look into this further. You are obviously >a researcher and I think you cut your research off too early on this >one.
>> What I rather assume is that someone recognised you from the choice >of >> words (the unabomber was caught not because of FBI skills, but >because >> his brother found the writings familiar), or that someone stole >> information at the LMT (e.g. at the bank).
>Yes, I believe Tilman has it right.
>Cerridwen
________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
|I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted the |ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since auditing |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think preclear |records could be considered a definitive source for a word usage investigation. | |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could call AJ |to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to |confirm my identity. | |antivirus
After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about these to any relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or more of these people could have written a report about it.
The only information about you in your essay was that you are a highly trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the possibilities to a list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your name could have come up as a candidate for further investigation. This would depend on what was in the report.
Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been contacted for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to critics' sites or been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious information were found by this investigation, you could have become a candidate for even further investigation. For example, OSA or their PI's have been known to tap phones or obtain phone records illegally. Or someone from OSA or an OSA FSM, possibly someone you know and who has spent time in your home with you, could have taken a look into your computer when you weren't looking and found your essay or other writings.
All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to anyone which could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then the rest is plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to someone. Then a report ending up in a file. Then enough legal or illegal investigation to identify you *positively*.
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote:
> |I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted the > |ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since auditing > |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think preclear > |records could be considered a definitive source for a word usage investigation. > | > |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" > |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could call AJ > |to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to > |confirm my identity. > | > |antivirus
> After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about these to any > relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or more of these > people could have written a report about it.
> The only information about you in your essay was that you are a highly > trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the possibilities to a > list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your name could have > come up as a candidate for further investigation. This would depend on > what was in the report.
> Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been contacted > for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to critics' sites or > been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious information were found by > this investigation, you could have become a candidate for even further > investigation. For example, OSA or their PI's have been known to tap > phones or obtain phone records illegally. Or someone from OSA or an OSA > FSM, possibly someone you know and who has spent time in your home with > you, could have taken a look into your computer when you weren't looking > and found your essay or other writings.
> All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to anyone which > could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then the rest is > plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to someone. Then a report > ending up in a file. Then enough legal or illegal investigation to > identify you *positively*.
> Say what?!
When a Scientologist has a bad auditing session, sometimes they end up feeling really bad, and really introverted. This happens when the person has the types of questions that they find impossible to answer, or when the auditor has mistakenly given them an answer to the question that is incorrect. So they try and think up a zillion answers to the question. Then they get all fouled up, because they can't pick out the right answer. In Scientology they call it an "out list." And when people have too many out lists, they get the Introspection Rundown, like Lisa McPherson.
And sometimes, if you work in OSA, and you really don't like someone because they are telling the truth, you can try and *cause* this condition in the person you don't like. All you do is continue to ask them questions for which they and their friends have no answer. Because their name is not AJ.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: |"Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
|news:SXXZ5BO237011.1475347222@frog.nyarlatheotep.org... |> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: |> |> |I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted |> |the ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since auditing |> |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think |> |preclear records could be considered a definitive source for a word |> |usage investigation. |> | |> |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" |> |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could call |> |AJ to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to |> |confirm my identity. |> | |> |antivirus |> |> After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about these to |> any relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or more of |> these people could have written a report about it. |> |> The only information about you in your essay was that you are a highly |> trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the possibilities to a |> list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your name could |> have come up as a candidate for further investigation. This would |> depend on what was in the report. |> |> Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been contacted |> for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to critics' sites or |> been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious information were found by |> this investigation, you could have become a candidate for even further |> investigation. For example, OSA or their PI's have been known to tap |> phones or obtain phone records illegally. Or someone from OSA or an OSA |> FSM, possibly someone you know and who has spent time in your home with |> you, could have taken a look into your computer when you weren't looking |> and found your essay or other writings. |> |> All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to anyone which |> could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then the rest is |> plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to someone. Then a report |> ending up in a file. Then enough legal or illegal investigation to |> identify you *positively*. |> |> Say what?! | |When a Scientologist has a bad auditing session, sometimes they end up |feeling really bad, and really introverted. This happens when the person |has the types of questions that they find impossible to answer, or when |the auditor has mistakenly given them an answer to the question that is |incorrect. So they try and think up a zillion answers to the question. |Then they get all fouled up, because they can't pick out the right answer. |In Scientology they call it an "out list." And when people have too many |out lists, they get the Introspection Rundown, like Lisa McPherson. | |And sometimes, if you work in OSA, and you really don't like someone |because they are telling the truth, you can try and *cause* this condition |in the person you don't like. All you do is continue to ask them questions |for which they and their friends have no answer. Because their name is not AJ. | |antivirus
I've read this three times and still can't piece it all together. You've lost me. Maybe I lost you with my post.
The only question I asked is whether you let other Scientologists know that you had gone sour on Hubbard? That could have been the *beginning* of your ending up outed *later*. I didn't even ask you to answer the question because it's your business and not of mine, and because I thought that if you did, it could be something you wouldn't want to make public anyway.
The rest (legal/illegal investigations) is how I thought things could have gone from there. It's plausible and OSA-like, which is more than I can say for anything else I've read about your outing.
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote:
> |"Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message > |news:SXXZ5BO237011.1475347222@frog.nyarlatheotep.org... > |> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: > |> > |> |I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted > |> |the ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since auditing > |> |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think > |> |preclear records could be considered a definitive source for a word > |> |usage investigation. > |> | > |> |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" > |> |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could call > |> |AJ to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to > |> |confirm my identity. > |> | > |> |antivirus > |> > |> After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about these to > |> any relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or more of > |> these people could have written a report about it. > |> > |> The only information about you in your essay was that you are a highly > |> trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the possibilities to a > |> list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your name could > |> have come up as a candidate for further investigation. This would > |> depend on what was in the report. > |> > |> Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been contacted > |> for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to critics' sites or > |> been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious information were found by > |> this investigation, you could have become a candidate for even further > |> investigation. For example, OSA or their PI's have been known to tap > |> phones or obtain phone records illegally. Or someone from OSA or an OSA > |> FSM, possibly someone you know and who has spent time in your home with > |> you, could have taken a look into your computer when you weren't looking > |> and found your essay or other writings. > |> > |> All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to anyone which > |> could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then the rest is > |> plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to someone. Then a report > |> ending up in a file. Then enough legal or illegal investigation to > |> identify you *positively*. > |> > |> Say what?! > | > |When a Scientologist has a bad auditing session, sometimes they end up > |feeling really bad, and really introverted. This happens when the person > |has the types of questions that they find impossible to answer, or when > |the auditor has mistakenly given them an answer to the question that is > |incorrect. So they try and think up a zillion answers to the question. > |Then they get all fouled up, because they can't pick out the right answer. > |In Scientology they call it an "out list." And when people have too many > |out lists, they get the Introspection Rundown, like Lisa McPherson. > | > |And sometimes, if you work in OSA, and you really don't like someone > |because they are telling the truth, you can try and *cause* this condition > |in the person you don't like. All you do is continue to ask them questions > |for which they and their friends have no answer. Because their name is not AJ. > | > |antivirus
> I've read this three times and still can't piece it all together. You've > lost me. Maybe I lost you with my post.
> The only question I asked is whether you let other Scientologists know that > you had gone sour on Hubbard? That could have been the *beginning* of your > ending up outed *later*. I didn't even ask you to answer the question > because it's your business and not of mine, and because I thought that if > you did, it could be something you wouldn't want to make public anyway.
> The rest (legal/illegal investigations) is how I thought things could have > gone from there. It's plausible and OSA-like, which is more than I can say > for anything else I've read about your outing.
> Are we back on the same page yet?
> Say what?!
We haven't been on the same page since the beginning, Say What?! Let me spell it out for you: Your e-mail address is toast. antivirus
...From an incredibly kick-ass book by Eric Flint and David Drake. The book is titled "In the Heart of Darkness", and is the second in the Belisarius series. Highly recommended for all sci-fi fans, even if you normally hate Drake, since he's only there to give name-recognition, the writing is all Flint. Anyhoo, the quote:
"The plans and schemes of tyrants are broken by many things. They shatter against cliffs of heroic struggle. They rupture on reefs of open resistance. And they are slowly eroded, bit by little bit, on the very beaches where they measure triumph, by countless grains of sand. By the stubborn little decencies of humble little men."
Even if individual battles (like the farcical case against Henson) are lost, the (purely metaphorical) war can still be won. And it will be won by the little things, that the would-be tyrants cannot anticipate, and won't even notice till it's far too late. Sleep well, CoS. :-)
<mwcrich...@home.com> wrote: > ...From an incredibly kick-ass book by Eric Flint > and David Drake. The book is titled "In the Heart of Darkness", and is the > second in the Belisarius series. Highly recommended for all sci-fi fans, > even if you normally hate Drake, since he's only there to give > name-recognition, the writing is all Flint. Anyhoo, the quote:
> "The plans and schemes of tyrants are broken by many things. They shatter > against cliffs of heroic struggle. They rupture on reefs of open resistance. > And they are slowly eroded, bit by little bit, on the very beaches where > they measure triumph, by countless grains of sand. By the stubborn little > decencies of humble little men."
> Even if individual battles (like the farcical case against Henson) are lost, > the (purely metaphorical) war can still be won. And it will be won by the > little things, that the would-be tyrants cannot anticipate, and won't even > notice till it's far too late. Sleep well, CoS. :-)
There's a Russian saying that goes "To eat an elephant, do so one fork full at a time."
--- When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading COMMUNISM!
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: |"Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
|news:Z72D8UED37011.8750694444@frog.nyarlatheotep.org... |> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: |> |> |"Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message |> |news:SXXZ5BO237011.1475347222@frog.nyarlatheotep.org... |> |> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: |> |> |> |> |I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted |> |> |the ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since |auditing |> |> |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think |> |> |preclear records could be considered a definitive source for a word |> |> |usage investigation. |> |> | |> |> |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" |> |> |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could |call |> |> |AJ to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to |> |> |confirm my identity. |> |> | |> |> |antivirus |> |> |> |> After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about these to |> |> any relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or more of |> |> these people could have written a report about it. |> |> |> |> The only information about you in your essay was that you are a highly |> |> trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the possibilities to a |> |> list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your name could |> |> have come up as a candidate for further investigation. This would |> |> depend on what was in the report. |> |> |> |> Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been |> |> contacted for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to |> |> critics' sites or been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious |> |> information were found by this investigation, you could have become a |> |> candidate for even further investigation. For example, OSA or their |> |> PI's have been known to tap phones or obtain phone records illegally. |> |> Or someone from OSA or an OSA FSM, possibly someone you know and who |> |> has spent time in your home with you, could have taken a look into |> |> your computer when you weren't looking and found your essay or other |> |> writings. |> |> |> |> All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to anyone |> |> which could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then |> |> the rest is plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to |> |> someone. Then a report ending up in a file. Then enough legal or |> |> illegal investigation to identify you *positively*. |> |> |> |> Say what?! |> | |> |When a Scientologist has a bad auditing session, sometimes they end up |> |feeling really bad, and really introverted. This happens when the person |> |has the types of questions that they find impossible to answer, or when |> |the auditor has mistakenly given them an answer to the question that is |> |incorrect. So they try and think up a zillion answers to the question. |> |Then they get all fouled up, because they can't pick out the right |answer. |> |In Scientology they call it an "out list." And when people have too many |> |out lists, they get the Introspection Rundown, like Lisa McPherson. |> | |> |And sometimes, if you work in OSA, and you really don't like someone |> |because they are telling the truth, you can try and *cause* this |condition |> |in the person you don't like. All you do is continue to ask them |questions |> |for which they and their friends have no answer. Because their name is |not AJ. |> | |> |antivirus |> |> I've read this three times and still can't piece it all together. |> You've lost me. Maybe I lost you with my post. |> |> The only question I asked is whether you let other Scientologists know |> that you had gone sour on Hubbard? That could have been the *beginning* |> of your ending up outed *later*. I didn't even ask you to answer the |> question because it's your business and not of mine, and because I |> thought that if you did, it could be something you wouldn't want to make |> public anyway. |> |> The rest (legal/illegal investigations) is how I thought things could |> have gone from there. It's plausible and OSA-like, which is more than I |> can say for anything else I've read about your outing. |> |> Are we back on the same page yet? |> |> Say what?! | |We haven't been on the same page since the beginning, Say What?! |Let me spell it out for you: Your e-mail address is toast. |antivirus
I'm sure you're right, dear. We have not been reading even from the same book.
> > |"Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message > > |news:SXXZ5BO237011.1475347222@frog.nyarlatheotep.org... > > |> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: > > |> > > |> |I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made posted > > |> |the ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since > auditing > > |> |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't think > > |> |preclear records could be considered a definitive source for a word > > |> |usage investigation. > > |> | > > |> |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say what?!" > > |> |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com could > call > > |> |AJ to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* taken to > > |> |confirm my identity. > > |> | > > |> |antivirus > > |> > > |> After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about these to > > |> any relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or more of > > |> these people could have written a report about it. > > |> > > |> The only information about you in your essay was that you are a highly > > |> trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the possibilities to a > > |> list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your name could > > |> have come up as a candidate for further investigation. This would > > |> depend on what was in the report. > > |> > > |> Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been > contacted > > |> for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to critics' sites > or > > |> been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious information were found > by > > |> this investigation, you could have become a candidate for even further > > |> investigation. For example, OSA or their PI's have been known to tap > > |> phones or obtain phone records illegally. Or someone from OSA or an > OSA > > |> FSM, possibly someone you know and who has spent time in your home with > > |> you, could have taken a look into your computer when you weren't > looking > > |> and found your essay or other writings. > > |> > > |> All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to anyone which > > |> could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then the rest > is > > |> plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to someone. Then a > report > > |> ending up in a file. Then enough legal or illegal investigation to > > |> identify you *positively*. > > |> > > |> Say what?! > > | > > |When a Scientologist has a bad auditing session, sometimes they end up > > |feeling really bad, and really introverted. This happens when the person > > |has the types of questions that they find impossible to answer, or when > > |the auditor has mistakenly given them an answer to the question that is > > |incorrect. So they try and think up a zillion answers to the question. > > |Then they get all fouled up, because they can't pick out the right > answer. > > |In Scientology they call it an "out list." And when people have too many > > |out lists, they get the Introspection Rundown, like Lisa McPherson. > > | > > |And sometimes, if you work in OSA, and you really don't like someone > > |because they are telling the truth, you can try and *cause* this > condition > > |in the person you don't like. All you do is continue to ask them > questions > > |for which they and their friends have no answer. Because their name is > not AJ. > > | > > |antivirus
> > I've read this three times and still can't piece it all together. You've > > lost me. Maybe I lost you with my post.
> > The only question I asked is whether you let other Scientologists know > that > > you had gone sour on Hubbard? That could have been the *beginning* of > your > > ending up outed *later*. I didn't even ask you to answer the question > > because it's your business and not of mine, and because I thought that if > > you did, it could be something you wouldn't want to make public anyway.
> > The rest (legal/illegal investigations) is how I thought things could have > > gone from there. It's plausible and OSA-like, which is more than I can > say > > for anything else I've read about your outing.
> > Are we back on the same page yet?
> > Say what?!
> We haven't been on the same page since the beginning, Say What?! > Let me spell it out for you: Your e-mail address is toast. > antivirus
Hi Caroline,
I'd like to indicate that no one here is trying to give you out lists or a wrong item.
Some of us are interested in your being outed. The software analysis program idea has some outpoints in it. Some of us are looking for a possible why. NOT your personal why as it might effect your case, but a why as in the correct why found when one uses the data series.
The fact is that the software program idea, while possible, is not really plausible. I certainty don't want you to name name's nor do I believe any of the critics here want that. I and I think Say What and Tilman might be interested in other avenue's of your being outed. If you don't have any idea how this might have happened, then fine. Answer accepted.
I don't think we need to beat a dead horse. If you think it's the software program than that's just fine too. But someone as bright as you shouldn't assume you have the right why ( as in the data series) when there are so many glaring outpoints to your theory.
My email address works just fine. If you would like to write to me go right ahead.
Best wishes
Cerridwen
________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
> > > |"Say what?!" <Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in > message > > > |news:SXXZ5BO237011.1475347222@frog.nyarlatheotep.org... > > > |> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, unclevi...@email.com wrote: > > > |> > > > |> |I did not subscribe or post to ARS until April 2001. AJ made > posted > > > |> |the ARS announcement about my identity in January 2001. Since > > auditing > > > |> |sessions are recorded in shorthand by the auditor, I don't > think > > > |> |preclear records could be considered a definitive source for a > word > > > |> |usage investigation. > > > |> | > > > |> |I see "AJ" has not posted to ARS since 4/26. Perhaps "Say > what?!" > > > |> |<Anonymous-Remai...@See.Comment.Header> or c...@yeahright.com > could > > call > > > |> |AJ to the courtesy phone to clarify exactly what steps *were* > taken to > > > |> |confirm my identity. > > > |> | > > > |> |antivirus > > > |> > > > |> After you began to have doubts about Scn, did you speak about > these to > > > |> any relatives, friends or acquaintances? If you did, one or > more of > > > |> these people could have written a report about it. > > > |> > > > |> The only information about you in your essay was that you are a > highly > > > |> trained auditor. This would be enough to narrow the > possibilities to a > > > |> list. Looking at the files of the names on this list, your > name could > > > |> have come up as a candidate for further investigation. This > would > > > |> depend on what was in the report. > > > |> > > > |> Then your relatives or friends or acquaintances could have been > > contacted > > > |> for more info. Perhaps you told someone you had been to > critics' sites > > or > > > |> been reading a.r.s., etc.. If enough suspicious information > were found > > by > > > |> this investigation, you could have become a candidate for even > further > > > |> investigation. For example, OSA or their PI's have been known > to tap > > > |> phones or obtain phone records illegally. Or someone from OSA > or an > > OSA > > > |> FSM, possibly someone you know and who has spent time in your > home with > > > |> you, could have taken a look into your computer when you > weren't > > looking > > > |> and found your essay or other writings. > > > |> > > > |> All of this hinges on whether or not you said anything to > anyone which > > > |> could have ended up as a report in a file. If you did, then > the rest > > is > > > |> plausible. First you saying the "wrong thing" to someone. > Then a > > report > > > |> ending up in a file. Then enough legal or illegal > investigation to > > > |> identify you *positively*. > > > |> > > > |> Say what?! > > > | > > > |When a Scientologist has a bad auditing session, sometimes they > end up > > > |feeling really bad, and really introverted. This happens when > the person > > > |has the types of questions that they find impossible to answer, > or when > > > |the auditor has mistakenly given them an answer to the question > that is > > > |incorrect. So they try and think up a zillion answers to the > question. > > > |Then they get all fouled up, because they can't pick out the > right > > answer. > > > |In Scientology they call it an "out list." And when people have > too many > > > |out lists, they get the Introspection Rundown, like Lisa > McPherson. > > > | > > > |And sometimes, if you work in OSA, and you really don't like > someone > > > |because they are telling the truth, you can try and *cause* this > > condition > > > |in the person you don't like. All you do is continue to ask them > > questions > > > |for which they and their friends have no answer. Because their > name is > > not AJ. > > > | > > > |antivirus
> > > I've read this three times and still can't piece it all together. > You've > > > lost me. Maybe I lost you with my post.
> > > The only question I asked is whether you let other Scientologists > know > > that > > > you had gone sour on Hubbard? That could have been the > *beginning* of > > your > > > ending up outed *later*. I didn't even ask you to answer the > question > > > because it's your business and not of mine, and because I thought > that if > > > you did, it could be something you wouldn't want to make public > anyway.
> > > The rest (legal/illegal investigations) is how I thought things > could have > > > gone from there. It's plausible and OSA-like, which is more than > I can > > say > > > for anything else I've read about your outing.
> > > Are we back on the same page yet?
> > > Say what?!
> > We haven't been on the same page since the beginning, Say What?! > > Let me spell it out for you: Your e-mail address is toast. > > antivirus
> Hi Caroline,
> I'd like to indicate that no one here is trying to give you out lists > or a wrong item.
> Some of us are interested in your being outed. The software analysis > program idea has some outpoints in it. Some of us are looking for a > possible why. NOT your personal why as it might effect your case, but > a why as in the correct why found when one uses the data series.
> The fact is that the software program idea, while possible, is not > really plausible. I certainty don't want you to name name's nor do I > believe any of the critics here want that. I and I think Say What and > Tilman might be interested in other avenue's of your being outed. If > you don't have any idea how this might have happened, then fine. > Answer accepted.
> I don't think we need to beat a dead horse. If you think it's the > software program than that's just fine too. But someone as bright as > you shouldn't assume you have the right why ( as in the data series) > when there are so many glaring outpoints to your theory.
> My email address works just fine. If you would like to write to me go > right ahead.
> Best wishes
> Cerridwen
You might want to try an entertaining strategy next time around. At least make me guess a little before you pull out the correction list. antivirus
