> In article <359AE2B0.32D75...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and > > trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a > > problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted > > to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have > > to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I > > could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look > > long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or > > not.
> Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to > which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists (and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS all the time,for sure.
> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers > > > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what > > > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> > > > > Tash
> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described > > > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to > > > > disconnect from them.
> > > I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people > > > who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents, > > > and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand > > > disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family > > > is unusual?
> > let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his > > money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her > > opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather > > sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with > > slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I > > was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the > > family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual > > about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact > > same history. Sure,ok.
> That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it *outside of > Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who > disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to > have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to > support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship > (and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is > nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a > *Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's > not unusual outside of Scientology.
> <snip>
> > I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another > > example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
> OK. I look forward to reading your posts. I hope you will respond to DeoMorto.
Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
But seriously, I apologize for not answering.
All I can say is sometimes the tech and policy are not applied correctly. As my bias is toward the CofS, I believe this does not often occur. But that does not mean never.
It is the responsibility of any Scientologist or any non-Scn'ologist for that matter to only do what they think is right regardless of what anyone may feel. If a proposed ethics action is incorrect and the person believes or knows this to be the case, then that person has not only the right but the duty to let the Ethics Officer know what the facts are.
> CoS' theoretical ideals sound nice, and are certainly sometimes practiced in > members' experience, but here is a repost of an interesting case of forced > disconnection for only the flimsiest of connections -- and possibly simply for > the purpose of punishing non-CoS outsiders designated SPs, by causing them to > suffer family disruptions -- apparently ordered at some of the highest levels > of CoS.
> [REPOST FROM DEJANEWS]
> Subject: Relative of CBS-Mike Wallace ordered by Co$ to disconnect > From: Martin Ottmann <martinottm...@yahoo.com> > Date: 1998/05/19 > Message-ID: <19980519115254.5016.rocketm...@send1c.yahoomail.com> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> [More Headers] > [Subscribe to alt.religion.scientology]
> The following is the content of a letter which was sent to Mary > Voegeding, Senior Executive of the "Flag Service Organization" in > Clearwater. The grammar and language shows that being a Scientologist > doesn't give you automatically better "communication skills".
> If anyone wants to forward a xerox-copy of this letter to Mike > Wallace, please send me your snail mail adress and you'll get one.
> Here it comes:
> Feb. 1, '98
> To: President, Mary Vogstin (sic) [Voegeding] > CC: MAA, Re: Rondi Leonard > CC: OSA > From: Gloria Tinney
> Re: Rondi Leonard, Solo NOTS Certainty auditor, being told that she > must disconnect from her mother-in-Iaw, Kappy Leonard because Kappy was > once married to Mike Wallace, CBS news "60 minutes" news correspondent.
> Dear Mary,
> The re is a potential flap going on concerning the above, Rondi > Leonard is my ex-husband's wife and is my daughter's step mother. > The situation, because Rondi has been at Flag now for 4 weeks at the > MAA and has not been able to continue her 6 months refresher and as a > result this has gotten onto my daughter Noelle's lines who I have been > handling and it violates KSW -ie. There is a misapplication of the > tech going on here re: this situation in my opinion. > I'll explain why: > Kappy Leonard, Rondi's "step" mother-in-law and her husband Ardy's > step mother, has not spoken to Mike Wallace in years. She had a son by > him, Chris Wallace who she sees regularly but she hasn't and does > not wish to be in comm with Mike Wallace at all. Rondi never has any > contacts with Mike Wallace at all and has maybe seen Chris Wallace his > son twice in 20 yrs. Chris Wallace is _not_ in any way antagonistic to > Rondi or Ardy about Scientology. Kappy is "interested" in Scientology > and has asked Rondi about the meter as > well as offering to take Rondi to the founding church to see the > renovations (Kappy lives in Washington, DC). Rondi and Kappy are in > good"_ARC_". > Rondi should not be asked to disconnect from a family member this > violates PTS tech of what LRH says about family disconnection. > If Rondi disconnects from her step mother-in-law this is sure to > create antagonism and bring attention to the fact that she is doing > so. It could create a vacuum effect which all manner of A=A=A be > filled into > the vacuum by family members such as Kappy or Chris Wallace. It can > make matters worse for us as a group as for Rondi and her family. They > cd (sic) [could] think that Rondi is being forced into this > =brainwashing= occults, etc. etc. This would make the church look > "bad." Rondi has been on the Solo NOTS Certainty level now for a year > and is setting a good example for the family as an in ethics > Scientologist. It does _not_ make any sense to cause her to disconnect > and create antagonism as well. It is out "PR" someone who is saying > that Rondi should disconnect. The person who is making this decision > is mis-duplicating the situation here and as a result mis-applying the > tech. I hope that you will be able to see me re: > this matter before I leave. > Rondi can be reached at 813-446-[XXXX] - she has been held up at the MAA > this cycle now for 4 weeks and taken off her lines. This situation has > gotten onto my daughters lines already and Noelle my daughter is > looking at this, this is not good PR for her as you know. I'm handling > her and want to get her moving on the bridge and this situation does > not help at all. She, (Noelle) has been really helpful to Rondi and > has encouraged Rondi to get the data communicated more clearly and > precisely re: this matter. But Rondi has been too upset by this and > unable to really get this communicated to the proper lines and > terminals. Someone is misinterpreting this family situation and making > Rondi the brunt of it. I can be reached at 813-441-[XXXX]. I'm here for > only a few days more so please do get back to me or let me see you? If > so what day and what time before Tuesday of next week? > Thanks for your consideration.
> ARC, Gloria Tinney > LA phone # 310-392-[XXXX] > == > Martin Ottmann, Scharnhauser Str. 19 > 73760 Ostfildern/Ruit, Germany
> "And you, you gonna get glasses!" > David Miscavige towards Martin Ottmann, Clearwater 1992 > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote: : Ceon Ramon wrote:
: > How very medieval of you. : > : > You can't base your entire perception of reality on your own personal : > first-hand experiences.
: Yes,actually I can, but I know that you do not think this is a good : idea.
Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others, she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of Scientology.
: Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to : Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member : did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the : person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation : cleared up.
So - guilty until proven innocent, eh?
: > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS : > Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
: Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember? That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
Dear Claire.. I probably would not be in opposition to Scientology now if not for the disconnection policies it used while it thought noboby was looking
Zinj
In article <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
>> In article <359AE2B0.32D75...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and >> > trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a >> > problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted >> > to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have >> > to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I >> > could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look >> > long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or >> > not.
>> Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to >> which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or >told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted >to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has >come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists >(and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what >anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with >them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly >believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS >all the time,for sure.
>> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers >> > > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what >> > > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
>> > > > > Tash
>> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described >> > > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to >> > > > disconnect from them.
>> > > I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people >> > > who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents, >> > > and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand >> > > disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family >> > > is unusual?
>> > let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his >> > money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her >> > opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather >> > sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with >> > slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I >> > was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the >> > family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual >> > about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact >> > same history. Sure,ok.
>> That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it *outside of >> Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who >> disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to >> have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to >> support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship >> (and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is >> nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a >> *Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's >> not unusual outside of Scientology.
>> <snip>
>> > I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another >> > example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
>> OK. I look forward to reading your posts. I hope you will respond to DeoMorto.
>> Tash
-- I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released. Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote: >Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
Yep. Welcome to the fray. :>
>But seriously, I apologize for not answering.
>All I can say is sometimes the tech and policy are not applied >correctly. As my bias is toward the CofS, I believe this does not often >occur. But that does not mean never.
>It is the responsibility of any Scientologist or any non-Scn'ologist for >that matter to only do what they think is right regardless of what >anyone may feel. If a proposed ethics action is incorrect and the >person believes or knows this to be the case, then that person has not >only the right but the duty to let the Ethics Officer know what the >facts are.
Okay, a question - what "terminal" is available to non-Scientologists who've been mistreated by the COS? Examples:
In late 1994/early 1995 someone began canceling (deleting) ARS posts that were critical of Scientology. They deleted many posts containing secret materials, but also many that did not (including one of mine). Was this right? Who do I complain to to get this resolved?
Also in early 1995, COS lawyer Helena Kobrin issued a usenet control message designed to delete the entire ARS newsgroup. It failed, but was this right? Who do we complain to to get this resolved?
About the same time COS employees Andrew Milne and "Vera Wallace" (not her real name) contacted pseudonymous ARS poster TarlaStar's internet service provider and fraudulently obtained her real name, address and phone number and posted them to ARS. This is called "outing" on usenet and is *strongly* frowned upon. Was this right? Who should Tarla complain to to get this resolved?
In 1996 the COS began "spamming" ARS with thousands of repetitive "theta" messages trying to drown out discussion. This went of for months before it stopped - it wasn't working, but it made ARS difficult to read for many and impossible for some. Was this right? Who do we complain to to get this resolved?
And that's not all. Peaceful picketers have been assaulted on numerous occasions - sometimes by just having their leaflets forcefully grabbed, once by being spit at, once by having a picket sign spray-painted, several times by having outside sprinklers turned on to get them wet, once by having their candles blown out at a candlelight vigil, and several times by actually being physically struck. Is this right? Who should they complain to to get this resolved?
There's more, lots and LOTS more. Illegal raids, spurious lawsuits, unsupportable legal threats, attempts (sometimes successful) to get web pages and usenet accounts closed, the whole "if possible, destroy them utterly" ball of wax.
Is their an ethics officer non-Scientologists can bring their complaints to? Somewhere I can send a knowledge report where it wouldn't be ignored? I have a long, long list I'd like to bring to SOMEBODY'S attention. What do I do?
>Claire
Again, glad to see someone thoughtful and non-robotic in the COS camp for a change,
In <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or >told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted >to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church" because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change your mind?
Many other people did.
In <359B1642.66F0B...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one post only.
*** FWIW- my 2 cents -- I vote on the side of Tilman --
So far, this thread has been a reasonably refreshing change from the on-going flame wars --
***I strongly urge everyone to back off for a few days and let Claire adsorb the previous 3 or 4 posts/questions.
I'm sure it would be a help to include specific references or sites that in **SHORT** form sum up the events referred to. Give claire a Chance to look at them.. She may not have the answers, or may not give ones that some like-- but give her a chance to respond before unloading additional " yea-buts"
*****
In article <35d4f099.78184...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
<+In <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote: <+ <+>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or <+>told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted <+>to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. <+ <+What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church" <+because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change <+your mind? <+ <+Many other people did. <+ <+In <359B1642.66F0B...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote: <+ <+>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats! <+ <+Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one <+post only. <+ <+ <+ <+-- <+Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] <+til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos <+ <+ Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails. <+ <+Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html <+Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
>> Barbara wrote, correctly: >> > This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the >> > Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing >> > to do with lives being made good, bad or hellish. Clare wrote: >> > >Not true. Barbara wrote: >> > Yes. It is true.
>> > --Barbara Claire wrote: >>>>No,it is not. >DeoMorto wrote: >> OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to >> disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
>> In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was >> declared - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
>> I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I >> was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
>> Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me - >> after some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..." >> they ended up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to >> disconnect.
>> That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with >> four different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
>> The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
>> To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I >> suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
>> Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to >> enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to >> do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
>> You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the >> face of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy. In article <359C4FB6.29942...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do >many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience) >I realize your experience was different from what is standard Scn >practice and nothing can make it right. But this was atypical.
>I am truly sorry for what happened to you. But that does not change the >fact that the general experience and Scn policies are different from >what you believe.
Atypical?!?!?!
Claire, you are either *clueless* about Scientology "ethics" policies with regards to disconnection or a flat-out, bald-faced liar.
I have the experience, the "tech" and policies. You are a bleedin' liar, I say!
Every time a person is declared and an "ethics order" is published declaring the person "SP", *ALL* Scienos everywhere (except for the "Justice Chief") are *forbidden* to associate or have communication with the "SP". Anyone violating the "SP Order" is guilty of committing a "suppressive act" which is a "high crime" in Scientology. It can and does get individuals who violate the order, declared "SP".
What do your materials state?????? (Clue: Look in OEC Volume One.)
Does this "SP" need to cite policy *for* you?????
By the way, if you did not receive permission from Scientology to read and post to this newsgroup, you have committed an "ethics offense"!! Have you not seen OSA Int's order on ars? If you have not, I suggest you check it out. You clearly have "know-best" in the "area" of "ethics" policies.
> In article <359ADEEF.FE3E6...@home.com>, > Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >H Alan Montgomery wrote: > [...]
> >> >I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described > >> >my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to > >> >disconnect from them. I have been around in alot of orgs & missions and > >> >I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection. > [...]
> >> The problem with that type of analysis is that you can NEVER > >> disprove an assertion. It always comes back to "What is true for me, > >> is true." Claire, if you choose to believe that the disconnection > >> policy is as you describe, that is fine, but other people have had > >> different experiences. By saying that you have the final word you > >> invalidate their experiences by saying that they are wrong or > >> misguided or just plain lying. Have you considered that the reason > [...]
> >If management habitually in an arbitrary manner told people to > >disconnect from family when all that was needed was a little > >communications- if that *really* was common, it certainly would have > >happened to me. Yet out of 7 orgs and missions where I've been on > >lines- 0 asked or told me to do so. I think that says something.
> What it says to me is that you've had a good experience with > scientology. What all the rest of your posts say to me is that > whenever an issue is raised to challenge your understanding of > scientology, you are going to reply that you haven't experienced > it and no one you know has ever experienced it.
I have said plenty of other things.Perhaps you were not paying attention.
> You're too smart to go so far as to assert that therefore such > abuses don't occur.
> However, your personal testimony does absolutely nothing to invalidate > the hundreds of personal stories that have been posted and webbed > by those who have experienced scientology in significantly different > ways. Sorry, I don't mean to be reductive or dismissive, but I can't > quite grasp why you're here -- I mean, after you've said a dozen times > that your involvement with scientology has satisfied you and you never > saw, experienced, or even heard of any of the abuses that have been so > well documented here and elsewhere, I don't see what else you have to > offer. You reply to every post that your personal experiences with > scientology have been completely satisfactory.
Would you rather I came from a vantage point of no experience whatsoever and just promoted hearsay? That is a tactic I have seen here on occasion. (And,no, I don't mean everybody on a.r.s)
> Good. I'm glad for you. But, and excuse me if this is an > impertinent question, what are you doing here?
Same thing everyone else is doing here.Putting in my two cents.This *is* usenet,after all.
> Once you have "witnessed" for your religion,
I do not "witness"
>once you've told > us that you have found a way to happiness and fulfillment in it, > once you've said that you've never personally experienced any > of the abuses that have been documented in first-hand testimony > and affidavits and books and posts, what else do you have to share > with us?
I have never claimed that there are no abuses or that CofS is a perfect organization. It is plain to see that you either have not read all my posts or that you have but did not really pay attention to what was in them.
> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,
Thank you.
> or a thoughtful defense of practices that are commonly > misunderstood or misinterpreted. All I see you doing is > meeting every question, objection, or issue with a post > that reduced to its basic component is, "I never experienced > that."
Not every question. Not even close.
> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.
> --Barbara
No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no offense when clearly such is intended?
> >> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person > >> is > >> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the > >> person and restore harmony>>
> >> This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the > >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing to do > >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> >>(My repsonse) This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the > >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing to do > >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> > (Clare) Not true.
> Yes. It is true.
> --Barbara
Clare>>No,it is not.
OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was declared - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me - after some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..." they ended up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to disconnect.
That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with four different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the face of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy.
"He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
>> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,
>Thank you.
Sometimes the most insightful analysis is the comm method itself.
In this case 'the medium IS the message'
<snip>
>> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.
>> --Barbara
>No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to >you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no >offense when clearly such is intended?
I agree Claire. While I think you are weaseling around some questions, I also think you are doing a much better job of representing your religion than the staff hatted sneaks who think the way to deal with us suppressives is to intimidate them.. which has a fairly checkered success history at best.
If Scientology could show 200 such people I think it might survive. So far I'd grant it about 10.
(and yes Russ and Whip and even Gail you are already included there.. so don't ask for entrance)
Zinj
-- I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released. Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
>> >> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person >> >> is >> >> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the >> >> person and restore harmony>>
>> >> This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the >> >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing to do >> >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
>> >Not true.
>> Yes. It is true.
>> --Barbara
>No,it is not.
Disconnection is the IRL version of the Clam Nanny.
Blinders on, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes (or human damage)
Zinj
-- I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released. Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
One of the things that is generally neglected on this newsgroup in regard to Scientology philosophy is the expectation of a high level of integrity in a church member. One is expected to inform one's family of what one is attempting to accomplish in Scn and in this manner bring about an understanding of that person's actions.
If one were to determine truly and correctly that some individual with whom one was in contact was actually covertly or overtly destructive to them then in that case it would only make sense to take steps to remedy this. In my opinion, the need to disconnect would be rare.
The major question here would be: "is this the actual situation?" Any individual in Scientology is expected to determine this for themselves. If someone else were to tell a person to take any action which was onerous to the individual then he would be obliged to not take the action.
Using disconnection as an example; if the disconnection was mistakenly suggested as the proper course of action to someone and he were to carry it out he would cause more problems for himself and also for the church by doing so. If disconnection is a proper course of action and the individual carries it out he will cause fewer problems for himself and for the church.
As with all things in Scn, the desired results are the yardstick by which things are measured. Not just theory for theory's sake.
> In <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or > >told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted > >to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
> What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church" > because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change > your mind?
> Many other people did.
> In <359B1642.66F0B...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
> Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one > post only.
> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote: > : Ceon Ramon wrote: > : > How very medieval of you. > : > > : > You can't base your entire perception of reality on your own personal > : > first-hand experiences.
> : Yes,actually I can, but I know that you do not think this is a good > : idea.
> Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full > advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to > take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others, > she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal > experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of > Scientology.
> Beck
Actually I did write the other post and press enter more quickly than I meant to,being somewhat of a novice to usenet,still. So let me clarify: I do mainly go by my experiences because they are broad and varied. However, (and this did not come out right in my last posting on this) I do study history,take courses,watch the news,read the papers,etc. I do think to some degree anyway that one must listen to data and opinions collated by others and combine these things with experience. I would not advocate an ivory tower existence in which one never got out and experienced things but I would also say that one's studies are important as well, as well as enjoyable,too. But you are right in that this is not what I said in the previous post,because what happened was I went typitty type,clickety click, send- oops!
I have just recently finished some interesting books on the integration of moslems into european society and some books on paleoanthropology, in fact. Nice change from murder mysteries. :-)
Do not be too quick to attribute my own failings (which are not in short supply) to the CofS.
> : Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to > : Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member > : did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the > : person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation > : cleared up.
> So - guilty until proven innocent, eh?
> : > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS > : > Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
> : Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
> She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember? > That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
> Beck
Would you rather I disbelieve my own experiences and just go by hearsay?
> >> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,
> >Thank you.
> Sometimes the most insightful analysis is the comm method itself.
> In this case 'the medium IS the message'
> <snip>
> >> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.
> >> --Barbara
> >No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to > >you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no > >offense when clearly such is intended?
> I agree Claire. While I think you are weaseling around some questions, I also > think you are doing a much better job of representing your religion than the > staff hatted sneaks who think the way to deal with us suppressives is to > intimidate them.. which has a fairly checkered success history at best.
> If Scientology could show 200 such people I think it might survive. So far I'd > grant it about 10.
> (and yes Russ and Whip and even Gail you are already included there.. so don't > ask for entrance)
> Zinj
> -- > I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a > megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released. > Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
> Clare writes >> > > >>(My repsonse) This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to > enforce the > > >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing > to do > > >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> > > (Clare) Not true.
> > Yes. It is true.
> > --Barbara
> Clare>>No,it is not.
> OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to > disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
> In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was declared > - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
> I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I > was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
> Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me - after > some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..." they ended > up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to disconnect.
> That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with four > different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
> The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
> To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I > suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
> Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to > enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to > do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
> You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the face > of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy.
No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience) I realize your experience was different from what is standard Scn practice and nothing can make it right. But this was atypical.
I am truly sorry for what happened to you. But that does not change the fact that the general experience and Scn policies are different from what you believe.
> >> >> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other > person > >> >> is > >> >> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the > >> >> person and restore harmony>>
> >> >> This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the > >> >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing > to do > >> >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> >> >Not true.
> >> Yes. It is true.
> >> --Barbara
> >No,it is not.
> Disconnection is the IRL version of the Clam Nanny.
> Blinders on, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes (or human damage)
> Zinj
> -- > I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a > megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released. > Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
NO,it is not. If disconnection is not the correct action then a responsible Scientologist would be expected not to take such an action. There really is not much of it that goes on but I do know that it does take place sometimes. And abuses occur,I do not doubt. But they are rarer than you believe them to be.
I also have some stuff on this in a prev posting to Tilman you may want to look at.
And here is a quick example of NOT disconnecting- I know someone who is very involved in CofS whose relative gives her children psychiatric drugs. She has not disconnected from her relative.
I gave an earlier example of someone I know who is married to a non-Scn'ologist who really does not see the attraction her spouse has to Scn. No pressure was put on the guy to disconnect from his wife and they have stayed together.
In article <359C50CF.706C...@home.com>, Claire says...
>NO,it is not. If disconnection is not the correct action then a >responsible Scientologist would be expected not to take such an action. >There really is not much of it that goes on but I do know that it does >take place sometimes. And abuses occur,I do not doubt. But they are >rarer than you believe them to be.
Not rare at all. Look at Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992. It has a list of hundreds of "SPs" and "SP" groups. Scienos are *not* to communicate nor associate with the individuals and groups listed in that ED.
>I also have some stuff on this in a prev posting to Tilman you may want >to look at.
Seen it. You'd better get your "false data stripped", Claire! Or get a "disagreement check" or find your "MU", because you are spreading "verbal tech". Not only that, but much is false as well!!
You might fool the "wogs", but you can't fool people like Deo, Dennis and me.
>And here is a quick example of NOT disconnecting- I know someone who is >very involved in CofS whose relative gives her children psychiatric >drugs. She has not disconnected from her relative.
Not yet anyway. After the "handling" *fails*, _then_ the disconnection comes.
>I gave an earlier example of someone I know who is married to a >non-Scn'ologist who really does not see the attraction her spouse has to >Scn. No pressure was put on the guy to disconnect from his wife and >they have stayed together.
As long as she is not "antago", then the "handling" will be to do "good roads, fair weather" while doimg the "dissem drill" on the wife.
Just out of curiosity, how long has the man been in $cienoland?
Claire wrote: >>No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to >>you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no >>offense when clearly such is intended? Barbara wrote:
>I agree Claire. While I think you are weaseling around some questions, I also >think you are doing a much better job of representing your religion than the >staff hatted sneaks who think the way to deal with us suppressives is to >intimidate them.. which has a fairly checkered success history at best.
The trouble is, Claire is grossly misrepresenting Scientology's policies on "ethics" and disconnection.
Claire's ~interpretation~ of ElWrong's "tech" is called "suppressive reasonableness" in $cientology. She is already guilty of committing a number of "suppressive acts", including "verbal tech", "verbal policy", "associating with a known suppressive group" (ars) and "out-KSW".
: > She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember? : > That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*. : > : > Beck : : Would you rather I disbelieve my own experiences and just go by hearsay?
Hon, I don't care what *you* do. Stay in your cocoon...it is much safer there. Nothing to challenge your comforting beliefs. No facts to distort your complacency. No need to acknowledge the experiences of others unless they reinforce that ironclad bulwark you've constructed. Fortunately, not everyone is willing to wear a blindfold through life. This is the downfall of every totalitarian system - someone, somewhere will point out that the emperor has no clothes.
: Rebecca Jo McLaughlin wrote: : > Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full : > advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to : > take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others, : > she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal : > experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of : > Scientology. : > : > Beck
: I do think to some degree anyway that one must listen to : data and opinions collated by others and combine these things with : experience. I would not advocate an ivory tower existence in which one : never got out and experienced things but I would also say that one's : studies are important as well, as well as enjoyable,too. But you are : right in that this is not what I said in the previous post,because what : happened was I went typitty type,clickety click, send- oops!
Relieved to hear it.
[snip library list]
There are many, many personal stories from people who have suffered from Scientology's bullying. There are books and articles written about Scientology's very dark side - books challenged by the cult in court over their veracity. The cult lost. The press has poked their noses in (sometimes getting them burned by the cult's litigation behemoth) and pointed out clear abuses in human rights and general, decent, social behavior. The internet has managed to pull all of it together and the picture it paints is ugly, indeed.
The management insulates itself with happy, well-meaning folk (like yourself, I assume). "What's true for you," is in my opinion, one of the best methods of stopping critical thinking. My experience is wonderful - all else is lies.
How far into the Lisa McPherson and Strawn cases have you investigated? *Do* you know what has happened to the "minister" who warned the girls' mother not to go to the police? If you wanted to know, could you send a query uplines and get the answer? Have you read the logs written by the people who watched over Lisa McPherson's nightmarish, extended dying? What happened to the people who let her die, Claire? And the people who supervised them? Do you know? Would you be willing to investigate and find out?
And, if you did find out, if you did see an outpoint in the way these cases were/are being handled, what would you do? What *could* you do? I suggest that you and other responsible Scientologists take a good hard look at what management is doing to your religion. The internet has been pulling away the rocks that shelter DM and his band of thugs. There are a *lot* of people looking at what is exposed.
: One of the things that is generally neglected on this newsgroup in : regard to Scientology philosophy is the expectation of a high level of : integrity in a church member.
"Integrity" of course is completely redefined by scientology to mean that which puts money into CoS. Like one example I know about where the husband ran up very high credit card debts without telling his wife he was spending many tens of thousands on scientology;
snip
: The major question here would be: "is this the actual situation?" Any : individual in Scientology is expected to determine this for themselves. : If someone else were to tell a person to take any action which was : onerous to the individual then he would be obliged to not take the : action.
How about you read and comment on robin's recently posted story. "Disconnecting" from your six year old son under orders or not seems excessive any way I can imagine it.
|
