TO RR
ho...@lightlink.com
Tell and old man here your involvement with the Church.
Are/were you a member and if so what grade level of auditing did
you attest to, and what Class level of training?
If you were a member, why did you leave or what is your present
interest in the Church.
Thanks, just trying to figure out who is who.
Homer
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
henri
> Hey Roadrunner,
>
> Tell and old man here your involvement with the Church.
>
> Are/were you a member and if so what grade level of auditing did
>you attest to, and what Class level of training?
>
> If you were a member, why did you leave or what is your present
>interest in the Church.
>
> Thanks, just trying to figure out who is who.
>
> Homer
Me Tarzan.
You asshole.
Anonymous
No, you "henri", or Attorney Robert W. Clark, evil incarnate. Dirty,
foul, ubermensch. Motto: "Life is cheap, and so are we."
ho...@lightlink.com
>> Me Tarzan.
>>
>> You asshole.
>
> No, you "henri", or Attorney Robert W. Clark, evil incarnate. Dirty,
> foul, ubermensch. Motto: "Life is cheap, and so are we."
henri is Attorney Robert W. Clark?
Voltaire's Child
"Anonymous" <an...@anon.anon> wrote in message
news:7pg921...@mid.individual.net...
The urban dictionary defines "ubermensch" as this:
"Nietzsche's concept for "an over man" who overcomes the herd perspective
and is capable of creating a new perspective without dogmatically forcing
his perspective on others."
> Motto: "Life is cheap, and so are we."
Whoa! Hey, Henri, you're "evil" And "foul". Score!
I don't know if that's really yer motto, but it sounds pretty fucking funny.
(encouragingly)
C
Hartley Patterson
>
> Hey Roadrunner,
>
> Tell and old man here your involvement with the Church.
'Roadrunner' is so far as I know an old valence run by OSA. The persona is
that of a cultist who is deaf to any logic or reason but keeps arguing and
demanding more and more 'facts'. When provided with them, it either ignores
them or demands further clarifications. It is not a real person.
'Roadrunner' isn't meant to show the Church in a good light, just to troll.
There is nothing there to communicate with, you might as well talk to your
car. As some of do...
--
FREEDOM is a trademark owned by
Religious Technology Center
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Andrew Robertson
"Hartley Patterson" <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.259d93e11...@news.thundernews.com...
<snip>
> 'Roadrunner' is so far as I know an old valence run by OSA. The persona is
> that of a cultist who is deaf to any logic or reason but keeps arguing and
> demanding more and more 'facts'. When provided with them, it either
> ignores them or demands further clarifications. It is not a real person.
In fact 'Roadrunner' or 'Spacetraveler" as he once was, is a real person
with a real name, Michel Snoeck, living in Sweden, who has a better
collection of Rupert Bear Annuals than I have.
His website: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/ clearly demonstrates he has other
interests than posting to this newsgroup.
And his OSA approval rating is almost identical with his popularity on this
newsgroup. Which doesn't seem to bother him.
Andrew
"We still ONLY have your opinion about that. You persistently have been
asked to provide your evidence for the assertion, but failed to comply... "
'Spacetraveler' July 2005
Hartley Patterson
> In fact 'Roadrunner' or 'Spacetraveler" as he once was, is a real person
> with a real name, Michel Snoeck, living in Sweden, who has a better
> collection of Rupert Bear Annuals than I have.
You're going to have to provide more details on that.
--
"and the best part is that when they make it into
a movie, all of the stars can play themselves."
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
realpch
Yes, perhaps Andrew hasn't experienced the RB Annuals directly or
researched them thoroughly, and thus is merely offering an opinion, and
we all know how Uncle Snoecky regards *those*!
;-D
Peaches
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Roadrunner
wrote:
> ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
> > Hey Roadrunner,
>
> > Tell and old man here your involvement with the Church.
>
> 'Roadrunner' is so far as I know an old valence run by OSA. The persona is
> that of a cultist who is deaf to any logic or reason but keeps arguing and
> demanding more and more 'facts'. When provided with them, it either ignores
> them or demands further clarifications. It is not a real person.
>
> 'Roadrunner' isn't meant to show the Church in a good light, just to troll.
> There is nothing there to communicate with, you might as well talk to your
> car. As some of do...
Sorry guy, you are the troll here. You have not ever responded to any
of my queries and inquiries for clarification placed at your address.
I don't think you have the guts to even do that. Your job is being the
robot and the defamer, in particular towards those that are
knowledgeable and that you consider being a threat..
RR
Roadrunner
> Hey Roadrunner,
>
> Tell and old man here your involvement with the Church.
>
> Are/were you a member and if so what grade level of auditing did
> you attest to, and what Class level of training?
>
> If you were a member, why did you leave or what is your present
> interest in the Church.
>
> Thanks, just trying to figure out who is who.
You don't find out who I am by placing me in a box. Auditing grade
level nor class level of training will give you any data about me. If
you want to know about me you need to listen how I regard these topics
and how I express myself about them.
I can however tell that my adventure with Scientology started in 1982,
and I did travel various roads with it. I am still a member, pretty
much so. However as far as the organization concerns I am primarily
interested in the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.
RR
Roadrunner
> Hartley Patterson wrote:
>
> > a...@paradise.net.nz wrote:
>
> > > In fact 'Roadrunner' or 'Spacetraveler" as he once was, is a real person
> > > with a real name, Michel Snoeck, living in Sweden, who has a better
> > > collection of Rupert Bear Annuals than I have.
>
> > You're going to have to provide more details on that.
>
> > --
> > "and the best part is that when they make it into
> > a movie, all of the stars can play themselves."
> >http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
>
> Yes, perhaps Andrew hasn't experienced the RB Annuals directly or
> researched them thoroughly, and thus is merely offering an opinion, and
> we all know how Uncle Snoecky regards *those*!
Actually you are mistaken... RB Annuals do not require a thorough
research...
RR
Voltaire's Child
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f019dd4-1250-4b5d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
RR
RR,
Ck def of troll. Hartley ain't it."troll" is not synonymous with defamer or
with robot.
C
Voltaire's Child
>You don't find out who I am by placing me in a >box.
But then we could put holes in the box and poke sticks in and it would be
fun. I hear the ARSCC (wdne) is going to organize some fun gamez...
C
realpch
>
> On 25 Dec, 01:29, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Hartley Patterson wrote:
> >
> > > a...@paradise.net.nz wrote:
> >
> > > > In fact 'Roadrunner' or 'Spacetraveler" as he once was, is a real person
> > > > with a real name, Michel Snoeck, living in Sweden, who has a better
> > > > collection of Rupert Bear Annuals than I have.
> >
> > > You're going to have to provide more details on that.
> >
> > > --
> > > "and the best part is that when they make it into
> > > a movie, all of the stars can play themselves."
> > >http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
> >
> > Yes, perhaps Andrew hasn't experienced the RB Annuals directly or
> > researched them thoroughly, and thus is merely offering an opinion, and
> > we all know how Uncle Snoecky regards *those*!
>
> Actually you are mistaken... RB Annuals do not require a thorough
> research...
>
> RR
My dear Uncle Snoecky, as always, I am mistaken and you are the King of
the Hill!
:-D
Best holiday wishes to you.
Peach
Hartley Patterson
> >of my queries and inquiries for clarification placed at your address.
> >I don't think you have the guts to even do that. Your job is being the
> >robot and the defamer, in particular towards those that are
> >knowledgeable and that you consider being a threat..
Oh goodness, it thinks it's not in my killfile!
Speaking of Rupert Bear annuals, one of favorite sitcom shows ever was an
episode of the Likely Lads wherein they keep trying to beat each other with
Trivia Questions from said Annuals and wouldn't give up, to the growing
annoyance of their friends.
Roadrunner
wrote:
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
His behaviour as I have seen from his track of posting does resemble
the troll. A troll is an entity, and nothing but an entity, un unaware
entity that assumes...
I never said these were synonymous. I tell about what I observe him
doing.
RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry, no box... this is not about having fun, this is about
understanding and concepts of beingness.
RR
Jonathon Barbera
Here's a fun fact about arscc and me.
I have the first and probably only semi-official arscc E-Meter. It's
true! I purchased it in 1997 (iirc) from the arscc founder. It's a
church made Mark VI and it's a lime green color.
I don't use it anymore as its condition is getting worse with time,
but it makes an interesting collectible.
ho...@lightlink.com
persona for itself?
Sorry I tend to think in straight forward logic...
Perhaps you could twist it a bit for me so I could see clearly
into the nature of the beast.
Homer
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>>
>> Hey Roadrunner,
>>
>> Tell and old man here your involvement with the Church.
>
> 'Roadrunner' is so far as I know an old valence run by OSA. The persona is
> that of a cultist who is deaf to any logic or reason but keeps arguing and
> demanding more and more 'facts'. When provided with them, it either ignores
> them or demands further clarifications. It is not a real person.
>
> 'Roadrunner' isn't meant to show the Church in a good light, just to troll.
> There is nothing there to communicate with, you might as well talk to your
> car. As some of do...
>
--
ho...@lightlink.com
> I can however tell that my adventure with Scientology started in 1982,
> and I did travel various roads with it. I am still a member, pretty
> much so. However as far as the organization concerns I am primarily
> interested in the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.
OK, cool mine started in 1973 with reading all the books.
In 1976 I got to Dianetic auditor with a few hours in the chair,
and staff status as a techie, but I failed to attain Life Repair after
hundreds of hours of auditing both at the Org and at Flag. I finally
decided to do it myself and have devoted the rest of my life to finding
a better route, and or at least correcting the one they tried on me in
the Church.
Basic realities as laid out by Hubbard remain strong in me,
althought I no longer consider him my commanding officer.
Basic auditing approaches as laid out by Hubbard also remain
strong, with numerous changes and enhancements to make things read
deeper and run faster.
My goal is a solo route, and I probably 2 or 3 hours of solo on me,
metered and not over the thirty years between then and now. The rest is
more than 600 white papers on the subject published on the internet.
Sounds like you are something resembling a freezone or free minded
clearing technician also but still in the Church.
Don't let my words box you in, but do try to elucidate your
beingness as regards clearing and the Church, the freezone and a.r.s.
A few questions.
How do you get authority or get away with posting and reading here
without getting into trouble with Ethics? Most say it can't be done
unless you are directly working for a 'handling' program on the part of
the GO/OSA/SO etc.
Can you elucidate on how much your voice is 'owned' by a
controlling influence within the Church or do speak freely and without
oversight or control or fear of punishment?
Second although you put down Grade and Class as unimportant, I
would have disagree.
If you have gone Grade OT VII and Class XXII or even just IV,
then your words about tech and policy mean much more than if you
are someone who never got or gave any auditing, and thus never
got any reality on whether it worked or didn't.
I am sure many might say this isn't true, but when Phil says OT
levels don't work, I take it much more seriously than if some 30 year
admin veteran with 20 hours auditing under his belt says the same thing.
Like you apparently, I am not that interested in policy or
green on white, except to expose it for the janus faced edifice
it is. My real interest is red on white and its advancement
into the future.
Whatever, it would seem to me that the Church has a 'sit' on its
hands in a.r.s. A sit is a situation which is defined as the largest
departure from an ideal scene, and thus the most in need of repair.
The fact that a.r.s was started by one Scott Goehring with a
charter and without a vote, is problematic to me, particularly give the
vile and indecent nature of his beingness at the time, along with the
rest of his cohorts of similar kind, Rod Keller, Chris Shafmeister, and
Phil Ernhardt who stayed around just long enough to throw cowpies, but
then left for good because they couldn't stand the heat.
I think that if we allowed the present members to write a charter
it would be highly bigoted and one sided, based on religious hate more
than anything else, and probably would not stand the test of broad
public moral support.
Now I could be wrong, there are people on a.r.s that could write a
balanced charter which would have to be pretty broad, including negatory
activities of the Church, but also positive discussions of the tech and
the benefits of it.
You know, this group is about the Church of Scientology, good and
bad.
Those that feel there is nothing good in the Church or scientology
however would write a charter that prevented anything positive from
being said, and like its founder try to track down anyone who posted
anonymously otherwise.
It doesn't help that the church does not allow trained tech
terminals to talk about the tech. Part of the Code of a Scientologist
was never to discuss scientology with the informed, or something
similar, but we are trying to inform here...
It also doesn't help that many of the pro Church terminals are
social idiots, Dave Bonnell comes to mind, just ranting and raving about
everyone's withholds etc.
There isn't a person here who is pure before Source, and following
LRH policy when dealing with an uncomfortable or hostile public may not
be the best thing.
My opinion is that Hubbard taught best what he most needed to
learn, and pretty much made a mess of things by not following his own
wisdom in many places.
Thus a Church that can not handle criticism, and responds to it
with fair gaming, is no better than a Russian or German slave state.
Not all criticism is suppressive. and the criticism that is truely
suppressive, well it may or may not be best handled with Simon Bolivar.
Anyhow perhaps you could help me understand better your situation
and goals, and the problems you see dealing not only with a.r.s but with
the Church itself in dealing with a.r.s.
Homer
> RR
>
>
>>
>> ? ? ?Homer
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith ? ? The Paths of Lovers ? ?Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF ? ? ? ?Cross ? ? ? ? ? ?Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> ho...@lightlink.com ? ?In the Line of Duty ? ?http://www.lightlink.com
Voltaire's Child
<ho...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:4b35...@news2.lightlink.com...
> OK, I understand persona, but why would OSA create a negative
> persona for itself?
>
>
But OSA *doesn't* think in straightforward logic.
They do a lot of ridiculous illogical things.
Claire
ho...@lightlink.com
Claire, with all due respect that is an opinion. I KNOW people in
the GO/OSA, they think in very straight lines, illegally, but always
according to policy.
Now if someone could show me a secret policy written by Hubbard
that the way to make people think you are great it to act like
an ass, I will happily change my mind.
Homer
>
> Claire
Roadrunner
> Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can however tell that my adventure with Scientology started in 1982,
> > and I did travel various roads with it. I am still a member, pretty
> > much so. However as far as the organization concerns I am primarily
> > interested in the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.
>
> OK, cool mine started in 1973 with reading all the books.
>
> In 1976 I got to Dianetic auditor with a few hours in the chair,
> and staff status as a techie, but I failed to attain Life Repair after
> hundreds of hours of auditing both at the Org and at Flag. I finally
> decided to do it myself and have devoted the rest of my life to finding
> a better route, and or at least correcting the one they tried on me in
> the Church.
Good, then you know about Standard Dianetics as opposed to NED. 2
different things they are.
>
> Basic realities as laid out by Hubbard remain strong in me,
> althought I no longer consider him my commanding officer.
One should see him as making suggestions, after that it will be up to
you to find if that will be true to you. All YOU got to do is maintain
alert.
>
> Basic auditing approaches as laid out by Hubbard also remain
> strong, with numerous changes and enhancements to make things read
> deeper and run faster.
>
> My goal is a solo route, and I probably 2 or 3 hours of solo on me,
> metered and not over the thirty years between then and now. The rest is
> more than 600 white papers on the subject published on the internet.
>
> Sounds like you are something resembling a freezone or free minded
> clearing technician also but still in the Church.
I am very much historical oriented. You see, organizations CHANGE, the
people within it will CHANGE matters, they always do. One should keep
in mind, as LRH made very clear, that the basics within the subjects
Dianetics/Scientology have not and did not ever change. If these
change, then you know something has gone in the wrong direction. That
is why one should never become a follower.
>
> Don't let my words box you in, but do try to elucidate your
> beingness as regards clearing and the Church, the freezone and a.r.s.
>
> A few questions.
>
> How do you get authority or get away with posting and reading here
> without getting into trouble with Ethics? Most say it can't be done
> unless you are directly working for a 'handling' program on the part of
> the GO/OSA/SO etc.
'Code of Honour' is pretty straightforward. See, I have the right to
communicate with whom I choose. If I would be a staffmember, then it
would be a different matter as then you represent the organization.
Policies are not there to make you smaller or turn you into a
controlled person, Quite the contrary, they are there to protect and
defend the individual. Thus know policies, and ruthlessly enforce
them. If people oppose you then ask them for an exact reference that
tells what gives them the right to do so.
The question is, why should ethics bother with me?
>
> Can you elucidate on how much your voice is 'owned' by a
> controlling influence within the Church or do speak freely and without
> oversight or control or fear of punishment?
Personal integrity. As soon as you regard Scientology as an entity
that forwards punishment and for all promotes control, then how are
you going to free people? These CAN NOT co-exist. Just know and
understand the rules of the game. Never become a follower, always make
up your own mind, research, study, ask, etc..
>
> Second although you put down Grade and Class as unimportant, I
> would have disagree.
>
> If you have gone Grade OT VII and Class XXII or even just IV,
> then your words about tech and policy mean much more than if you
> are someone who never got or gave any auditing, and thus never
> got any reality on whether it worked or didn't.
There is a difference between an experienced person and a newbie, but
being a Class XII of OT VII does not tell how much you have understood
and has become part of your understanding. Many years of close
observation made this very, very clear to me. At many levels for
example I do not agree with Pierre Ethier or with Otto Roos.
>
> I am sure many might say this isn't true, but when Phil says OT
> levels don't work, I take it much more seriously than if some 30 year
> admin veteran with 20 hours auditing under his belt says the same thing.
I don't, I have met people that have been in Scientology for 40 years,
and still I see they lack understanding. Understanding should come in
concepts not in uncoordinated and disrelated fragments.
What OT levels or other will do is very personal. You can't audit out
or awake that which is not within the reality of the person. The ONLY
guarantee you have to make it, is you. And you will not make it if you
are a follower. You need study, but study may not give you
understanding, in time it may, I say 'may', turn into conceptional
understanding. But this will take time and effort. If you become a
follower, then you have closed the doors.
>
> Like you apparently, I am not that interested in policy or
> green on white, except to expose it for the janus faced edifice
> it is. My real interest is red on white and its advancement
> into the future.
You need ethics though, but this remains personal.
Where does it say that in the 'Code of a Scientologist'? See, if you
can not do that then you can not disseminate either.
>
> It also doesn't help that many of the pro Church terminals are
> social idiots, Dave Bonnell comes to mind, just ranting and raving about
> everyone's withholds etc.
>
> There isn't a person here who is pure before Source, and following
> LRH policy when dealing with an uncomfortable or hostile public may not
> be the best thing.
>
> My opinion is that Hubbard taught best what he most needed to
> learn, and pretty much made a mess of things by not following his own
> wisdom in many places.
>
> Thus a Church that can not handle criticism, and responds to it
> with fair gaming, is no better than a Russian or German slave state.
>
> Not all criticism is suppressive. and the criticism that is truely
> suppressive, well it may or may not be best handled with Simon Bolivar.
>
> Anyhow perhaps you could help me understand better your situation
> and goals, and the problems you see dealing not only with a.r.s but with
> the Church itself in dealing with a.r.s.
Actually I think that the a.r.s. does not put any weight into the
scale. What people think is not so rather interesting. See, these
persons that are regulars on the a.r.s do not display very much
understanding or willing to understand these topics. For the most
their mind is made up and they only hear that which confirms their
opinions. The bulk of them is stuck and simply have nothing better to
do than wasting their time with ridicule and trying to put people
down.
If you understand your opposer, only then you can learn to deal with
him. This is part of my interest here.
RR
Voltaire's Child
<ho...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:4b35...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Voltaire's Child <Voltair...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <ho...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b35...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>> OK, I understand persona, but why would OSA create a negative
>>> persona for itself?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But OSA *doesn't* think in straightforward logic.
>>
>> They do a lot of ridiculous illogical things.
>
> Claire, with all due respect that is an opinion. I KNOW people in
> the GO/OSA, they think in very straight lines, illegally, but always
> according to policy.
well, I guess I was mainly going by their actions.
C
ho...@lightlink.com
ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
> Claire, with all due respect that is an opinion. I KNOW people in
> the GO/OSA, they think in very straight lines, illegally *PERHAPS*, but always
> according to policy.
ho...@lightlink.com
> Good, then you know about Standard Dianetics as opposed to NED. 2
> different things they are.
My Dianetics training was in Dianetics Today, CA 1973.
I don't believe there is a public book on NED, is that right?
>> ? ? ?My goal is a solo route, and I probably 2 or 3 hours of solo on me,
2 or 3 hours PER DAY across 30 years, sorry.
> I am very much historical oriented. You see, organizations CHANGE, the
> people within it will CHANGE matters, they always do. One should keep
> in mind, as LRH made very clear, that the basics within the subjects
> Dianetics/Scientology have not and did not ever change. If these
> change, then you know something has gone in the wrong direction. That
> is why one should never become a follower.
Yes, me not a follower that is for sure.
> The question is, why should ethics bother with me?
Because you communicate freely with known declared SP's and thus
are not disconnecting from known forces hostile to scientology or
betterment nor from squirrels like me
Now as a public pc you might get away with all that, but
as staff I would think it could cause endless trouble, unless
you WERE the EO or were assigned to handle.
On the other hand if you are not staff, or worse are not even a
public pc but operate in the freezone, then the above doesn't apply to
you at all, you are a free agent to speak and rub elbows with whom ever
you will.
>> ? ? ?Can you elucidate on how much your voice is 'owned' by a
>> controlling influence within the Church or do speak freely and without
>> oversight or control or fear of punishment?
>
> Personal integrity. As soon as you regard Scientology as an entity
> that forwards punishment and for all promotes control, then how are
> you going to free people? These CAN NOT co-exist. Just know and
> understand the rules of the game. Never become a follower, always make
> up your own mind, research, study, ask, etc..
Sorry this precludes you being a staff member, perhaps you already
said that, but free minds were not welcome at the Org nor at Flag,
even as a public pc when I was involved.
> There is a difference between an experienced person and a newbie, but
> being a Class XII of OT VII does not tell how much you have understood
> and has become part of your understanding. Many years of close
> observation made this very, very clear to me. At many levels for
> example I do not agree with Pierre Ethier or with Otto Roos.
OK, now you know that I know that Grade and Class do not guarantee
understanding, but you also know that absence of Grade and Class will
almost absolutely guarantee non understanding, unless the guy walks in
an OT or has spent a whole life walking his own route. Admin time
doesn't count.
But you sound like you have a few hours under your belt.
If you are even in communication with Pierre or Otto, that would
indicate you are a very free spirit operating outside of the clutches
of the standard Church and its ethics.
>> ? ? ?I am sure many might say this isn't true, but when Phil says OT
>> levels don't work, I take it much more seriously than if some 30 year
>> admin veteran with 20 hours auditing under his belt says the same thing.
>
> I don't, I have met people that have been in Scientology for 40 years,
> and still I see they lack understanding. Understanding should come in
> concepts not in uncoordinated and disrelated fragments.
Yeah well, ok I admit it, Phil is a ditz and in fact when he
says things are bogus, I don't pay much attention.
In fact he pisses me off royally, as do most of these OT failures
that gaily went up the bridge false attesting to ever level and
finally having a cog that it was all a con.
> What OT levels or other will do is very personal. You can't audit out
> or awake that which is not within the reality of the person. The ONLY
> guarantee you have to make it, is you. And you will not make it if you
> are a follower. You need study, but study may not give you
> understanding, in time it may, I say 'may', turn into conceptional
> understanding. But this will take time and effort. If you become a
> follower, then you have closed the doors.
Yeah ok, you sound like a very dangerous OT, the kind Earth needs
and the Church hates.
>> ? ? ?Like you apparently, I am not that interested in policy or
>> green on white, except to expose it for the janus faced edifice
>> it is. ?My real interest is red on white and its advancement
>> into the future.
>
> You need ethics though, but this remains personal.
Yes, I can see that.
>> ? ? ?The fact that a.r.s was started by one Scott Goehring with a
WITHOUT A CHARTER
>> charter and without a vote, is problematic to me, particularly give the
>> vile and indecent nature of his beingness at the time, along with the
>> rest of his cohorts of similar kind, Rod Keller, Chris Shafmeister, and
>> Phil Ernhardt who stayed around just long enough to throw cowpies, but
>> then left for good because they couldn't stand the heat.
>>
> Where does it say that in the 'Code of a Scientologist'? See, if you
> can not do that then you can not disseminate either.
Well what it says as you well know is never ARGUE about the
matter with the ill informed.
> Actually I think that the a.r.s. does not put any weight into the
> scale. What people think is not so rather interesting. See, these
> persons that are regulars on the a.r.s do not display very much
> understanding or willing to understand these topics. For the most
> their mind is made up and they only hear that which confirms their
> opinions. The bulk of them is stuck and simply have nothing better to
> do than wasting their time with ridicule and trying to put people
> down.
>
> If you understand your opposer, only then you can learn to deal with
> him. This is part of my interest here.
OK, LRH said it used to bother him what people said, untili he
realized it was the bank talking.
Electra said "only BT's bash".
You are a good man RR.
Homer
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Good, then you know about Standard Dianetics as opposed to NED. 2
> > different things they are.
>
> My Dianetics training was in Dianetics Today, CA 1973.
>
> I don't believe there is a public book on NED, is that right?
There is only the course pack that was first issued in July 1978, at
which time Standard Dianetics got abandoned. Since then 'followers'
swear by NED and not Standard Dianetics. A big mistake as SD deals
with engrams whereas NED focuses on postulates.
Dianetics Today was discontinued as this book presents a complete
summary on Standard Dianetics.
>
> >> ? ? ?My goal is a solo route, and I probably 2 or 3 hours of solo on me,
>
> 2 or 3 hours PER DAY across 30 years, sorry.
>
> > I am very much historical oriented. You see, organizations CHANGE, the
> > people within it will CHANGE matters, they always do. One should keep
> > in mind, as LRH made very clear, that the basics within the subjects
> > Dianetics/Scientology have not and did not ever change. If these
> > change, then you know something has gone in the wrong direction. That
> > is why one should never become a follower.
>
> Yes, me not a follower that is for sure.
>
> > The question is, why should ethics bother with me?
>
> Because you communicate freely with known declared SP's and thus
> are not disconnecting from known forces hostile to scientology or
> betterment nor from squirrels like me
It can not be demanded from me that I check out the 'status' of any
individual that I come across with in live. Neither of them are my
buddies, I have no friendly relations with them. Such antagonists
should run away from me, not the other way around.
In essense all on a.r.s. are anonymous.
>
> Now as a public pc you might get away with all that, but
> as staff I would think it could cause endless trouble, unless
> you WERE the EO or were assigned to handle.
Of course, but I am no staff.
>
> On the other hand if you are not staff, or worse are not even a
> public pc but operate in the freezone, then the above doesn't apply to
> you at all, you are a free agent to speak and rub elbows with whom ever
> you will.
Just a public.
>
> >> ? ? ?Can you elucidate on how much your voice is 'owned' by a
> >> controlling influence within the Church or do speak freely and without
> >> oversight or control or fear of punishment?
>
> > Personal integrity. As soon as you regard Scientology as an entity
> > that forwards punishment and for all promotes control, then how are
> > you going to free people? These CAN NOT co-exist. Just know and
> > understand the rules of the game. Never become a follower, always make
> > up your own mind, research, study, ask, etc..
>
> Sorry this precludes you being a staff member, perhaps you already
> said that, but free minds were not welcome at the Org nor at Flag,
> even as a public pc when I was involved.
As long as you operate from within policy this is quite alright. There
is also PAB 79. People are not the subject, I don't care really what
they say if it does not arise from understanding or correct
duplication. I know very well about Flag, I was staff for 4 years
there.
>
> > There is a difference between an experienced person and a newbie, but
> > being a Class XII of OT VII does not tell how much you have understood
> > and has become part of your understanding. Many years of close
> > observation made this very, very clear to me. At many levels for
> > example I do not agree with Pierre Ethier or with Otto Roos.
>
> OK, now you know that I know that Grade and Class do not guarantee
> understanding, but you also know that absence of Grade and Class will
> almost absolutely guarantee non understanding, unless the guy walks in
> an OT or has spent a whole life walking his own route. Admin time
> doesn't count.
>
> But you sound like you have a few hours under your belt.
Yeah, quite some...
>
> If you are even in communication with Pierre or Otto, that would
> indicate you are a very free spirit operating outside of the clutches
> of the standard Church and its ethics.
Pierre actually contacted me a while back about issues, I did no
originate that. I have no contact with Otto, I judge from some of his
more recent writings.
>
> >> ? ? ?I am sure many might say this isn't true, but when Phil says OT
> >> levels don't work, I take it much more seriously than if some 30 year
> >> admin veteran with 20 hours auditing under his belt says the same thing.
>
> > I don't, I have met people that have been in Scientology for 40 years,
> > and still I see they lack understanding. Understanding should come in
> > concepts not in uncoordinated and disrelated fragments.
>
> Yeah well, ok I admit it, Phil is a ditz and in fact when he
> says things are bogus, I don't pay much attention.
>
> In fact he pisses me off royally, as do most of these OT failures
> that gaily went up the bridge false attesting to ever level and
> finally having a cog that it was all a con.
Scientology is not for the gullible follower. Arnie Lerma puzzles me a
bit, as he attested OT VII as early as 1973 something. Wonder what
actually happened with him. Although I spoke with people that attested
OT III in 1968, it was not all very coordinated in these days. You
were pretty much on your own. It was up to you. And it is till up to
you. No one can free you but you.
>
> > What OT levels or other will do is very personal. You can't audit out
> > or awake that which is not within the reality of the person. The ONLY
> > guarantee you have to make it, is you. And you will not make it if you
> > are a follower. You need study, but study may not give you
> > understanding, in time it may, I say 'may', turn into conceptional
> > understanding. But this will take time and effort. If you become a
> > follower, then you have closed the doors.
>
> Yeah ok, you sound like a very dangerous OT, the kind Earth needs
> and the Church hates.
Well, a logical question to ask then is if the organization or the
people within it still present the subject of Scientology. There is
only one kind of OT.
>
> >> ? ? ?Like you apparently, I am not that interested in policy or
> >> green on white, except to expose it for the janus faced edifice
> >> it is. ?My real interest is red on white and its advancement
> >> into the future.
>
> > You need ethics though, but this remains personal.
>
> Yes, I can see that.
>
> >> ? ? ?The fact that a.r.s was started by one Scott Goehring with a
>
> WITHOUT A CHARTER
>
> >> charter and without a vote, is problematic to me, particularly give the
> >> vile and indecent nature of his beingness at the time, along with the
> >> rest of his cohorts of similar kind, Rod Keller, Chris Shafmeister, and
> >> Phil Ernhardt who stayed around just long enough to throw cowpies, but
> >> then left for good because they couldn't stand the heat.
>
> > Where does it say that in the 'Code of a Scientologist'? See, if you
> > can not do that then you can not disseminate either.
>
> Well what it says as you well know is never ARGUE about the
> matter with the ill informed.
Hmm, I wouldn't say that I argue with them. I just lay out what it
actually is about. I ask did you read the book Dianetics, or where did
you get your information from or ask for references. Was it altered
from the original, taken out of context, and so on.
My main concern is not these ill informed, but rather those that get
subjected to that what they say. See the difference?
Either way, this is what I do. I don't advice any to do this on his
own. A purpose is also to gather information for my writings.
>
> > Actually I think that the a.r.s. does not put any weight into the
> > scale. What people think is not so rather interesting. See, these
> > persons that are regulars on the a.r.s do not display very much
> > understanding or willing to understand these topics. For the most
> > their mind is made up and they only hear that which confirms their
> > opinions. The bulk of them is stuck and simply have nothing better to
> > do than wasting their time with ridicule and trying to put people
> > down.
>
> > If you understand your opposer, only then you can learn to deal with
> > him. This is part of my interest here.
>
> OK, LRH said it used to bother him what people said, untili he
> realized it was the bank talking.
Exactly! The bulk of the people here on a.r.s. are entirely stimulus
response. They have little to no sense of understanding of the subject
itself. This is the usual fate of 'followers'... They don't find out
for themselves, they 'follow'...
>
> Electra said "only BT's bash".
>
> You are a good man RR.
Thank you kindly!
RR
>
> Homer
Slarty
Sorry that my addition will not be quite as high quality as the
above. Hopefully it is of some minor value, somehow: Great to see an
act conversation on act. I like Phil. He just doesn't see anything
wrong w/ occasionally going into off-purpose rants, is all. They can
be kinda fun, but what of it? @ the same time, if this NG ever gets
its ethics in, I might not be allowed in the door. Yikes!
2 points: 1)How did the Henri Post turn into this?
2) Why isn't Phil posting here these days?
ho...@lightlink.com
> people within it still present the subject of Scientology. There is
> only one kind of OT.
OK, I gotta ask, is it true that there is an outer Church where LRH
says one thing and an inner Church were LRH says quite another to the
Sea ORG staff?
If one were to look at ALL the policy ever written would there be,
beyond accidental and unintentional contradictions, a clear sign on a
Janus faced man, telling public one thing, and his inner follows
something else?
Sanctity of folders comes to mind, but other things too...
> My main concern is not these ill informed, but rather those that get
> subjected to that what they say. See the difference?
Ok, I tend to not worry about the newbies hearing all this entheta,
I worry very much about when I send someone to the Church or any
clearing practitioner, and they don't receive what I and LRH were
talking about, which includes me.
I figure new people are either assholes themselves and so are
attracted to the assholes and their spew, or they are able people
looking to become more able, and they already KNOW and are just trying
to get by the Gremlins at the gates.
Trying to cross the picket line.
> Exactly! The bulk of the people here on a.r.s. are entirely stimulus
> response. They have little to no sense of understanding of the subject
> itself. This is the usual fate of 'followers'... They don't find out
> for themselves, they 'follow'...
But I also have to point out that LRH said very clearly in Staff
Status whatever, that scientology was for those that were willing to be
led. That the path was taped, and that those what wanted to do
something else except follow orders exactly would not succeed and would
not be welcome.
Thus I find your comments about being a follower true, but for all
of us, when we first got in, we hadn't a clue how to do it ourselves, or
even that it could be done. The relief of not having to think about it
anymore was itself a reason to come in, so we just followed orders, did
our work and our processing with out complaint in the sincere hope that
LRH was right, that his path would work for us. Most were being led
blind, we had blinded ourselves, and we trusted our guides to lead us.
to a state of non blindness.
That didn't work for some.
The saddest day was when I realized my money was running out faster
than I was going up the bridge, and that in fact the power of my case
was going up in step with me.
We were both getting bigger at the same time, and I was
getting sicker and sicker.
AS the intensives went by, and the money ran out, every session I
had to lower my sights on how far up the bridge I could get with
remaining funds.
After HUNDREDS of hours I was never able to declare my life repair.
Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
> which time Standard Dianetics got abandoned. Since then 'followers'
> swear by NED and not Standard Dianetics. A big mistake as SD deals
> with engrams whereas NED focuses on postulates.
>
I remember looking through the course pack, and I remember
seeing AESP + a whole mess more, and E/P was postulate off, which
I figured it what we were doing anyhow with SD, eventhough it wasn't
stated that way. As to engrams, I guess I assume everything else
between SD and NED was basically the same, R3R etc.
You can't assess for pains and run R3R and not run engrams, eh?
Homer
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, a logical question to ask then is if the organization or the
> > people within it still present the subject of Scientology. There is
> > only one kind of OT.
>
> OK, I gotta ask, is it true that there is an outer Church where LRH
> says one thing and an inner Church were LRH says quite another to the
> Sea ORG staff?
Not that I know of, in different terms yes, but not in aim and drive.
>
> If one were to look at ALL the policy ever written would there be,
> beyond accidental and unintentional contradictions, a clear sign on a
> Janus faced man, telling public one thing, and his inner follows
> something else?
Definitely no, also mind that for him it has also been clear that the
basics never changed. They got bettered, but never did change.
>
> Sanctity of folders comes to mind, but other things too...
See, that's the thing. One should determine which is really written by
L. Ron Hubbard and what not. As early as 1974 it is confirmed that
references got issued carrying his signature, when he in fact did not
write it. Till 1980 or so, and strangely enough as a repetition in the
year 1991 this was acknowledged if such had occurred. Then the early
80's saw the re-release of BPL's and BTB's under the HCOB and HCO PL
issue-type carrying the signature of L. Ron Hubbard where the earlier
issue-type clearly indicated they were not written by him.
I am very well aware of this sanctity of folders, some references
where issued during the later 80's that violated that, keep in mind
though that the original LRH reference on the matter is still a valid
issue.
>
> > My main concern is not these ill informed, but rather those that get
> > subjected to that what they say. See the difference?
>
> Ok, I tend to not worry about the newbies hearing all this entheta,
> I worry very much about when I send someone to the Church or any
> clearing practitioner, and they don't receive what I and LRH were
> talking about, which includes me.
In fact this is up to each individual. This is why you can not be a
follower of a sofa-sitter. Through history of man this always has been
a matter of problem.
>
> I figure new people are either assholes themselves and so are
> attracted to the assholes and their spew, or they are able people
> looking to become more able, and they already KNOW and are just trying
> to get by the Gremlins at the gates.
Correct, but some data should be available to enable people to
differentiate between what is working tech and what is not.
>
> Trying to cross the picket line.
>
> > Exactly! The bulk of the people here on a.r.s. are entirely stimulus
> > response. They have little to no sense of understanding of the subject
> > itself. This is the usual fate of 'followers'... They don't find out
> > for themselves, they 'follow'...
>
> But I also have to point out that LRH said very clearly in Staff
> Status whatever, that scientology was for those that were willing to be
> led. That the path was taped, and that those what wanted to do
> something else except follow orders exactly would not succeed and would
> not be welcome.
He also wrote PAB 79 in where he made very clear that he did not
appreciate people that just accepted matters without willing to find
out for themselves what was to be true to them. HCO PL Staff Status
was for staff. Nonetheless it does not mean that you become a follower
as such.
>
> Thus I find your comments about being a follower true, but for all
> of us, when we first got in, we hadn't a clue how to do it ourselves, or
> even that it could be done. The relief of not having to think about it
> anymore was itself a reason to come in, so we just followed orders, did
> our work and our processing with out complaint in the sincere hope that
> LRH was right, that his path would work for us. Most were being led
> blind, we had blinded ourselves, and we trusted our guides to lead us.
> to a state of non blindness.
>
> That didn't work for some.
>
> The saddest day was when I realized my money was running out faster
> than I was going up the bridge, and that in fact the power of my case
> was going up in step with me.
>
> We were both getting bigger at the same time, and I was
> getting sicker and sicker.
>
> AS the intensives went by, and the money ran out, every session I
> had to lower my sights on how far up the bridge I could get with
> remaining funds.
>
> After HUNDREDS of hours I was never able to declare my life repair.
It should not take hundreds of hours, this would be an indication that
something had gone wrong.
RR
>
> Homer
Roadrunner
But you need to reach full end phenomena, NED abandoned that.
RR
>
> Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
>> says one thing and an inner Church were LRH says quite another to the
>> Sea ORG staff?
>
> Not that I know of, in different terms yes, but not in aim and drive.
That means policy for the outer and inner church comes
from the same basic *GOOD* intent including the culling of pc
folders for withholds for public use.
>> ? ? ?If one were to look at ALL the policy ever written would there be,
>> beyond accidental and unintentional contradictions, a clear sign on a
>> Janus faced man, telling public one thing, and his inner follows
>> something else?
>
> Definitely no, also mind that for him it has also been clear that the
> basics never changed. They got bettered, but never did change.
OK, I am talking more about policy, green on white, and not
red on white.
Now you say no there is not a duality going on in policy,
do you KNOW THIS because you have been in the Sea Org and never
saw anything contradicting policy outside the sea org?
I would have to ask then, why is some policy secret?
>> ? ? ?Sanctity of folders comes to mind, but other things too...
>
> See, that's the thing. One should determine which is really written by
> L. Ron Hubbard and what not. As early as 1974 it is confirmed that
> references got issued carrying his signature, when he in fact did not
> write it. Till 1980 or so, and strangely enough as a repetition in the
> year 1991 this was acknowledged if such had occurred. Then the early
> 80's saw the re-release of BPL's and BTB's under the HCOB and HCO PL
> issue-type carrying the signature of L. Ron Hubbard where the earlier
> issue-type clearly indicated they were not written by him.
>
> I am very well aware of this sanctity of folders, some references
> where issued during the later 80's that violated that, keep in mind
> though that the original LRH reference on the matter is still a valid
> issue.
OK, but you have to admit they have a serious problem on their
hands when people are allowed to use folder data against people
later on.
No way is that OK, under any circumstances, by anyone, including
LRh himself. Right?
And if LRH did write the stuff, then they have a total
nightmare on their hands. It would seem incumbent on the
Church to PROVE who wrote what, and clear up the matter.
>> ? ? ?Ok, I tend to not worry about the newbies hearing all this entheta,
>> I worry very much about when I send someone to the Church or any
>> clearing practitioner, and they don't receive what I and LRH were
>> talking about, which includes me.
>
> In fact this is up to each individual. This is why you can not be a
> follower of a sofa-sitter. Through history of man this always has been
> a matter of problem.
OK, but I am not sure what I coulda done back in 1973 when
my money was wasting away and I was a NCG, except stop earlier
and ask for my money back.
I went in with a lot of faith, if that's following, well then
mea culpa.
>> ? ? ?But I also have to point out that LRH said very clearly in Staff
>> Status whatever, that scientology was for those that were willing to be
>> led. ?That the path was taped, and that those what wanted to do
>> something else except follow orders exactly would not succeed and would
>> not be welcome.
>
> He also wrote PAB 79 in where he made very clear that he did not
> appreciate people that just accepted matters without willing to find
> out for themselves what was to be true to them. HCO PL Staff Status
> was for staff. Nonetheless it does not mean that you become a follower
> as such.
OK, this is a major problem with Hubbard, he starts off saying
help me build a better bridge, and you pick up an E-meter
and start playing around and suddenly you are in ethics
for squirreling.
My view is he changed his mind, as he clearly said later on, that
group efforts to find the path were too munged by their banks and he
stopped trusting anyone to find a better route and in fact forbade it
under penalty of eternal extermination.
So what started off as a science among many turned into a cult
of the Only One Tech Finder.
> It should not take hundreds of hours, this would be an indication that
> something had gone wrong.
Of course, but who is going to make the indication. Hours and
hours in the freezone field resulted in the same crap.
No relief.
I then became left up to me to make the indication, and to proceed
with tech that does work ON ME, at least well enough I would have stayed
in the church if they had used it.
Anyhow I do not believe the indication lies within tghe realm of
standard scientology as delivered by the Church in 1973 or even now. I
am not even sure it lies in the earlier data back to 1952.
Certainly Hubbard had a clue, but I think it takes more
than one clue to build a bridge that everyone can walk who
want's to.
So my view is that present day Hubbardian Scientology is not
complete.
Homer
>
> RR
>
>>
>> ? ? Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
Postulate off is not full EP?
What is then, Engram erased?
How would you state the full E/P of running a R3R session?
Homer
>
> RR
>
>>
>> ? ? ?Homer
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ? ? ?OK, I gotta ask, is it true that there is an outer Church where LRH
> >> says one thing and an inner Church were LRH says quite another to the
> >> Sea ORG staff?
>
> > Not that I know of, in different terms yes, but not in aim and drive.
>
> That means policy for the outer and inner church comes
> from the same basic *GOOD* intent including the culling of pc
> folders for withholds for public use.
Negative, it does not mean that all. L. Ron Hubbard was very well
aware that people were prone to misuse things.
This was never the case prior to 1984. That what you talk about was
established in 1984 and 1987.
http://tiny.cc/knowledge_reports
see 'A note about HCO PL 2 Mar 84 “O/W Write Up”'
>
> >> ? ? ?If one were to look at ALL the policy ever written would there be,
> >> beyond accidental and unintentional contradictions, a clear sign on a
> >> Janus faced man, telling public one thing, and his inner follows
> >> something else?
>
> > Definitely no, also mind that for him it has also been clear that the
> > basics never changed. They got bettered, but never did change.
>
> OK, I am talking more about policy, green on white, and not
> red on white.
Why making that distinction?
>
> Now you say no there is not a duality going on in policy,
> do you KNOW THIS because you have been in the Sea Org and never
> saw anything contradicting policy outside the sea org?
There are contradicting writings all over the place, it is not limited
to Sea Org, not at all. Take the present red vols, various opposing
definitions are given for what 'clear' is about. See, its definition
got changed in 1978 (suddenly a Dianetic Clear was a Clear, and thus
Scientology Clear got abandoned). Both the old references and the new
one's are all presented in these vols. It's a mess.
Disconnection was cancelled in 1968, suddenly it was re-introduced in
1983, in an HCOB that Vaugh Young had admitted he had written, and
that L. Ron Hubbard never saw.
>
> I would have to ask then, why is some policy secret?
There is nothing wrong with that as long as it does not violate or act
against non-confidential policy.
>
> >> ? ? ?Sanctity of folders comes to mind, but other things too...
>
> > See, that's the thing. One should determine which is really written by
> > L. Ron Hubbard and what not. As early as 1974 it is confirmed that
> > references got issued carrying his signature, when he in fact did not
> > write it. Till 1980 or so, and strangely enough as a repetition in the
> > year 1991 this was acknowledged if such had occurred. Then the early
> > 80's saw the re-release of BPL's and BTB's under the HCOB and HCO PL
> > issue-type carrying the signature of L. Ron Hubbard where the earlier
> > issue-type clearly indicated they were not written by him.
>
> > I am very well aware of this sanctity of folders, some references
> > where issued during the later 80's that violated that, keep in mind
> > though that the original LRH reference on the matter is still a valid
> > issue.
>
> OK, but you have to admit they have a serious problem on their
> hands when people are allowed to use folder data against people
> later on.
Of course.
>
> No way is that OK, under any circumstances, by anyone, including
> LRh himself. Right?
Correct.
>
> And if LRH did write the stuff, then they have a total
> nightmare on their hands. It would seem incumbent on the
> Church to PROVE who wrote what, and clear up the matter.
I fear they are not interested in doing so.
>
> >> ? ? ?Ok, I tend to not worry about the newbies hearing all this entheta,
> >> I worry very much about when I send someone to the Church or any
> >> clearing practitioner, and they don't receive what I and LRH were
> >> talking about, which includes me.
>
> > In fact this is up to each individual. This is why you can not be a
> > follower of a sofa-sitter. Through history of man this always has been
> > a matter of problem.
>
> OK, but I am not sure what I coulda done back in 1973 when
> my money was wasting away and I was a NCG, except stop earlier
> and ask for my money back.
Study.
>
> I went in with a lot of faith, if that's following, well then
> mea culpa.
Not following means being aware of what is happening, it means taking
a cause point. When I came into Scientology I had a severe physical
condition, they put me on confessionals, objectives, grades and all
that. Much, much later I found that if a person has such he is put on
Dianetics. LRH is indeed VERY clear about that!! Had I known that
then, I would never have followed that what they put me on doing. And
of course all went terribly wrong.
>
> >> ? ? ?But I also have to point out that LRH said very clearly in Staff
> >> Status whatever, that scientology was for those that were willing to be
> >> led. ?That the path was taped, and that those what wanted to do
> >> something else except follow orders exactly would not succeed and would
> >> not be welcome.
>
> > He also wrote PAB 79 in where he made very clear that he did not
> > appreciate people that just accepted matters without willing to find
> > out for themselves what was to be true to them. HCO PL Staff Status
> > was for staff. Nonetheless it does not mean that you become a follower
> > as such.
>
> OK, this is a major problem with Hubbard, he starts off saying
> help me build a better bridge, and you pick up an E-meter
> and start playing around and suddenly you are in ethics
> for squirreling.
Squirrel is altering basics or mixing with other practices. You can
play around as long as you do not violate that.
>
> My view is he changed his mind, as he clearly said later on, that
> group efforts to find the path were too munged by their banks and he
> stopped trusting anyone to find a better route and in fact forbade it
> under penalty of eternal extermination.
Why would you think he changed his mind? He made use of research
auditors testing processes. Many helped. He never said to people to
better the Bridge for him, only to help. Not the same thing that you
propose.
>
> So what started off as a science among many turned into a cult
> of the Only One Tech Finder.
You should ask yourself if L. Ron Hubburd was around when this became
the working order...
>
> > It should not take hundreds of hours, this would be an indication that
> > something had gone wrong.
>
> Of course, but who is going to make the indication. Hours and
> hours in the freezone field resulted in the same crap.
Naturally. It only means basics violated. The Freezone builds on the
Mayo Bridge, strangely enough the CoS does the very same thing.
>
> No relief.
>
> I then became left up to me to make the indication, and to proceed
> with tech that does work ON ME, at least well enough I would have stayed
> in the church if they had used it.
>
> Anyhow I do not believe the indication lies within tghe realm of
> standard scientology as delivered by the Church in 1973 or even now. I
> am not even sure it lies in the earlier data back to 1952.
>
> Certainly Hubbard had a clue, but I think it takes more
> than one clue to build a bridge that everyone can walk who
> want's to.
>
> So my view is that present day Hubbardian Scientology is not
> complete.
All the data is there, but it is not for un-intelligent and the non-
observant individual. See, it is rather obvious that man finds himself
trapped, of course he does wrong. Of course he destructs as he is
PROGRAMMED TO DO SO for I don't know how many millennia. Therefore
follow the history track and abide to established basics.
RR
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But you need to reach full end phenomena, NED abandoned that.
>
> Postulate off is not full EP?
>
> What is then, Engram erased?
>
> How would you state the full E/P of running a R3R session?
Going over the incident of the engram run till there is no reaction
anymore. Run the engram.
You should ask yourself where the data 'Postulate off' is coming from.
Ask yourself why L. Ron Hubbard would not have come with that much,
and much earlier in time!!!! It had been 18 years since Dianetics came
out.
http://tiny.cc/1978_breakthroughs
RR
Roger Larsson
The reactive mind is a service facsimile scientology uses to make
itself right and others wrong. This service facsimile turned off makes
scientology wrong and others right.
Roadrunner
If you unriddle a trap you need to know the mechanism of how one gets
trapped. The fact that L. Ron Hubbard exposed the mechanism publicly
does indicate that what some people did with it was not his intent.
Some logic here, please...
RR
Roger Larsson
Overwhelming.
When I was in scientology in the mid 80's I told the management that I
wasn't interested in the clearing of Sweden because I wanted to clear
Russia instead and what could the management do? Not a shit.
Unfortunately fell the wall to east leaving my way out of scientology
without leaving scientology useless. The way out of scientology these
days without leaving scientology is to be more interested in the
clearing of the Moon, Mars or Venus than in the clearing of Earth.
The only prison we are captured inside is on a planet on its journey
in space. All other traps are inventions having an intention. You may
ask yourself what intention LRH had with his invention of scientology.
$ or what? Power or what?
The only trap we are trapped
ho...@lightlink.com
>> complete.
>
> All the data is there,
I am not trying to be an asshole, but really how do you know this?
A lot of data is there, and probably enough to help a bright being
find the rest. But some of that rest perhaps should have been stated up
front.
Did Ron do a perfect job?
If not, how disasterous was the job he did?
I mean really, if there were a school for Messiahs, and this Earth
was Ron's bar exam, what grade would the masters above him have given
him?
Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
> anymore. Run the engram.
>
> You should ask yourself where the data 'Postulate off' is coming from.
> Ask yourself why L. Ron Hubbard would not have come with that much,
> and much earlier in time!!!! It had been 18 years since Dianetics came
> out.
>
Homer
> http://tiny.cc/1978_breakthroughs
>
> RR
>
>>
>> ? ? Homer
>>
>>
>>
>> > RR
>>
>> >> ? ? ?Homer
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith ? ? The Paths of Lovers ? ?Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF ? ? ? ?Cross ? ? ? ? ? ?Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>> ho...@lightlink.com ? ?In the Line of Duty ? ?http://www.lightlink.com
>
--
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ? ? ?So my view is that present day Hubbardian Scientology is not
> >> complete.
>
> > All the data is there,
>
> I am not trying to be an asshole, but really how do you know this?
Closely follow the research track in the period 1950-72. Study the end
phenomena of the original OT VIII.
CLASS VIII - 1968.
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
>
> A lot of data is there, and probably enough to help a bright being
> find the rest.
Exactly.
>But some of that rest perhaps should have been stated up
> front.
>
> Did Ron do a perfect job?
>
> If not, how disasterous was the job he did?
>
> I mean really, if there were a school for Messiahs, and this Earth
> was Ron's bar exam, what grade would the masters above him have given
> him?
Scientology is still around is it not. What happened is all predicted
by L. Ron Hubbard as early as 1952, amongst other in the PDC lectures.
RR
>
> Homer
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:> Going over the incident of the engram run till there is no reaction
> > anymore. Run the engram.
>
> > You should ask yourself where the data 'Postulate off' is coming from.
> > Ask yourself why L. Ron Hubbard would not have come with that much,
> > and much earlier in time!!!! It had been 18 years since Dianetics came
> > out.
>
> Well who is responsible for NED then?
Who cares? Understand the flow of information and change and one will
know how to adapt.
RR
ho...@lightlink.com
> by L. Ron Hubbard as early as 1952, amongst other in the PDC lectures.
OK, that get's him a C.
In 100 years, it may still be around being used by the forces that
be to keep everyone implanted.
But good and worthy souls like Chuck Beatty come to mind, 100's if
not thousands of hours of auditing and his final cog is he is meat?
HOW DOES ONE EVEN DO THAT?
He came in wanting to fly and not knowing if he could or not but
hopeful in the matter.
He left still wanting to fly, but knowing he never will. How the
hell does thousands of hours of auditing take one from hope at -1 down
to ruin at -8?
Anyhow a little eduction in the proof might turn it around from
Want to fly and can't because I am meat, to
I can fly, but don't want to fly just yet, because I am
consciousness.
HOW DO YOU TAKE A CONSCIOUS UNIT AND CONVINCE IT, IT IS MADE OF
WHAT IT SEES REPRESENTED IN ITS CONSCIOUSNESS?
That's like an arcade game player thinking he is made of something
he sees in the virtual reality, or the holodeck visitor thinking he is
made of something he sees in the holodeck.
Such idiocy makes for good dreams and exciting play, but really,
isn't it time to give the lies a break once in a while?
Anyhow Chuck came into Scn to get woken up, and they put him back
to sleep. In no way did he get what got into Scientology for.
He deserves a refund and a serious apology.
And EVERYONE that so much a touched his case should have
their heads on a pike all in a row to spell out the following:
"We deliver what we promise, we promise nothing, and we deliver
nothing."
That's the motto of the Church.
Roadrunner
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Scientology is still around is it not. What happened is all predicted
> > by L. Ron Hubbard as early as 1952, amongst other in the PDC lectures.
>
> OK, that get's him a C.
“I charge you with this - - look to source writings, not to
interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to
keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it
free from some destructive ‘pitch’ or slant, then you certainly can
carry that motif a little further.
I'll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a
Galaxy away.
You won't always be here.
But before you go, whisper this to your sons, and their sons - -
‘The work was free. Keep it so.’” LRH
(from booklet ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure - Issue
One’ (first published 1957))
RR
Ted Mayett
How do you rate the entire group by this one example? You say their
motto should be "we deliver nothing" because of this one guy Chuck?
Right now, newspaper articles from defected OT's, 7's and 8's. They
appreciate the spiritual gains they achieved, but just do not agree
with management. Why not judge the entire group by one of those
statements, instead of this statement here?
You know Homer, and you do know, that the number of people who leave
scn with nothing bad to say vastly outnumber the people who leave
screeching and screaming. One of these recent newspaper articles, the
guy or girl, I forget which, while a member starts a business/company
and creates employment for 50 people. This person says they were
pleased with the spiritual side of scn. OTOH, we have basically a
nobody saying it is all nothing. No past lives, no clears, no
nothing. And which bandwagon will you jump on Homer?
Chuck would have it that years upon years went by, and thousands of
hours of auditing. And then SUDDENLY a cognition that it is all junk,
that it is all a lie. But this makes no sense, it doesn't seem
possible. What I get is a guy pretending so as to get along with the
crowd, and lucky enough not to come across an auditor or C/S with iron
in their veins. Because anybody with gumption would have put a stop
to the pretending.
This is a humorous NG here, ars. Because of what I call the ARSE's,
ARS Experts. They tell us and each other what scientologists believe,
what they have to believe, what they do and have to do and etc.
Meantime, at the CC in Vegas, here comes Tom S. A Flag trained Class
V auditor. We like each other immediately, and he says things to me
like, "if you give them too much tech at one time they think you are a
squirrel." He was staff at CC, sent to Flag, I don't know, 2 or 3
years or whatever and comes back a class v auditor.
It comes to pass one day that I learn, from Tom, that he has no past
life pictures. I say, "WHAT!". He says, "yes, no pictures, and they
are my pictures and I want them." So here we have a class v auditor
with no personal r-factor on past life memories. This is profound to
me! It kind of gives you a nice feeling about this entire scn
business, takes away that whole 'this is what you must believe or
know' scenario that you think might be in place.
Past life memories are not the end all of scn. And our Chuck here,
does he evolve to where he doubts the reality of his memories and
still is a member? NO. He turns into one of those, EVERYTHING IS BAD
AND WRONG people.
And you would judge an organization by this individual?
Shame on you.
ho...@lightlink.com
> ?I charge you with this - - look to source writings, not to
> interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
Ok, the problem for us is knowing what Ron actually wrote and
didn't actually write.
Your word, for example, is not sufficient.
Many Churchies simply write off what doesn't look good as Ron
didn't write it.
But Ron did write the original fair game.
From our viewpoint out here in the sticky dark alone, it looks like
Ron was not fully sane during the entire tenure of his existence. Or
maybe he was but his intent was not to clear.
He seems god awful decent during 1952 pdc's for example.
But later on, he's just a make wrong artist Only One.
At some point it becomes moot WHO wrote it, all that remains is to
determine if it makes sense or not.
Because judging the truth of something by who wrote it, is in the
end folly, unless one is not allowed to determine the truth of things
independently and to come up with further truth missed by the local
Messiah. Then knowing who wrote what is you best sorry bet.
Independent discover and verification of course violates the whole
sense of Scn, because although Ron told us to see for ourselves if
something was true, it wasn't allowed to eventually determine it wasn't
true without getting excommunicated from the group.
And we certainly were never allowed to try something different to
verify that it DIDN'T work, in search for something that worked better.
And his hatred of the freezone does not speak well of him at all.
And I find it specious to believe that Ron wanted the freezone
to exist so that the independents could work.
That would have been big of him, maybe, but he just wasn't that
big. He wanted it all for himself, 'competition is a trick of the
weak to fetter the strong.'
The hell it is.
And anyone who falls for that crap deserves what he gets, and it is
not just a matter of purging from one's self things that Ron didn't
write, one needs to purge RON from one's self, and start a new, and work
it out yourself, and if in the end you agree with Ron, he lucks out.
Ron's willingness to let people actually think and act for
themselves was nil. Sure we could disagree, but not in the group, and
the only way we could contribute was to obey, accept and agree.
Our desire to stay in the group at any cost is what led to the
dispensing of our personal integrity to the winds.
We figured the group was more important to our ultimate survival
than the lies we were assimilating as truth because we dared not be
alone.
So that leaves us with almost having to figure the whole thing out
again from scratch, which is fine by me, as I am sure a better faster
route can be found as far as approach is concerned.
Often just to get to the cog, I have to reboot my entire mind to a
state BEFORE Hubbard.
Trying to remember 'what hubbard said' to every condition or
problem or auditing slow down is a fast way into the gutter.
But it also leaves it almost impossible to deal with the Church and
those in it, who are not free to say, this is nuts, or this is nuts and
Ron DID write it.
And when faced with some churchie tell him:
"Oh and don't you know, Ron was half Genius and half IDIOT?"
"Can you span that dicom you half wit?"
> If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to
> keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it
> free from some destructive ?pitch? or slant, then you certainly can
> carry that motif a little further.
Not a little further, but in fact entirely, the entire burden,
because where before we accepted what Ron said at face value, has to be
redetermined all over again.
It doesn't have to be DISCOVERED all over again, but frankly I feel
the work he did was only about 10 to 20 percent effective on existing
population, most of whom were already 80 percent the way to OT.
When he first started, every OT on the planet walked in, and so of
course Ron was 'making OTs every day' and stats were high and you
couldn't put an ash in an ashtray because people would continue to move
them out from under you.
But when the real cases, the step 5's and below came in, it became
one long nightmare grind.
That is in part because almost every single OT that walked into the
Church couldn't mockup a Black 5 case if their lives depended on it.
Hubbard said that if you just continue to audit a meatball, he will
eventually realize he is immortal.
In fact I don't personally believe that Hubbard or anyone else in
Scientology ever actually in fact transited a being from meatball to
dreamball.
And your average dreamball OT couldn't mockup the infinite charge
on a mortal meatball if all their OTHER lives depended on it.
So you get all these very high and able beings, who just can't
understand what the problem is.
Because there is nothing wrong with the tech, and there is nothing
wrong with Ron, who was a Idiot Savant at best, and a Toxic Narcicist at
worst, and there is nothing wrong with US, so it must be YOU that is the
problem.
And so they blame the pc.
And now Scientology has more people WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT, who
weer once PROUD TO BE PART OF IT, angry with it, than who still adore it.
And everyone of those angry pissed off pc's, I don't care WHAT
crimes they have committed are right, because you know what, the CHURCH
has committed more crimes against humanity and the entire universe than
all those pc's put together in a million years.
And that Church is Ron's creation.
I do not buy that Ron was pure, and all ill comes from those that
tried to do him in. The ill comes from those who are trying to be like
Ron and who can't admit they are wrong.
Homer
Dennis L Erlich
Dennis
ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
---------------------------------------
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
Slarty
this: Do you think the entire concept of squirrel meritless?
How are we ever going to get the antis to realize that mostly what lrh
did his entire career in scientology, was work his ass off on refining
processes (an idea clearly true, and which they clearly don't
realize), when you go w/ posts like this?
On Jan 2, 5:22 pm, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
> In article <f69fb009-9d16-49a6-9413-934e623f3...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> you wrote:
> > ?I charge you with this - - look to source writings, not to
> > interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
>
> Ok, the problem for us is knowing what Ron actually wrote and
> didn't actually write.
>
> Your word, for example, is not sufficient.
>
> Many Churchies simply write off what doesn't look good as Ron
> didn't write it.
HUH?!?!?!?!?
>
> But Ron did write the original fair game.
>
> From our viewpoint out here in the sticky dark alone, it looks like
> Ron was not fully sane during the entire tenure of his existence. Or
> maybe he was but his intent was not to clear.
see my introductory post.
>
> He seems god awful decent during 1952 pdc's for example.
>
> But later on, he's just a make wrong artist Only One.
>
> At some point it becomes moot WHO wrote it, all that remains is to
> determine if it makes sense or not.
Yet there probably is a "you're not the boss of me!" part of the
reactive mind; so this can become tricky.
>
> Because judging the truth of something by who wrote it, is in the
> end folly, unless one is not allowed to determine the truth of things
> independently and to come up with further truth missed by the local
> Messiah. Then knowing who wrote what is your best sorry bet.
>
> Independent discovery and verification of course violates the whole
> sense of Scn, because although Ron told us to see for ourselves if
> something was true, it wasn't allowed to eventually determine it wasn't
> true without getting excommunicated from the group.
Even early on there were injunctions against self-auditing.
>
> And we certainly were never allowed to try something different to
> verify that it DIDN'T work, in search for something that worked better.
We are all free to do what we please. What we choose to do may upset
a group we are pretending to be a part of. 8 dynamics.
>
> And his hatred of the freezone does not speak well of him at all.
>
> And I find it specious to believe that Ron wanted the freezone
> to exist so that the independents could work.
To what does this refer? To the idea that Ron might have wanted fz
and co$, even tho he never acked fz validity?
>
> That would have been big of him, maybe, but he just wasn't that
> big. He wanted it all for himself, 'competition is a trick of the
> weak to fetter the strong.'
>
> The hell it is.
>
> And anyone who falls for that crap deserves what he gets, and it is
> not just a matter of purging from one's self things that Ron didn't
> write, one needs to purge RON from one's self, and start anew, and work
> it out onesself, and if in the end you agree with Ron, he lucks out.
Right. Either the co$/Ron never took all that "make it your own"
stuff seriously; or they expect people to be up to "pay's yer money
and you takes yer chances" on the tone scale; high toned enough to
make tough decisions/live by them.
>
> Ron's willingness to let people actually think and act for
> themselves was nil. Sure we could disagree, but not in the group, and
> the only way we could contribute was to obey, accept and agree.
>
> Our desire to stay in the group at any cost is what led to the
> dispensing of our personal integrity to the winds.
>
> We figured the group was more important to our ultimate survival
> than the lies we were assimilating as truth because we dared not be
> alone.
>
> So that leaves us with almost having to figure the whole thing out
> again from scratch, which is fine by me, as I am sure a better faster
> route can be found as far as approach is concerned.
>
> Often just to get to the cog, I have to reboot my entire mind to a
> state BEFORE Hubbard.
>
> Trying to remember 'what hubbard said' to every condition or
> problem or auditing slow down is a fast way into the gutter.
>
> But it also leaves it almost impossible to deal with the Church and
> those in it, who are not free to say, this is nuts, or this is nuts and
> Ron DID write it.
>
> And when faced with some churchie tell him:
>
> "Oh and don't you know, Ron was half Genius and half IDIOT?"
Ron was Married. Committed. On the cross. Think it thru.
>
> "Can you span that dicom you half wit?"
>
> > If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to
> > keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it
> > free from some destructive ?pitch? or slant, then you certainly can
> > carry that motif a little further.
I think I've said before, Homer. Some of them squirrels is
squirrels. Do you ack that?!
>
> Not a little further, but in fact entirely, the entire burden,
> because where before we accepted what Ron said at face value, has to be
> redetermined all over again.
>
> It doesn't have to be DISCOVERED all over again, but frankly I feel
> the work he did was only about 10 to 20 percent effective on existing
> population, most of whom were already 80 percent the way to OT.
>
> When he first started, every OT on the planet walked in, and so of
> course Ron was 'making OTs every day' and stats were high and you
> couldn't put an ash in an ashtray because people would continue to move
> them out from under you.
>
> But when the real cases, the step 5's and below came in, it became
> one long nightmare grind.
>
> That is in part because almost every single OT that walked into the
> Church couldn't mockup a Black 5 case if their lives depended on it.
>
> Hubbard said that if you just continue to audit a meatball, he will
> eventually realize he is immortal.
>
> In fact I don't personally believe that Hubbard or anyone else in
> Scientology ever actually in fact transited a being from meatball to
> dreamball.
Wow! I disagree w/ you here. I think I hear an fp speaking! For
crying out loud, that awareness raise has gone on even before co$, for
millenia. Try working w/arc streightwire on plack basalt pc's for a
while, before making that statement.
>
> And your average dreamball OT couldn't mockup the infinite charge
> on a mortal meatball if all their OTHER lives depended on it.
>
> So you get all these very high and able beings, who just can't
> understand what the problem is.
>
> Because there is nothing wrong with the tech, and there is nothing
> wrong with Ron, who was an Idiot Savant at best, and a Toxic Narcicist at
> worst,
Maybe.
and there is nothing wrong with US, so it must be YOU that is the
> problem.
>
> And so they blame the pc.
>
> And now Scientology has more people WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT, who
> were once PROUD TO BE PART OF IT, angry with it, than who still adore it.
>
> And everyone of those angry pissed off pc's, I don't care WHAT
> crimes they have committed are right, because you know what, the CHURCH
> has committed more crimes against humanity and the entire universe than
> all those pc's put together in a million years.
Do you feel it even possible your exagerating?
>
> And that Church is Ron's creation.
>
> I do not buy that Ron was pure, and all ill comes from those that
> tried to do him in.
Ron took a look no one else did/made a group to keep theta pure /
repurify theta. Did he do it EXACTLY RIGHT? Probably not; but can
you see that there's a pov where that's small potatoes, compared to
accomplishment?
The ill comes from those who are trying to be like
> Ron and who can't admit they are wrong.
>
> Homer
Hoping for better understanding
TMS
ho...@lightlink.com
> I think I may have a lot to say on this 1 Homer. I would start from
> this: Do you think the entire concept of squirrel meritless?
*EVERYTHING* has to be revisited as the original work is not pure of
intent among being unbelievably incomptenent in many areas.
Better than anything produced before, but still a shit hole
to get stuck in and tainted up the wazoo with subtle traps.
As ADORE says: There are many ways up the mountain, but most of
them go around in circles on the side.
Most any process will work that follows the basic structure of the
bank and the axioms. Truth works, as-isness always works, but getting a
guy stuck in black tar to as-is anything is a different matter.
It is not sufficient to merely say 'remedy havingness on black and
invisible masses' to deal with the Black V or Black Infinity case.
Things like 'auditor plus pc is bigger than the pcs bank' is a
highly relative statement, and more a hope than a fundamental truth.
Once the pc can put the auditor there, the auditor becomes extraneous
and a danger.
That the pc can't do it alone is probably bogus, except at the
beginning, even Ron admits that.
But of course trying to audit flow 1 motivators just pulls the bank
in hard and it is probably a waste of time trying to solo dianetics on
it. But flow 2 pushes the bank out and solo is possible.
The hard thing about solo is learning to cry.
Learn to cry, and the engrams WILL turn on, and you WILL run them
solo.
But beyond that, their whole way of assessing items without
assessing for the NO item FIRST is just totally failure prone.
You can assess an entire C/S 53 RJ totally dry, and blame it on the
pc that nothing reads or the auditor's TR's etc.
THATS FALSE.
Put in the NO item, and suddenly reads are everywhere and the SOME
item comes alive again and you couldn't put an auditor in the room bad
enough to kill the reads.
Suppress and invalidate skirt around the issue, but do not nail it.
You don't asses for suppress and invalidate only after failing SOME
item, you asses for NO ITEM BEFORE assessing for SOME ITEM, and THEN if
you can't get it into sync and reading you can check all the other
precheck buttons including nailed out of existence.
That would be considered squirrel by Hubbard and the Church, but
its fantastic tech to know and follow on EVERY assessment.
Squirreling meant acting like a squirrel in a cage on a running
wheel. To me it meant a squirrel looking for nuts in the ground after
it forgot where it hid them, and after checking the CORRECT place but
not completely, then going off looking elsewhere thinking it must be
wrong.
When the right thing fails people start to get inventive, and
usually its an error. But sometimes the 'right thing,' is just
unworkable politically correct garbage.
When the real right thing is missed or bypassed, all hell breaks
loose.
SCIENTOLOGY WAS AND IS A LIVING SCIENCE AND A WORK IN PROGRESS.
Well in the freezone it is.
In the Church it is just dead dogma.
SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT A DONE DEAL, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.
That is for know it alls and other spritually congenital idiots.
Or when grind and blowoff are confused. "What turns it on turns it
off" is probably one of THE most dangerous things in Scn, mostly because
it ONLY applies to blowoffs, but does not apply to grinds and the stupid
auditor can't tell the difference.
Running wrong why's or items can make a pc very sick, so we
continue to run them until they release?
That's what they RPF does, day in and day out.
The idea that Ron had it all right for every person, or that it WAS
right but then got altered is just a lot of crap. He got it somewhat
right, rude and crude and it bogged down but good and hard on many.
Then everyone else messed it up beyond recognition, and that ruined it
for most everyone else.
Particularly those who had some awareness, possibly more than he
had.
> How are we ever going to get the antis to realize that mostly what lrh
> did his entire career in scientology, was work his ass off on refining
> processes (an idea clearly true, and which they clearly don't
> realize), when you go w/ posts like this?
Not my goal to prove the SP wrong.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PTSNESS.
The antis have no interest in knowing the truth about Ron.
The antis are dramatizing psychotics who can not think beyond their
bank phrases.
The real people who are truely interested in clearing need to know
that an Idiot Savant was sent to do the job, and it reeks of his idiocy
and his genius, and his toxic ego.
Electra said it best:
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm0.memo
"...
THE STANDARD BRIDGE TO TOTAL FREEDOM
Present day Scientology at its best works somewhat for everyone,
and works completely for a few.
The labors of one man for one lifetime were not enough to solve all
the problems of all the world. It would be preposterous to assert
otherwise. However such a goal is in far distant sight and eventually
Scientology will, over time, become a more complete science. This means
becoming more workable and functional for more and more people.
I doubt that any science of the mind can ever just totally ARRIVE,
((arrive is a Scientology word meaning to come to term, to be complete
and workable)) a thetan's penchant for creating serious aberration will
always out strip anyone's efforts to bring peace and freedom to the
entire universe. It's now a big universe out there if you haven't
looked recently.
The best you can do is create a roadway out for those who are able
to walk it. Given the imperfections of a man, any bridge so built will
not be perfect and so also not be workable for everyone. That is what
'this Bridge is not perfect' means. Not everyone can walk it ((in a
reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money.))
((Ron used to say that Scn was for the able, but there are many
able people who aren't able enough to walk that bridge in the Church
without getting deeper into ruin, and in the end the Auditor that blames
the honest pc, damns himself.))
Just because you WANT to walk the bridge to total freedom does not
mean you necessarily will be able to. That will depend on the wisdom
that both you and its builders bring to the matter.
The assertion by the Church of Scientology that anyone who WANTS to
walk their Bridge can, is just plumb wrong, as is the implication that
anyone who can't walk their Bridge is a suppressive who not only doesn't
want to walk their Bridge but doesn't want anyone else to walk it
either.
Thus, to them, if you TRY to walk their bridge and fail, you become
FAIR GAME. This is unfair and insane.
The important question therefore, is whether Scientology has
arrived for YOU, and whether it is sufficient to help you walk your own
personal Bridge to Total Freedom.
If you found that present day Scientology did work for you as
expected, it would still be an incredible arrogance for you to then
presume that the tech which worked for you could help everyone and
anyone; some people have created traps for themselves that are much
darker than even you can imagine. Witness the beings on NOTS.
To then declare someone SP because they give up in disgust with
your tech is really stupid as it makes them an enemy of you and your
tech and you lose the benefit of their help to a higher tech.
There are SP's, a very few of them are actually walking around in
the world. Most of them are sound asleep in people's bodies as NOT's
beings or joined from the beginning of time with the thetan you are
trying to audit.
Declare them as you will, but even they will one day be knocking on
your door for auditing. Probably sooner than you think.
Do you know how to audit a snoring zombie with a gun in one hand
and a gang of thugs in the other?
The RTC does not have a standardly workable Tech, and if it did it
would not apply it. There is much more money in planned obsolescence, a
tech that offers endless hope but never final relief.
You must also look at the dollars per division of TA aspect of the
thing. Who is making all the money collected on their Toll Bridge to
Total Freedom?
Whose total freedom are we working for anyhow, theirs or ours?
One last point, the RTC is always making such a big deal about how
if it weren't for Ron, the Church of Scientology and the RTC you would
never have been able to receive Scientology services or auditing in the
first place.
Their implication is that Ron spent thousands and thousands of
years researching the mind and the way to your personal freedom TOTALLY
ALONE AND WITH OUT YOUR HELP! What is this one way flow here? You owe
Ron everything and Ron owes you nothing? That idea serves someone's
pocket book and it isn't yours.
The fact is that the discovery of the tech was an accomplishment
across many beings and many lifetimes, Ron learned the tech and was
helped by thousands and thousands of beings along the way. Others have
researched the tech long before Ron ever dreamed there was an answer,
others who have long since departed to that OT play ground in the sky.
Earth itself is only one of some 30 odd planets in our local group,
of which Earth is a prison planet, a prison planet with no guards or
asylum doctors, except perhaps those who are asylum inmates themselves.
Quite a few of those other planets have Scientology projects going
along on them, and some of them are doing quite a bit better than we
are. They each have their own founders and their own way of doing
things. Ron's statement that 'in the whole wide universe we are the
only hope for mankind' must be understood in it's correct light.
'We' doesn't refer to just us Scientologists here on Earth, but to
Scientologists of many different independent tracks of development on
many different planets at this time.
The Scientologists on THOSE planets would probably prefer that we
Scientologists here on Earth would just blow ourselves up for the mess
we are making of it.
Scientology, good workable Scientology, is very wide spread in the
local group, although a majority of these planets are still barbarisms
or near barbarisms like Earth.
The survival of Scientology is not guaranteed here on Earth yet, as
it is on some of these other planets, and the present day schism between
the Church and the Free Zone is a clear sign that things are not going
well here.
The present day management of the Church of Scientology is clearly
much more interested in money than they are in divisions of TA. They
claim it is all done in your best interests, they need the money to keep
the Church alive and provide you with a route to total freedom.
If carried to its logical extreme though you can see that the best
way to keep the Church alive forever is to keep people here and
suffering FOREVER so that they will continue to need the Church FOREVER
and therefore support it in its suppressive activities with their hard
earned money.
People will pay everything they own in the name of HOPE, and they
will blame themselves if their route is slow. Their route does not need
to be slow, but there is less money in a fast Toll Free Bridge, so it is
designed to be slow and expensive and possibly even asymptotically
endless, GOING THERE but never GETTING THERE.
Without money who will feed the Keepers of the Tech?
Thus some people manage to put THE GOAL TO HAVE A CHURCH and THE
GOAL TO GO FREE in total opposition to each other.
Having and dramatizing such a GPM is in fact a prerequisite for
becoming upper management in the Church of Scientology. They purge
everyone else.
In present time the goal to have a church is winning.
In the field the goal TO HAVE WORKABLE TECH is winning.
However it may not be Ron's tech, chemistry today is not
Lavoisier's chemistry of 200 years ago. However Lavoisier is probably
still around in his present incarnation doing his best to make chemistry
better.
By the way the French Revolution lopped off Lavoisier's head for
discovering oxygen. 'We don't need no intellectuals in this here new
society' they told him.
Anyhow, if you really want to give the RTC the shivers, just
consider that when Ron does comes back he will probably start off his
new Scientology career as a Free Zoner, using the complete
conglomeration of his already existing tech and all the new tech found
in the field, producing more new tech of his own until the day he feels
strong enough to come back in and take over his damn Church again.
And I assure you that day will be rolling thunder.
No doubt Ron will copyright all the new stuff he learns in the Free
Zone under his own name, but what the hell...
Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
>> didn't write it.
>
> HUH?!?!?!?!?
Ron wrote lots of stuff that when exposed is dismissed ROUTINELY as
Ron didn't write it, some suppresive did.
Bull shit, Ron wrote it.
SOMETIMES Ron didn't write it.
I don't know how Dianetics came before the Grades on the
Grade Chart.
How can you run an engram if you are still using it?
This idea that Ron was perfect and everyone around him a flaming
asshole is not the truth.
>> ? ? ?Independent discovery and verification of course violates the whole
>> sense of Scn, because although Ron told us to see for ourselves if
>> something was true, it wasn't allowed to eventually determine it wasn't
>> true without getting excommunicated from the group.
>
> Even early on there were injunctions against self-auditing.
Most self auditing is question asking, thinking, figure figuring,
getting into wrong whys etc.
But nothing wrong with getting quiet and saying with full intent,
"Go to the beginning of the incident, tell me when you are there, what
is the date and duration, what do you see, move through to the end" AND
THEN RUN IT FORWARD AND BACKWARDS A FEW TIMES just to piss Hubbard and
the standard techies off, and then go earlier bigger/similar or
whatever."
The JOKE is the pc is IN the engram that needs to be run,
there is no need to move around on the track to find it.
That's like trying to run someone else's engram while you hang
on your own cross.
Sure, you might luck out and find a case that isn't nailed to a
cross, stuck on the track, you just want to get those engrams out of the
way so they can't restim later. Have fun its easy auditing.
But in solo the PROBLEM is the pc has to get the phrases in the
bank every one of which tells him nothing here, didn't happen, go away,
how dare you etc.
He has to understand without question that question asking is not
auditing, running an engram is NOT asking questions about it, thinking
about it, analyzing it, figuring out anything about it, but letting it
turn on and rip, and he is lucky to be alive at the end of it to report
what happened.
But beyond that engrams are locks on GPMS, so he really needs to
understand that his every effort to breath is a state of war with
something immortal that went to hell, and above that something Eternal
that is still going on.
It is much easier to audit someone else who is clueless through an
engram than audit yourself with all your knowledge.
>> ? ? ?And we certainly were never allowed to try something different to
>> verify that it DIDN'T work, in search for something that worked better.
>
> We are all free to do what we please. What we choose to do may upset
> a group we are pretending to be a part of. 8 dynamics.
Pretending? Actually I would have considered experimenting around
and squirreling my ass off as BEING part of that group, a group of
clearing tech finders.
But Hubbard didn't want any tech finders but himself.
>> ? ? ?And I find it specious to believe that Ron wanted the freezone
>> to exist so that the independents could work.
>
> To what does this refer? To the idea that Ron might have wanted fz
> and co$, even tho he never acked fz validity?
Yeah sure, it is a common theme among many people, he felt he had
to create the Church for one kind of people, but he knew the independent
old growth OT's would revolt, and so he made sure they were kicked out
where they could continue the work and keep clearing a live science
rather than a petrified dogma.
NO SCIENCE OF ANYTHING COMES TO FRUITION IN ONE LIFE TIME OF ONE
MAN.
> Right. Either the co$/Ron never took all that "make it your own"
> stuff seriously; or they expect people to be up to "pay's yer money
> and you takes yer chances" on the tone scale; high toned enough to
> make tough decisions/live by them.
I think Ron meant it seriously when he said it, but when it came to
the practicality of daily operation, there was no place for it.
>> > ?If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to
>> > keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it
>> > free from some destructive ?pitch? or slant, then you certainly can
>> > carry that motif a little further.
>
> I think I've said before, Homer. Some of them squirrels is
> squirrels. Do you ack that?!
Define squirrel.
There are those that simply can't admit they didn't invent it, NOT
INVENTED HERE, so they have to go off and alter.
There are those that made an honest effort to make various things
work, and failed. They went off and tried to find another path.
There are those who altered unknowingly what Hubbard had said, or
who just didn't persist long enough, or rabbited away from the pain and
grief, and concluded wrongly that they were on the wrong path. They
then went seeking another path. These are my squirrels.
There are those who know damn well the tech works in various ways,
and intentionally alter it in order to mess people up.
The term 'squirrel' is a derogatory term that disallows
discrimination which is the height of sanity.
Electra said it well:
"What's the difference between a nigger and a squirrel?
The nigger's a human being.
My apoliges to those of African descent, I hope you got the point."
The point was that squirrel was an effort to denigrate a being, and
make them 100 percent compliant and in agreement, regardless of the
circumstances.
And tech being insufficient was just not one of the possibilities.
See OPERATING THE TECH.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act43.memo
>> ? ? ?In fact I don't personally believe that Hubbard or anyone else in
>> Scientology ever actually in fact transited a being from meatball to
>> dreamball.
>
> Wow! I disagree w/ you here. I think I hear an fp speaking! For
> crying out loud, that awareness raise has gone on even before co$, for
> millenia. Try working w/arc streightwire on plack basalt pc's for a
> while, before making that statement.
OK, I stand by it.
A true black basalt pc can't FIND any affinity, reality or
communication to run. It brings him down tone to even try.
The transition from meatball to dreamball is an infinite
transition. It can kill the body.
Lots of dreamballs walked into the Church sort of asleep, and yes
they got woken up, but they never bought into the meatball thing hook
line and sinker.
I am willing to be wrong. I would like to talk to one of them.
>> ? ? ?And everyone of those angry pissed off pc's, I don't care WHAT
>> crimes they have committed are right, because you know what, the CHURCH
>> has committed more crimes against humanity and the entire universe than
>> all those pc's put together in a million years.
>
> Do you feel it even possible your exagerating?
Sure, do you feel it even possible you are glib about the damage
done?
Most of it is recoverable, but only for a while, and I don't see
that recovery happening in sight yet.
>> ? ? ?I do not buy that Ron was pure, and all ill comes from those that
>> tried to do him in.
>
> Ron took a look no one else did/made a group to keep theta pure /
> repurify theta. Did he do it EXACTLY RIGHT? Probably not; but can
> you see that there's a pov where that's small potatoes, compared to
> accomplishment?
No, because for a God, the accomplishment could lead Earth into one
of the world's greatest dark ages from which it never returns.
If you can help, you can harm, the responsibility is enormous.
For me the jury is still out.
I do believe that Ron wanted to help in the beginning, but
somewhere, somehow he sold out to his GPMS, and ended up working for the
cosmic OT military industrial complex.
I can even admire that, but I personally am one of his nightmares
he failed to run out on that GPM sashay.
Homer
ho...@lightlink.com
> On 2 Jan 2010 20:22:26 -0500, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
> WOW, Homer, I never knew until now what you really presented.
Yeah me and my speech writers had to go over it a number of times
before we all thought it would sell.
Glad the troll worked.
Homer
--
Roadrunner
> In article <f69fb009-9d16-49a6-9413-934e623f3...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> you wrote:
> > ?I charge you with this - - look to source writings, not to
> > interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.
>
> Ok, the problem for us is knowing what Ron actually wrote and
> didn't actually write.
>
> Your word, for example, is not sufficient.
It is not a problem in particular, the problem is to get people
awaken. I never claimed that my word would suffice.
>
> Many Churchies simply write off what doesn't look good as Ron
> didn't write it.
>
> But Ron did write the original fair game.
Yeah, and why was that? And what exactly did it involve? If you are an
oldtimer Scientologists then why don't you consider that what happened
during the early 60's?
>
> From our viewpoint out here in the sticky dark alone, it looks like
> Ron was not fully sane during the entire tenure of his existence. Or
> maybe he was but his intent was not to clear.
It looks like that from your point of view, but what may that tell
about you.
>
> He seems god awful decent during 1952 pdc's for example.
>
> But later on, he's just a make wrong artist Only One.
>
> At some point it becomes moot WHO wrote it, all that remains is to
> determine if it makes sense or not.
>
> Because judging the truth of something by who wrote it, is in the
> end folly, unless one is not allowed to determine the truth of things
> independently and to come up with further truth missed by the local
> Messiah. Then knowing who wrote what is you best sorry bet.
Matters are not judged by WHO wrote something, I never implied that.
>
> Independent discover and verification of course violates the whole
> sense of Scn, because although Ron told us to see for ourselves if
> something was true, it wasn't allowed to eventually determine it wasn't
> true without getting excommunicated from the group.
>
> And we certainly were never allowed to try something different to
> verify that it DIDN'T work, in search for something that worked better.
Is that something that YOU did?
>
> And his hatred of the freezone does not speak well of him at all.
There is no source for him saying anything about the freezone.
The remainder you write is just a whole lot of justification.
RR
Andrew Robertson
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8d786f5-59d9-4622...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Jan, 02:22, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
<snip>
> The remainder you write is just a whole lot of justification.
And why is 'justification' something to be sneered at?
Everyone justifies their actions and beliefs according to their own
perceptions, ethical standards and philosophy of the world as they see it.
And everyone is different.
Homer is attempting to engage you in a critical and serious discussion about
the fundamental beliefs and history of Scientology and Dianetics.
He is obviously interested in your opinions. Your dismissive comment may
cause him to lose interest.
Sometimes, getting out of your body and seeing a personal interaction as a
disinterested observer is helpful in understanding another's viewpoint.
Regards
Andrew
disinterest, noun.
freedom from selfish bias or self-interest; impartiality.
uninterest, noun
lack of interest; indifference.
> RR
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b8d786f5-59d9-4622...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Jan, 02:22, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The remainder you write is just a whole lot of justification.
>
> And why is 'justification' something to be sneered at?
Because it means not looking...
>
> Everyone justifies their actions and beliefs according to their own
> perceptions, ethical standards and philosophy of the world as they see it.
Not true, only the reactive mind does...
>
> And everyone is different.
>
> Homer is attempting to engage you in a critical and serious discussion about
> the fundamental beliefs and history of Scientology and Dianetics.
>
> He is obviously interested in your opinions. Your dismissive comment may
> cause him to lose interest.
He already lost that...
RR
ho...@lightlink.com
>> "We deliver what we promise, we promise nothing, and we deliver
>>nothing."
>>
>> That's the motto of the Church.
>>
>> Homer
>
> How do you rate the entire group by this one example? You say their
> motto should be "we deliver nothing" because of this one guy Chuck?
You know better. I been involved with many many disenfranchised
people leaving the Church is disgust, and fear, and hopelessness, and
sorrow.
My saddest day was the day I left Flag as NCG and THOUSANDS of
dollars poorer, in fact had nothing left, and I was reading all the wins
on the wins board.
I had never had a win in 400 hours of auditing, the last 72 of
which were at Flag. My whole future was crushed, every dream I had
about being an auditor and attaining spiritual freedom and awareness of
immortality in this life was blown to the wind.
I didn't know what to think, was everyone winning but me?
Or were all those wins bogus, just wishing thinking.
Or worse forced.
Or maybe I am an SP, in which case you get what you get from me.
> Right now, newspaper articles from defected OT's, 7's and 8's. They
> appreciate the spiritual gains they achieved, but just do not agree
> with management. Why not judge the entire group by one of those
> statements, instead of this statement here?
Well I would say that the vast majority will tell you that for all
those gains, they did not get what they came into scientology for, that
the subject was vastly over hyped, and now its time to move on.
When I was in St Louis one long hot summer back in 1991 getting
auditing from Filbert, there was this chinese food shop on the highway
that had the worlds best pot stickers bar none. Never seen or tasted
anything like it since.
Is that all the Church is, just something we pass through never to
see again? "Hey Ron, great hamburger, hope I find more down the road,
see ya around!"
I personally got into scientology for the long haul, and I am sure
other's did too.
Those that left silently and not screaming, just how happy are they
with their gains?
A few are still practicing in the Freezone, a few probably ran the
need for auditing out, but my opinion the vast majority are still
licking their wounds and if they were honest they would admit that they
still want a spiritual technology that works well, cheaply and across
all people including solo.
That is not an upstat my friend, that is fucking liability, danger,
enemy and treason to the population of Earth all rolled into one.
> You know Homer, and you do know, that the number of people who leave
> scn with nothing bad to say vastly outnumber the people who leave
> screeching and screaming.
Actually no I don't know this, the vast number may have passed
through scientology looking for something which they should have found,
didn't find it moved on.
Very few of the ones that talk to me have anything kind to
say about it, even those that were in it.
I think most of those that left the Church are like me who when I
buy an item that turns out to be too cheap or broken to comment on, I
just toss it out and don't even bother to try to return it. But I don't
come back that's for sure.
One of these recent newspaper articles, the
> guy or girl, I forget which, while a member starts a business/company
> and creates employment for 50 people. This person says they were
> pleased with the spiritual side of scn. OTOH, we have basically a
> nobody saying it is all nothing. No past lives, no clears, no
> nothing. And which bandwagon will you jump on Homer?
Anything that anyone says while in the Church under their thumb is
suspect. I know lots and lots and lots of people who swore up and down
how great Scientology was WHILE THEY WERE IN IT, but the day they left
the truth came out.
> Chuck would have it that years upon years went by, and thousands of
> hours of auditing. And then SUDDENLY a cognition that it is all junk,
> that it is all a lie. But this makes no sense, it doesn't seem
> possible. What I get is a guy pretending so as to get along with the
> crowd, and lucky enough not to come across an auditor or C/S with iron
> in their veins. Because anybody with gumption would have put a stop
> to the pretending.
Maybe, that's your spin on it.
My spin is it is quite possible to audit people into things that
reconvince them of the MEST universe without running it out.
My spin is Chuck was honest and looking and believed and was mis
handled. Your spin is that he was more like Phil, dishonest from the
word go, gaily attesting up the bridge, and then finally had to admit it
was all bogus.
> It comes to pass one day that I learn, from Tom, that he has no past
> life pictures. I say, "WHAT!". He says, "yes, no pictures, and they
> are my pictures and I want them." So here we have a class v auditor
> with no personal r-factor on past life memories. This is profound to
> me! It kind of gives you a nice feeling about this entire scn
> business, takes away that whole 'this is what you must believe or
> know' scenario that you think might be in place.
Well Grade V is ability to handle power, and one's ability to make
mockups should be quite evident by that time, and only those that don't
'believe' in past lives would have no problem with not having run into
them by Grade V.
In fact I would say that anyone who finished Dianetics and never
had a picture turn on once was doing something else while getting
auditing. Or else the auditor and C/S just sucked rocks.
Certainly they had not run the assumption of taking over
the body which is where the pictures really start turning on.
It means your Grade V was a this life time mest being only,
never having gone whole track at all for anything.
I don't know, it was a pig pen at my Org, and when the public pigs
become auditors and C/S's it is still a pig pen.
Actually I would find it quite serious to have never run a picture
of another existence, as basic Dianetics should take one past life EVEN
IF NOT ONE'S OWN. Most of the engrams that one is suffering from
belonged to others, using other's engrams aids in confusing the
opponents in this life that tended to not believe you about the
sicknesses etc.
Most Black V's, are in very serious condition, and I know advanced
case people who still can't make a mockup that persists, and they just
slough it off as unimportant.
> Past life memories are not the end all of scn.
OT IV is awareness of self as an immortal being.
Maybe one gets that without contacting a single past
existence including between lives before taking on this body,
but I doubt it.
The end all of Scn is spiritual freedom, and that certainly
entails awareness of full responsibility for having taken
on a body in this life, and where and what one was doing before
this life that led up to this one.
And our Chuck here,
> still is a member? NO. He turns into one of those, EVERYTHING IS BAD
> AND WRONG people.
Yes he didn't get what he came into Scientology to get, and he
eventually cognited that it was not available in Scn, nor anywhere else.
What I picked up from him, he knew he hadn't made the grade on 0,
just like I knew I hadn't made the grade on Life Repair, and we both
deattested and stayed within our personal integrity.
> And you would judge an organization by this individual?
> Shame on you.
You know better than this nonsense, there are so many case failures
in Scientology, from ground 0 on up to OT, they pile up like the
confisticated machetes at the border between those two countries in
Africa.
On the other hand I am NCG, so what do I know.
Other than years and years of talking with people who left
and who wanted to leave.
ASK ANYONE IN SCIENTOLOGY OR OUT:
DID YOU GET WHAT YOU CAME INTO SCIENTOLOGY FOR.
See what happens.
Ala
"Slarty" <thaddeu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a07c2f28-165b-437a...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>I think I may have a lot to say on this 1 Homer. I would start from
>this: Do you think the entire concept of squirrel meritless?
I wasn't as impressed as the senders.
I think goats are supposed to climb small and narrow and aerial spots
And I think monkeys are supposed to do acrobatics
I would have been far more impressed by a fish on a high wire
Ala
<ho...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:4b3d...@news2.lightlink.com...
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ? ? ?So my view is that present day Hubbardian Scientology is not
>>> complete.
>>
>> All the data is there,
>
> I am not trying to be an asshole, but really how do you know this?
>
>
I'll bet he's a union organizer
Ala
On Dec 26, 10:31 pm, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
> In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Good, then you know about Standard Dianetics as opposed to NED. 2
> > different things they are.
>
> My Dianetics training was in Dianetics Today, CA 1973.
>
> I don't believe there is a public book on NED, is that right?
>
> >> ? ? ?My goal is a solo route, and I probably 2 or 3 hours of solo on
> >> me,
>
> 2 or 3 hours PER DAY across 30 years, sorry.
>
> > I am very much historical oriented. You see, organizations CHANGE, the
> > people within it will CHANGE matters, they always do. One should keep
> > in mind, as LRH made very clear, that the basics within the subjects
> > Dianetics/Scientology have not and did not ever change. If these
> > change, then you know something has gone in the wrong direction. That
> > is why one should never become a follower.
>
> Yes, me not a follower that is for sure.
>
> > The question is, why should ethics bother with me?
>
> Because you communicate freely with known declared SP's and thus
> are not disconnecting from known forces hostile to scientology or
> betterment nor from squirrels like me
>
> Now as a public pc you might get away with all that, but
> as staff I would think it could cause endless trouble, unless
> you WERE the EO or were assigned to handle.
>
> On the other hand if you are not staff, or worse are not even a
> public pc but operate in the freezone, then the above doesn't apply to
> you at all, you are a free agent to speak and rub elbows with whom ever
> you will.
>
> >> ? ? ?Can you elucidate on how much your voice is 'owned' by a
> >> controlling influence within the Church or do speak freely and without
> >> oversight or control or fear of punishment?
>
> > Personal integrity. As soon as you regard Scientology as an entity
> > that forwards punishment and for all promotes control, then how are
> > you going to free people? These CAN NOT co-exist. Just know and
> > understand the rules of the game. Never become a follower, always make
> > up your own mind, research, study, ask, etc..
>
> Sorry this precludes you being a staff member, perhaps you already
> said that, but free minds were not welcome at the Org nor at Flag,
> even as a public pc when I was involved.
>
> > There is a difference between an experienced person and a newbie, but
> > being a Class XII of OT VII does not tell how much you have understood
> > and has become part of your understanding. Many years of close
> > observation made this very, very clear to me. At many levels for
> > example I do not agree with Pierre Ethier or with Otto Roos.
>
> OK, now you know that I know that Grade and Class do not guarantee
> understanding, but you also know that absence of Grade and Class will
> almost absolutely guarantee non understanding, unless the guy walks in
> an OT or has spent a whole life walking his own route. Admin time
> doesn't count.
>
> But you sound like you have a few hours under your belt.
>
> If you are even in communication with Pierre or Otto, that would
> indicate you are a very free spirit operating outside of the clutches
> of the standard Church and its ethics.
>
> >> ? ? ?I am sure many might say this isn't true, but when Phil says OT
> >> levels don't work, I take it much more seriously than if some 30 year
> >> admin veteran with 20 hours auditing under his belt says the same
> >> thing.
>
> > I don't, I have met people that have been in Scientology for 40 years,
> > and still I see they lack understanding. Understanding should come in
> > concepts not in uncoordinated and disrelated fragments.
>
> Yeah well, ok I admit it, Phil is a ditz and in fact when he
> says things are bogus, I don't pay much attention.
>
> In fact he pisses me off royally, as do most of these OT failures
> that gaily went up the bridge false attesting to ever level and
> finally having a cog that it was all a con.
>
> > What OT levels or other will do is very personal. You can't audit out
> > or awake that which is not within the reality of the person. The ONLY
> > guarantee you have to make it, is you. And you will not make it if you
> > are a follower. You need study, but study may not give you
> > understanding, in time it may, I say 'may', turn into conceptional
> > understanding. But this will take time and effort. If you become a
> > follower, then you have closed the doors.
>
> Yeah ok, you sound like a very dangerous OT, the kind Earth needs
> and the Church hates.
>
> >> ? ? ?Like you apparently, I am not that interested in policy or
> >> green on white, except to expose it for the janus faced edifice
> >> it is. ?My real interest is red on white and its advancement
> >> into the future.
>
> > You need ethics though, but this remains personal.
>
> Yes, I can see that.
>
> >> ? ? ?The fact that a.r.s was started by one Scott Goehring with a
>
> WITHOUT A CHARTER
>
> >> charter and without a vote, is problematic to me, particularly give the
> >> vile and indecent nature of his beingness at the time, along with the
> >> rest of his cohorts of similar kind, Rod Keller, Chris Shafmeister, and
> >> Phil Ernhardt who stayed around just long enough to throw cowpies, but
> >> then left for good because they couldn't stand the heat.
>
> > Where does it say that in the 'Code of a Scientologist'? See, if you
> > can not do that then you can not disseminate either.
>
> Well what it says as you well know is never ARGUE about the
> matter with the ill informed.
>
> > Actually I think that the a.r.s. does not put any weight into the
> > scale. What people think is not so rather interesting. See, these
> > persons that are regulars on the a.r.s do not display very much
> > understanding or willing to understand these topics. For the most
> > their mind is made up and they only hear that which confirms their
> > opinions. The bulk of them is stuck and simply have nothing better to
> > do than wasting their time with ridicule and trying to put people
> > down.
>
> > If you understand your opposer, only then you can learn to deal with
> > him. This is part of my interest here.
>
> OK, LRH said it used to bother him what people said, untili he
> realized it was the bank talking.
>
> Electra said "only BT's bash".
>
> You are a good man RR.
>
> Homer
>Sorry that my addition will not be quite as high quality as the
>above. Hopefully it is of some minor value, somehow: Great to see an
>act conversation on act. I like Phil. He just doesn't see anything
>wrong w/ occasionally going into off-purpose rants, is all. They can
>be kinda fun, but what of it? @ the same time, if this NG ever gets
>its ethics in, I might not be allowed in the door. Yikes!
>2 points: 1)How did the Henri Post turn into this?
> 2) Why isn't Phil posting here these days?
If you see a post, I will bet you that Phil will say someone forged it.
i don;t mind them talking, I am tired of the trash talking. And I mean to
give as good as they give.
Discussion is one thing, but these are the reasons no one ever came back
there were some of the coolest people ever on this group and they killed it
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2010 01:48:57 -0500, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >In alt.clearing.technology Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Scientology is still around is it not. What happened is all predicted
> >> by L. Ron Hubbard as early as 1952, amongst other in the PDC lectures.
>
> > OK, that get's him a C.
>
> > In 100 years, it may still be around being used by the forces that
> >be to keep everyone implanted.
>
Great Zeus, you are surely negligent in reading what I've written
about my transition out of Scientology.
Read my postings, I tell how I mentally came out of it.
I've said so much in my postings, to try to say it all again, just to
straighten out your misconceptions, just give me 4 questions at a
time, I'll answer them.
The way I came out, stretched over years.
In 1988 I was still a pretty gung ho believer, I was NOT OT, never got
to OT 3 while inside the movement.
In 1989, I started to notice some things, and began to contemplate my
own longer range leaving of the Sea Org.
By the late 1980s, most of the people I looked up to and respected,
had left.
If you look at the number of times, since I began posting here, me
asking for this or that former Sea Org person to please show up and
fill in the history details, so that people here on ARS who are pretty
astute observers of the Sea Org history, I wished for what has
happened to finally come about.
Namely get ex senior people going public, and speaking up, a new round
of details about what's been happening in the top ranks these last 10
to 15 years.
There wasn't anyone since Jesse Prince and Stacy and Vaughn, who was
speaking up about the details.
Now a lot as happened.
The criticism about Scientology in the long list of critical books
already written about Scientology, those books have the fundamental
problems that Scientology is still dramatizing.
I'm a policy nerd of the movement, I look at the policy, I think the
problems of Scientology are traceable to Hubbard's ideas, his rules,
which leave the staff the difficult limited choices.
The movement's rules, the SP penalty rules, as a group of rules that
keep the members in line, are the most problem causing aspects of
Scientology.
I don't know any way of doing an inadequate summary of all my
hundreds of comments here:
http://tinyurl.com/49g722
Chuck Beatty
ex Scientology staffer (1975-2003)
412-260-1170 Pittsburgh, USA (anyone call me after 9pm east coast
time)