a few questions for Claire Swazey
Jour0
Hi Claire! (and John, too, if you want to answer)
Thanks for the nice comments (I think I like your style, too!).
For what it's worth, I'm pretty well convinced (not positive, but I have a high
level of certainty ;-) ) that you are not a troll. Some people you'll never
convince, but I imagine that most of us will be more likely to believe you with
the passage of time.
As I've said before, I'm delighted that you're posting here. Many of the
pro-Scientology posters we've had in the past have been unable to answer ANY
questions, extremely nasty, and/or incoherent. Although you haven't been able
or willing to answer ALL questions (which seems only fair to me - heck, I'm not
willing to answer all questions either, and I don't even want to give my real
name), you have been willing to answer many questions, without being mean or
incoherent.
My impression of you so far is that you're quite happy with your Scientology
experiences so far. As I've said, I'm glad you've had good experiences.
I might also say that, with one notable exception, most of the active
Scientologists I've met have seemed reasonable and more or less friendly.
Understandably, they aren't too happy to see me picketing, but lately even the
non-OSA folks have been a little more willing to at least return my "good
afternoon"s.
I don't know how much you've read of my posts, so here's a really quick
summary: I was a lurker on a.r.s. for about a year before I started picketing
in April; since then, I've picketed about 15 times (maybe 20 if you count
different locations on the same day). I am not interested in bringing down CoS;
I'm concerned about what I consider to be credible allegations of illegal and
hurtful activities. If I see credible evidence that those activities have
ceased, or that I was wrong about them ever happening, I'll be happy to find
another outlet for my activism.
Like you, I won't promise to answer all questions, but if you have questions
for me, by all means pose them. You can also find out more about me, my
picketing, and my concerns at members.aol.com/jour0/index.html .
Here are a few questions I have for you. If you'd rather not answer some,
please feel free to say so. (As far as I can see, you're not here as an
official spokesperson for Scientology, so I'm happy to take whatever answers
you want to share.) Just for fun, I'll include my own answers to these
questions.
How long have you been in Scn, roughly?
(I was in for about a week, more than ten years ago.)
About what percentage of the tech would you say you know?
(I probably know about 1%, maybe less.) (There's an AWFUL lot of it.)
Have you ever experienced any part of the tech not working for you? Would you
care to tell me what it is?
(I haven't applied enough of it to see - although the one auditing session I
had was a failure.)
Is there any part of the tech you disagree with? Would you care to tell me what
it is?
(Yes. I think the scientific evidence disproves the theory of the reactive
mind, for starters.)
Is there any part of Hubbard's writings APART from the tech that you disagree
with? Would you care to tell me what it is?
(Yes. I think his anti-feminist pronouncements, which I THINK are not part of
the tech but I don't know for sure, are icky. His comment about kissing little
girls in Dianetics gives me the creeps, too.)
Have you experienced any anti-feminist treatment or gender bias in Scientology?
(Rather than keep typing " Would you care to tell me what it is?", I'll just
say for all questions, I'd be interested in specific examples if you have any
and care to share them.)
(Me: I wasn't in long enough to find out. From my limited contact with active
Scientologists, it sure doesn't sound like there's gender discrimination, at
least here in the Bay Area. I don't know whether that means the orgs are
out-tech or not, since I don't know what constitutes "the tech".)
I understand that you do not have the Net Nanny on your computer. Do you think
the creation and distribution of the Net Nanny is a good idea, or overkill, or
do you have some other reaction?
(I think it's (a) not encouraging people to see for themselves and think for
themselves, and (b) a footbullet that will become publicized and will reflect
badly on Scn.)
As I said above, I have been picketing regularly for several weeks. Do you
consider me to be a suppressive person?
(I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
Have you ever disconnected from anyone? If so, how many people?
(Nope. In fact, I've tried, with pretty good success, to re-establish
relationships with people with whom I've lost contact.)
Multi-part question here: Have you read the Introspection Rundown? If not,
would you be willing to? If not, hypothetically assuming it instructs
Scientologists to detain individuals in violation of at least California state
law (I don't know what Florida law is), do you think it's a bad thing? If it
does so instruct, do you think (a) it should be discontinued, (b) it should be
continued while trying to change the law, (c) it should be discontinued until
the law has been changed, and then reinstated?
(I think it clearly calls for violation of CA state law and it should be
discontinued permanently - or modified drastically to come into compliance with
state law.)
Do you think Scientology is expanding, shrinking, or staying about the same
size? (Over, say, the last five or ten years.) What evidence leads you to that
conclusion?
There - that should give you plenty to type on for a while. ;-) Please feel
free to respond with questions for me, if you wish, which I also reserve the
right to not answer.
Also, I think I'll have a fairly busy week at work, so I might not get to reply
until next weekend. Fortunately, articles seem to stay on AOL's newsfeed for a
while.
Thanks again for your contributions to the newsgroup! Even if you DO turn out
to be a troll, you've been interesting!
Have a great week!
Jour
Claire Swazey
answer the ones that appeal...
Jour0 wrote:
>
> Hi Claire! (and John, too, if you want to answer)
>
> Thanks for the nice comments (I think I like your style, too!).
>
> For what it's worth, I'm pretty well convinced (not positive, but I have a high
> level of certainty ;-) ) that you are not a troll. Some people you'll never
> convince, but I imagine that most of us will be more likely to believe you with
> the passage of time.
Surely. The inexorable passing of time doth unmask us all...
A number of years. When I was a kid my Dad was into it and I used to go
with him to the local mission. I couldn't figure out what all those
boring adults were doing. :-) but I guess I could even count that as
being in scn, which would make me almost a "lifer".
>
> About what percentage of the tech would you say you know?
> (I probably know about 1%, maybe less.) (There's an AWFUL lot of it.)
Boy, you said a mouthful. Why, LRH has stuff on civic improvements,
social betterment, war, Freudian analysis, the ever-popular space-opera,
children, marriage, families, governments, history, navigation,
engineering, and of course, auditing and studying. Unbelievable
galaxies and galaxies of stuff. So I would definitely say, what with
all this wealth of material, that I *definitely* know less than 50%.
>
> Have you ever experienced any part of the tech not working for you? Would you
> care to tell me what it is?
> (I haven't applied enough of it to see - although the one auditing session I
> had was a failure.)
I'm sorry that auditing session didn't work out. They can be dynamite,
if done properly.
Such tech as I have applied correctly has always worked for me. The
only time it didn't was when I misapplied it. (I can be *such* a
doofus, at times)
>
> Is there any part of the tech you disagree with? Would you care to tell me what
> it is?
> (Yes. I think the scientific evidence disproves the theory of the reactive
> mind, for starters.)
Gee. That's interesting. I don't.
I agree with such tech as I have encountered (somewhere in the
neighborhood of less than 50%) but to be honest there is some tech that
is so amazing and revolutionary that it is hard for me to take it in at
first, til I have had some life experiences to back it up with.
>
> Is there any part of Hubbard's writings APART from the tech that you disagree
> with? Would you care to tell me what it is?
> (Yes. I think his anti-feminist pronouncements, which I THINK are not part of
> the tech but I don't know for sure, are icky. His comment about kissing little
> girls in Dianetics gives me the creeps, too.)
I think that he was a man with opinions (we all have 'em, you know) and
that in some ways his opinions would maybe have been affected by the
generation and social milieu in which he was raised. Those I would take
with a grain of salt, perhaps.
>
> Have you experienced any anti-feminist treatment or gender bias in Scientology?
> (Rather than keep typing " Would you care to tell me what it is?", I'll just
> say for all questions, I'd be interested in specific examples if you have any
> and care to share them.)
> (Me: I wasn't in long enough to find out. From my limited contact with active
> Scientologists, it sure doesn't sound like there's gender discrimination, at
> least here in the Bay Area. I don't know whether that means the orgs are
> out-tech or not, since I don't know what constitutes "the tech".)
I truly have not seen any. That does not mean there isn't any. But I
have met a number of senior and middle echelon Church Officials that
were women, and it does not seem like CofS has a glass ceiling.
>
> I understand that you do not have the Net Nanny on your computer. Do you think
> the creation and distribution of the Net Nanny is a good idea, or overkill, or
> do you have some other reaction?
> (I think it's (a) not encouraging people to see for themselves and think for
> themselves, and (b) a footbullet that will become publicized and will reflect
> badly on Scn.)
I think it's something I do not wish to have, but I think I understand
why they came up with it, which was primarily,I gather, for the purpose
of keeping the confidential stuff and the really mean-spirited crap away
from public Scientologists. But as it's never been compulsory for
Scientologists to have the net-nanny, I don't think it constitutes a
foot bullet.
>
> As I said above, I have been picketing regularly for several weeks. Do you
> consider me to be a suppressive person?
> (I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
> though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
Well, dearheart, I don't even know you. Although I did see some posted
picketing pictures of a charming young lady in red picketing jammies who
looked like a pretty nice being, all things being equal...
But I do not feel that everyone who disagrees with my religion is a
sociopath.
>
> Have you ever disconnected from anyone? If so, how many people?
> (Nope. In fact, I've tried, with pretty good success, to re-establish
> relationships with people with whom I've lost contact.)
Oddly enough, I have never had to, even with a father that was a
"squirrel" and who still has much of that particular outlook and another
family member who has a horribly extensive history of having had
invasive psychiatric treatments and a mother who has publicly said very
critical things about Scn (although not recently. With a daughter as
adorable and capable as myself, how could she? She kind of keeps it to
herself these days) and yet 7 Scn ctrs have seen fit to not ask me (much
less order me) to disconnect.
My husband has disconnected from his Dad for reasons totally unconnected
with Scn (his 4 non-Scientology siblings have all done so too) and
that's as close as this family has come to it... Oh yeah, and there was
this babe that really dicked me over in law class a couple times in a
row so I just stopped talking to her and acknowledging her altogether,
so maybe that counts, although once again that was totally unconnected
to Scn. So you have two out of two Swazey disconnections having nothing
to do with philosophical differences or orders from the Church... Could
this be significant to the truth and applicability of disconnection and
Scn families? Nah.
>
> Multi-part question here: Have you read the Introspection Rundown? If not,
> would you be willing to? If not, hypothetically assuming it instructs
> Scientologists to detain individuals in violation of at least California state
> law (I don't know what Florida law is), do you think it's a bad thing? If it
> does so instruct, do you think (a) it should be discontinued, (b) it should be
> continued while trying to change the law, (c) it should be discontinued until
> the law has been changed, and then reinstated?
> (I think it clearly calls for violation of CA state law and it should be
> discontinued permanently - or modified drastically to come into compliance with
> state law.)
The introspection rundown does not, as far as I have seen, have anything
to do with restraining or hurting people. Therefore it doesn't need to
be modified.
>
> Do you think Scientology is expanding, shrinking, or staying about the same
> size? (Over, say, the last five or ten years.) What evidence leads you to that
> conclusion?
Good question.Why do I feel like jackals and vultures are waiting for me
to answer this so they can pounce? :-)
I think it is either staying the same or expanding. I keep hearing (on
a.r.s.) about too many orgs in towns where there didn't used to be any.
Besides the Church told me they were expanding, and, golly gosh, that's
good enough for me!
>
> There - that should give you plenty to type on for a while. ;-) Please feel
> free to respond with questions for me, if you wish, which I also reserve the
> right to not answer.
I don't know that I can think of any,except maybe what is the best kind
of footwear do you find most comfortable for picketing.
>
> Also, I think I'll have a fairly busy week at work, so I might not get to reply
> until next weekend. Fortunately, articles seem to stay on AOL's newsfeed for a
> while.
>
> Thanks again for your contributions to the newsgroup! Even if you DO turn out
> to be a troll, you've been interesting!
Nah, I am what I say I am, except there is even more to the wonder and
glory that is Claire Swazey than I have previously disclosed. (got to
keep some of it under wraps,ya know!)
>
> Have a great week!
>
> Jour
I am! I'm on vacation for a couple days. I plan to do very little of
redeeming social value (except for posting on this fun ng) during this
time.
Claire
Jour0
Thanks for your answers. Here are my replies (I have, obviously, snipped a
lot):
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> My goodness, what a lot of deliciously provocative questions. I will
> answer the ones that appeal...
>
> Jour0 wrote:
> >
> > How long have you been in Scn, roughly?
> > (I was in for about a week, more than ten years ago.)
>
> A number of years. When I was a kid my Dad was into it and I used to go
> with him to the local mission. I couldn't figure out what all those
> boring adults were doing. :-) but I guess I could even count that as
> being in scn, which would make me almost a "lifer".
Can you be a LITTLE more precise? For how long would you say that, if someone
asked you "Are you a Scientologist?", you would have answered "Yes":
a) less than 5 years
b) more than 5 years but less than 10 years
c) more than 10 years but less than 15 years
d) more than 15 years but less than 20 years
e) more than 20 years
> > About what percentage of the tech would you say you know?
> > (I probably know about 1%, maybe less.) (There's an AWFUL lot of it.)
>
> Boy, you said a mouthful. Why, LRH has stuff on civic improvements,
> social betterment, war, Freudian analysis, the ever-popular space-opera,
> children, marriage, families, governments, history, navigation,
> engineering, and of course, auditing and studying. Unbelievable
> galaxies and galaxies of stuff. So I would definitely say, what with
> all this wealth of material, that I *definitely* know less than 50%.
Can you tell me what constitutes "the tech"? Is EVERYTHING LRH wrote "tech"?
(Surely the Battleship Earth stuff, for example, is not ...)
Is "Dianetics" part of the tech?
Is "All About Radiation"?
Is "Have You Lived Before This Life?"
Is "Intro to Scientology Ethics?"
Is "Science of Survival?"
Is "Child Dianetics?"
Is "Clear Body Clear Mind?"
Is "What Is Scientology?"
Is "The Volunteer Minister's Handbook?"
Is there any part of the tech currently in use today that was NOT written by
LRH?
> > Have you ever experienced any part of the tech not working for you? Would
you
> > care to tell me what it is?
> > (I haven't applied enough of it to see - although the one auditing session
I
> > had was a failure.)
>
> I'm sorry that auditing session didn't work out. They can be dynamite,
> if done properly.
>
> Such tech as I have applied correctly has always worked for me. The
> only time it didn't was when I misapplied it. (I can be *such* a
> doofus, at times)
So you have never had the experience of the tech not working because someone
else - your auditor or course supervisor, for example - applied the tech
incorrectly?
> > Is there any part of the tech you disagree with? Would you care to tell me
what
> > it is?
> > (Yes. I think the scientific evidence disproves the theory of the reactive
> > mind, for starters.)
>
> Gee. That's interesting. I don't.
Can you refer me to the studies you've seen that tend to confirm the theory of
the reactive mind?
> > Is there any part of Hubbard's writings APART from the tech that you
disagree
> > with? Would you care to tell me what it is?
> > (Yes. I think his anti-feminist pronouncements, which I THINK are not part
of
> > the tech but I don't know for sure, are icky. His comment about kissing
little
> > girls in Dianetics gives me the creeps, too.)
>
> I think that he was a man with opinions (we all have 'em, you know) and
> that in some ways his opinions would maybe have been affected by the
> generation and social milieu in which he was raised. Those I would take
> with a grain of salt, perhaps.
OK; I just word-cleared "take with a grain of salt", and according to my
dictionary, it means to regard something with reserve, or skeptically. That's
not QUITE the same as disagreeing.
So, I ask again - are there any opinions of LRH's that you disagree with?
And to complement that question, I offer a few examples. For each of the
following statements, taken from "Dianetics", do you agree, disagree, or
neither?
"The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any and
all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual
sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually
quite ill physically. ... He is very far from culpable for his condition, but
he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the
tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it."
pp. 123-124
"However many billions America spends yearly on institutions for the insane and
jails for the criminals are spent primarily because of attempted abortions done
by some sex-blocked mother to whom children are a curse, not a blessing of
God."
p. 160
"A woman has as high a plane of activity as man. He cannot compete with her any
more than she can compete with him in the fields of structure and vigorous
activity. Much of the social maelstrom now in existence has as its hub the
failure to recognize the important role of the woman as a woman and the
separation of the fields of women and men. ... In the custody of Man is the
current world and its activity and structure. In the charge of woman is the
care of the person of the human being and his children."
pp. 192-193
"The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not
computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see nothing
wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one."
p. 409
"The past actions of an individual who has been cleared should be stricken from
his record even as his illnesses have been, for with the cause removed there
can be no point in retribution unless society itself is so aberrated that it
desires to operate on sadistic principles. There is more than idealism here for
it can be shown that aberration in individuals and the society rise in
progressive ratio to the amount of punishment employed."
p. 493
> > Have you experienced any anti-feminist treatment or gender bias in
Scientology?
> > (Rather than keep typing " Would you care to tell me what it is?", I'll
just
> > say for all questions, I'd be interested in specific examples if you have
any
> > and care to share them.)
> > (Me: I wasn't in long enough to find out. From my limited contact with
active
> > Scientologists, it sure doesn't sound like there's gender discrimination,
at
> > least here in the Bay Area. I don't know whether that means the orgs are
> > out-tech or not, since I don't know what constitutes "the tech".)
>
> I truly have not seen any. That does not mean there isn't any. But I
> have met a number of senior and middle echelon Church Officials that
> were women, and it does not seem like CofS has a glass ceiling.
So what is Scientology's attitude toward the anti-feminist writings (especially
"Marriage Hats")? Are they still included in courses? Are they disavowed? Are
they ignored?
> > I understand that you do not have the Net Nanny on your computer. Do you
think
> > the creation and distribution of the Net Nanny is a good idea, or overkill,
or
> > do you have some other reaction?
> > (I think it's (a) not encouraging people to see for themselves and think
for
> > themselves, and (b) a footbullet that will become publicized and will
reflect
> > badly on Scn.)
>
> I think it's something I do not wish to have, but I think I understand
> why they came up with it, which was primarily,I gather, for the purpose
> of keeping the confidential stuff and the really mean-spirited crap away
> from public Scientologists. But as it's never been compulsory for
> Scientologists to have the net-nanny, I don't think it constitutes a
> foot bullet.
I believe it is compulsory for those who wish to use the cookie-cutter web site
maker.
It is more the list of words they chose to include (which, granted, we don't
COMPLETELY know how it works yet, but - ) and the fact that they didn't make it
clear that it would censor outgoing as well as incoming information will make
it a footbullet, and may make it illegal.
Do you think it's a good idea to block access to information about Lisa
McPherson?
> > As I said above, I have been picketing regularly for several weeks. Do you
> > consider me to be a suppressive person?
> > (I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
> > though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
>
> Well, dearheart, I don't even know you. Although I did see some posted
> picketing pictures of a charming young lady in red picketing jammies who
> looked like a pretty nice being, all things being equal...
Really? Cool! Where did you see me? (The only photo I know of of me picketing
doesn't show my picketing jammies ...)
> But I do not feel that everyone who disagrees with my religion is a
> sociopath.
I'm glad to hear it. Do you feel that everyone who disagrees publicly with your
religion and works to publicize unflattering information about Scientologist is
a suppressive person?
When I said:
> > (I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
> > though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
I was thinking of this quote from "Intro to Scn Ethics":
"A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage
Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
"SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a
Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter."
p. 55
and among the "suppressive acts" on pp. 56-57 are listed
"Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees
of Evidence duly convened;"
and
"Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil
authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from
practicing or receiving standard Scientology;"
the first of which describes my picketing in general, and the second of which
describes the Attorney General postcards I hand out at my pickets.
Given these quotes, how is it that you do not consider me to be a Suppressive
Person? Assuming you still do not, do you consider my picketing and postcards
to be Suppressive Acts?
<snip disconnection stuff>
I'm very glad to hear you've never cut off a relationship over or because of
Scientology.
> > Multi-part question here: Have you read the Introspection Rundown? If not,
> > would you be willing to? If not, hypothetically assuming it instructs
> > Scientologists to detain individuals in violation of at least California
state
> > law (I don't know what Florida law is), do you think it's a bad thing? If
it
> > does so instruct, do you think (a) it should be discontinued, (b) it should
be
> > continued while trying to change the law, (c) it should be discontinued
until
> > the law has been changed, and then reinstated?
> > (I think it clearly calls for violation of CA state law and it should be
> > discontinued permanently - or modified drastically to come into compliance
with
> > state law.)
>
> The introspection rundown does not, as far as I have seen, have anything
> to do with restraining or hurting people. Therefore it doesn't need to
> be modified.
Well, but - that's why I asked those other questions. How much have you seen?
(What does "as far as I have seen" mean?) If you haven't read it, can you
really know whether it calls for illegal activity?
How interested are you in finding out for yourself the truth about what the
Introspection Rundown involves? If you're not very interested, why not?
> > Do you think Scientology is expanding, shrinking, or staying about the same
> > size? (Over, say, the last five or ten years.) What evidence leads you to
that
> > conclusion?
>
> Good question.Why do I feel like jackals and vultures are waiting for me
> to answer this so they can pounce? :-)
>
> I think it is either staying the same or expanding. I keep hearing (on
> a.r.s.) about too many orgs in towns where there didn't used to be any.
> Besides the Church told me they were expanding, and, golly gosh, that's
> good enough for me!
I don't remember reading ANY posts on a.r.s. about new orgs in towns where
there weren't any a few years ago - although I certainly don't see all the
posts to a.r.s. Can you remember ANY names of towns, or can you point me to any
specific posts, or can you suggest some keywords I could use in a DejaNews
search?
> > There - that should give you plenty to type on for a while. ;-) Please feel
> > free to respond with questions for me, if you wish, which I also reserve
the
> > right to not answer.
>
> I don't know that I can think of any,except maybe what is the best kind
> of footwear do you find most comfortable for picketing.
Oh, tennis shoes (or sneakers, depending on which idiomatic phrase was used
where you grew up ;-) ), most definitely. But I'm sure you could have guessed
that!
> > Thanks again for your contributions to the newsgroup! Even if you DO turn
out
> > to be a troll, you've been interesting!
>
> Nah, I am what I say I am, except there is even more to the wonder and
> glory that is Claire Swazey than I have previously disclosed. (got to
> keep some of it under wraps,ya know!)
Really? What are you hiding?
;-)
I'm looking forward to seeing at least a little more of that wonder and glory,
myself.
Are you and John related to Patrick?
> > Have a great week!
> >
> > Jour
>
> I am! I'm on vacation for a couple days. I plan to do very little of
> redeeming social value (except for posting on this fun ng) during this
> time.
I'm glad! Vacations are always a good thing. I hope you had a nice relaxing
week!
Jour
Claire Swazey
When I got the original post I saw that those were extremely
(intentionally so, IMO) loaded questions and I responded with the
answers that I felt they deserved. I will try with this post to clarify
some of my answers, but as always, I reserve the right to leave any land
mines or questions to which I don't know the answers, alone.
Jour0 wrote:
>
<snip>
> > My goodness, what a lot of deliciously provocative questions. I will
> > answer the ones that appeal...
> >
> > Jour0 wrote:
> > >
> > > How long have you been in Scn, roughly?
> > > (I was in for about a week, more than ten years ago.)
> >
> > A number of years. When I was a kid my Dad was into it and I used to go
> > with him to the local mission. I couldn't figure out what all those
> > boring adults were doing. :-) but I guess I could even count that as
> > being in scn, which would make me almost a "lifer".
>
> Can you be a LITTLE more precise? For how long would you say that, if someone
> asked you "Are you a Scientologist?", you would have answered "Yes":
>
> a) less than 5 years
> b) more than 5 years but less than 10 years
> c) more than 10 years but less than 15 years
> d) more than 15 years but less than 20 years
> e) more than 20 years
Yes, I *can* be a little more precise. But I have been reluctant so
far, to share all my personal information with this newsgroup. And I
still am. Put me down for more than 5 years.
>
> > > About what percentage of the tech would you say you know?
> > > (I probably know about 1%, maybe less.) (There's an AWFUL lot of it.)
> >
> > Boy, you said a mouthful. Why, LRH has stuff on civic improvements,
> > social betterment, war, Freudian analysis, the ever-popular space-opera,
> > children, marriage, families, governments, history, navigation,
> > engineering, and of course, auditing and studying. Unbelievable
> > galaxies and galaxies of stuff. So I would definitely say, what with
> > all this wealth of material, that I *definitely* know less than 50%.
>
> Can you tell me what constitutes "the tech"? Is EVERYTHING LRH wrote "tech"?
> (Surely the Battleship Earth stuff, for example, is not ...)
Of course not. Battlefield Earth is a work of fiction.
>
> Is "Dianetics" part of the tech?
> Is "All About Radiation"?
> Is "Have You Lived Before This Life?"
> Is "Intro to Scientology Ethics?"
> Is "Science of Survival?"
> Is "Child Dianetics?"
> Is "Clear Body Clear Mind?"
> Is "What Is Scientology?"
> Is "The Volunteer Minister's Handbook?"
Those are Scientology/Dianetics books and therefore would constitue part
of the Hubbard tech.
>
> Is there any part of the tech currently in use today that was NOT written by
> LRH?
>
> > > Have you ever experienced any part of the tech not working for you? Would
> you
> > > care to tell me what it is?
> > > (I haven't applied enough of it to see - although the one auditing session
> I
> > > had was a failure.)
> >
> > I'm sorry that auditing session didn't work out. They can be dynamite,
> > if done properly.
> >
> > Such tech as I have applied correctly has always worked for me. The
> > only time it didn't was when I misapplied it. (I can be *such* a
> > doofus, at times)
>
> So you have never had the experience of the tech not working because someone
> else - your auditor or course supervisor, for example - applied the tech
> incorrectly?
When the tech is applied correctly it works. Humans being what they
are, (imperfect beings who can and will make mistakes) sometimes they
might not get it right the first time or two. This would include staff
members, auditors, anyone in or out of Scientology doing anything
whatsoever. So of course I've seen errors. I have also seen them
corrected. In fact, I've personally made sure of such.
>
> > > Is there any part of the tech you disagree with? Would you care to tell me
> what
> > > it is?
> > > (Yes. I think the scientific evidence disproves the theory of the reactive
> > > mind, for starters.)
> >
> > Gee. That's interesting. I don't.
>
> Can you refer me to the studies you've seen that tend to confirm the theory of
> the reactive mind?
As an auditor I've encountered it. This is evidence I cannot ignore.
>
> > > Is there any part of Hubbard's writings APART from the tech that you
> disagree
> > > with? Would you care to tell me what it is?
> > > (Yes. I think his anti-feminist pronouncements, which I THINK are not part
> of
> > > the tech but I don't know for sure, are icky. His comment about kissing
> little
> > > girls in Dianetics gives me the creeps, too.)
> >
> > I think that he was a man with opinions (we all have 'em, you know) and
> > that in some ways his opinions would maybe have been affected by the
> > generation and social milieu in which he was raised. Those I would take
> > with a grain of salt, perhaps.
>
> OK; I just word-cleared "take with a grain of salt", and according to my
> dictionary, it means to regard something with reserve, or skeptically. That's
> not QUITE the same as disagreeing
I stand by what I said originally.
>
> So, I ask again - are there any opinions of LRH's that you disagree with?
>
> And to complement that question, I offer a few examples. For each of the
> following statements, taken from "Dianetics", do you agree, disagree, or
> neither?
>
> "The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any and
> all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual
> sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually
> quite ill physically. ... He is very far from culpable for his condition, but
> he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the
> tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it."
> pp. 123-124
Surely. An example of such a pervert would be someone that molests
children. Someone like that is a danger to society.
>
> "However many billions America spends yearly on institutions for the insane and
> jails for the criminals are spent primarily because of attempted abortions done
> by some sex-blocked mother to whom children are a curse, not a blessing of
> God."
> p. 160
>
> "A woman has as high a plane of activity as man. He cannot compete with her any
> more than she can compete with him in the fields of structure and vigorous
> activity. Much of the social maelstrom now in existence has as its hub the
> failure to recognize the important role of the woman as a woman and the
> separation of the fields of women and men. ... In the custody of Man is the
> current world and its activity and structure. In the charge of woman is the
> care of the person of the human being and his children."
> pp. 192-193
>
> "The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not
> computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see nothing
> wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one."
> p. 409
As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that
after it happens, a child will be nervous when receiving a kiss from an
uncle or even sitting in the same room as an adult man. This is what
Hubbard was referring to.
>
> "The past actions of an individual who has been cleared should be stricken from
> his record even as his illnesses have been, for with the cause removed there
> can be no point in retribution unless society itself is so aberrated that it
> desires to operate on sadistic principles. There is more than idealism here for
> it can be shown that aberration in individuals and the society rise in
> progressive ratio to the amount of punishment employed."
> p. 493
Hubbard was working for practicality and against authoritarianism here.
He was experimenting with the ideas of certain social changes that might
be beneficial.
>
> > > Have you experienced any anti-feminist treatment or gender bias in
> Scientology?
> > > (Rather than keep typing " Would you care to tell me what it is?", I'll
> just
> > > say for all questions, I'd be interested in specific examples if you have
> any
> > > and care to share them.)
> > > (Me: I wasn't in long enough to find out. From my limited contact with
> active
> > > Scientologists, it sure doesn't sound like there's gender discrimination,
> at
> > > least here in the Bay Area. I don't know whether that means the orgs are
> > > out-tech or not, since I don't know what constitutes "the tech".)
> >
> > I truly have not seen any. That does not mean there isn't any. But I
> > have met a number of senior and middle echelon Church Officials that
> > were women, and it does not seem like CofS has a glass ceiling.
>
> So what is Scientology's attitude toward the anti-feminist writings (especially
> "Marriage Hats")? Are they still included in courses? Are they disavowed? Are
> they ignored?
I don't know about that course. I saw someone on it a long time ago but
have no idea if it's offered now.
>
> > > I understand that you do not have the Net Nanny on your computer. Do you
> think
> > > the creation and distribution of the Net Nanny is a good idea, or overkill,
> or
> > > do you have some other reaction?
> > > (I think it's (a) not encouraging people to see for themselves and think
> for
> > > themselves, and (b) a footbullet that will become publicized and will
> reflect
> > > badly on Scn.)
> >
> > I think it's something I do not wish to have, but I think I understand
> > why they came up with it, which was primarily,I gather, for the purpose
> > of keeping the confidential stuff and the really mean-spirited crap away
> > from public Scientologists. But as it's never been compulsory for
> > Scientologists to have the net-nanny, I don't think it constitutes a
> > foot bullet.
>
> I believe it is compulsory for those who wish to use the cookie-cutter web site
> maker.
But it is not compulsory for someone to have one of these websites.
Therefore the software that goes with it is not required for all
Scientologists.
>
> It is more the list of words they chose to include (which, granted, we don't
> COMPLETELY know how it works yet, but - ) and the fact that they didn't make it
> clear that it would censor outgoing as well as incoming information will make
> it a footbullet, and may make it illegal.
Fine. Make it illegal. Doesn't matter.
>
> Do you think it's a good idea to block access to information about Lisa
> McPherson?
Probably, what with all the mean-spirited wild speculations I've seen
about what happened.
>
> > > As I said above, I have been picketing regularly for several weeks. Do you
> > > consider me to be a suppressive person?
> > > (I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
> > > though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
> >
> > Well, dearheart, I don't even know you. Although I did see some posted
> > picketing pictures of a charming young lady in red picketing jammies who
> > looked like a pretty nice being, all things being equal...
>
> Really? Cool! Where did you see me? (The only photo I know of of me picketing
> doesn't show my picketing jammies ...)
I must have "dubbed in" (filled in the blanks in my mind) the red
jammies, knowing that you have them.
>
> > But I do not feel that everyone who disagrees with my religion is a
> > sociopath.
>
> I'm glad to hear it. Do you feel that everyone who disagrees publicly with your
> religion and works to publicize unflattering information about Scientologist is
> a suppressive person?
I think they are harming something I think is beneficial and that they
are acting out in a suppressive manner. This does not make them a
dyed-in-the-wool sociopath, however.
>
> When I said:
>
> > > (I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
> > > though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
>
> I was thinking of this quote from "Intro to Scn Ethics":
>
> "A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage
> Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
>
> "SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a
> Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter."
> p. 55
>
> and among the "suppressive acts" on pp. 56-57 are listed
>
> "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees
> of Evidence duly convened;"
>
> and
>
> "Reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil
> authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from
> practicing or receiving standard Scientology;"
>
> the first of which describes my picketing in general, and the second of which
> describes the Attorney General postcards I hand out at my pickets.
>
> Given these quotes, how is it that you do not consider me to be a Suppressive
> Person? Assuming you still do not, do you consider my picketing and postcards
> to be Suppressive Acts?
I know someone that (just once) threatened to sue or embarrass CofS. But
she did not do it again. So she did a suppressive thing once. That
does not make her an automatic sociopath. It makes her a person who did
a suppressive thing. Even good people can do bad things. This does
not make the afore-mentioned good people into a pack of Hitlers and
Bundys.
So it *is* a suppressive act. 'Cause it suppresses Scn.
>
> <snip disconnection stuff>
>
> I'm very glad to hear you've never cut off a relationship over or because of
> Scientology.
>
> > > Multi-part question here: Have you read the Introspection Rundown? If not,
> > > would you be willing to? If not, hypothetically assuming it instructs
> > > Scientologists to detain individuals in violation of at least California
> state
> > > law (I don't know what Florida law is), do you think it's a bad thing? If
> it
> > > does so instruct, do you think (a) it should be discontinued, (b) it should
> be
> > > continued while trying to change the law, (c) it should be discontinued
> until
> > > the law has been changed, and then reinstated?
> > > (I think it clearly calls for violation of CA state law and it should be
> > > discontinued permanently - or modified drastically to come into compliance
> with
> > > state law.)
> >
> > The introspection rundown does not, as far as I have seen, have anything
> > to do with restraining or hurting people. Therefore it doesn't need to
> > be modified.
I do not discuss my training level, or auditing processes or
confidential materials. Sorry.
>
> Well, but - that's why I asked those other questions. How much have you seen?
> (What does "as far as I have seen" mean?) If you haven't read it, can you
> really know whether it calls for illegal activity?
>
> How interested are you in finding out for yourself the truth about what the
> Introspection Rundown involves? If you're not very interested, why not?
>
> > > Do you think Scientology is expanding, shrinking, or staying about the same
> > > size? (Over, say, the last five or ten years.) What evidence leads you to
> that
> > > conclusion?
> >
> > Good question.Why do I feel like jackals and vultures are waiting for me
> > to answer this so they can pounce? :-)
> >
> > I think it is either staying the same or expanding. I keep hearing (on
> > a.r.s.) about too many orgs in towns where there didn't used to be any.
> > Besides the Church told me they were expanding, and, golly gosh, that's
> > good enough for me!
>
> I don't remember reading ANY posts on a.r.s. about new orgs in towns where
> there weren't any a few years ago - although I certainly don't see all the
> posts to a.r.s. Can you remember ANY names of towns, or can you point me to any
> specific posts, or can you suggest some keywords I could use in a DejaNews
> search?
I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.I
believe Ann Arbor would be one.
Another note on the non-shrinkage of CofS. An Org I deal with from time
to time has five times as much staff as they did five years ago and has
almost outgrown the two story commercial building they are in. At least
for this particular Org, there is an expansion. However, I cannot
comment on other Orgs that I do not deal with.
>
> > > There - that should give you plenty to type on for a while. ;-) Please feel
> > > free to respond with questions for me, if you wish, which I also reserve
> the
> > > right to not answer.
> >
> > I don't know that I can think of any,except maybe what is the best kind
> > of footwear do you find most comfortable for picketing.
>
> Oh, tennis shoes (or sneakers, depending on which idiomatic phrase was used
> where you grew up ;-) ), most definitely. But I'm sure you could have guessed
> that!
One more thing: The direction of Dianetics and Scientology was for
workability and practicality for use in lives and in society. Hubbard
explored a good many possibilities in these areas.
The techniques that he published were workable and they got results.
For me, that's the bottom line.
>
> > > Thanks again for your contributions to the newsgroup! Even if you DO turn
> out
> > > to be a troll, you've been interesting!
> >
> > Nah, I am what I say I am, except there is even more to the wonder and
> > glory that is Claire Swazey than I have previously disclosed. (got to
> > keep some of it under wraps,ya know!)
>
> Really? What are you hiding?
>
> ;-)
>
I just don't say everything about myself. Neither does anyone I know
anywhere (whether on a.r.s. or in the ordinary work-a-day world)
disclose every little thing about themselves. *You* don't.
> I'm looking forward to seeing at least a little more of that wonder and glory,
> myself.
you probably will for as long as I elect to post.
>
> Are you and John related to Patrick?
No. He never calls, he never writes, that bum.
>
> > > Have a great week!
> > >
> > > Jour
> >
> > I am! I'm on vacation for a couple days. I plan to do very little of
> > redeeming social value (except for posting on this fun ng) during this
> > time.
>
> I'm glad! Vacations are always a good thing. I hope you had a nice relaxing
> week!
>
> Jour
Well, it was a half a week, but it was so nice to take a breather from
work and stuff.
And tonight I'm going to a (non-Scientology) wedding reception for this
totally neat woman who's a colleague of mine. Should be cool.
Claire
Rob Clark
>> Do you think it's a good idea to block access to information about Lisa
>> McPherson?
>Probably, what with all the mean-spirited wild speculations I've seen
>about what happened.
if they are, indeed, just wild speculations and rumor, then i would think
scientology would trust its own members (who should, with their processing and
wordclearing be intellectually superior if the claims of the church are true)
to sort out the wheat from the chaff and "think for themselves."
"think for yourself" is after all their current advertising slogan.
why doesn't scientology WANT people to do their own thinking?
personally, i find it incredibly distasteful that they wish to turn lisa
mcpherson into a "nonperson." heber jentzsch ranted about the mcpherson
incident, stating that the people who were at the vigil (where scientologists
blew out candles) "hated her guts" while she was alive.
it is extremely disturbing, and reminds me of why i came here in the first
place, that they now wish to make lisa mcpherson a "nonperson" and that if they
had their way, none of their members would even know that lisa mcpherson had
ever even existed.
a responsible organization, when a death occurs due to their policies, will
reexamine those policies and if necessary change them to avoid a future death.
scientology has done no such thing, and in fact they would prefer simply to
brush it under the rug, cover it up with whiteout, and pretend it never
happened.
rob
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
: least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.I
: believe Ann Arbor would be one.
You would be wrong.
Beck
Claire Swazey
>
> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
>
> : I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
> : least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.I
> : believe Ann Arbor would be one.
>
>
> Beck
No,I would be right. It used to be that only a mission was there.
C
Claire Swazey
> >> McPherson?
>
> >Probably, what with all the mean-spirited wild speculations I've seen
> >about what happened.
>
> scientology would trust its own members (who should, with their processing and
> wordclearing be intellectually superior if the claims of the church are true)
> to sort out the wheat from the chaff and "think for themselves."
>
> "think for yourself" is after all their current advertising slogan.
>
> why doesn't scientology WANT people to do their own thinking?
>
> personally, i find it incredibly distasteful that they wish to turn lisa
> mcpherson into a "nonperson." heber jentzsch ranted about the mcpherson
> incident, stating that the people who were at the vigil (where scientologists
> blew out candles) "hated her guts" while she was alive.
>
> it is extremely disturbing, and reminds me of why i came here in the first
> place, that they now wish to make lisa mcpherson a "nonperson" and that if they
> had their way, none of their members would even know that lisa mcpherson had
> ever even existed.
>
> a responsible organization, when a death occurs due to their policies, will
> reexamine those policies and if necessary change them to avoid a future death.
> scientology has done no such thing, and in fact they would prefer simply to
> brush it under the rug, cover it up with whiteout, and pretend it never
> happened.
>
> rob
I would think that it is likely that they have done just that. But no
matter what they do, you will say it is not enough, IMHO.
C
Jour0
Thanks for your reply. Mine is below.
I have snipped some to make it easier to focus on our conversation. I MIGHT
suggest that you consider a little more snipping, too, in your own replies;
I've seen one or two of yours where you quoted an entire reply and made just a
short comment in the middle, which I found difficult to spot. Some netiquette
guides suggest only quoting the portion of a post you're replying to. On the
other hand, some people find it more useful to quote the entire message they're
replying to, so those people would undoubtedly disagree with me. Just a
suggestion; ignore it if you like.
(Oh, and you might want to leave the "Claire wrote" lines in, too, so that it
will be easier for people other than us to keep track of who said what.)
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Jour:
>
> When I got the original post I saw that those were extremely
> (intentionally so, IMO) loaded questions and I responded with the
> answers that I felt they deserved.
Loaded questions? You say that like it's a bad thing ... ;-)
Seriously, I looked up "loaded questions" in my dictionary (I disagree with
many of the fundamental concepts of study tech but I will gladly admit that
debating Scientology is getting me to use my dictionary more, and I think
that's a good thing). Under "load," it says, "to phrase (a question, etc.) so
as to elicit a desired answer or reaction."
To be completely honest, for some of my questions, I anticipated certain
answers, and asked what I thought were rather pointed questions, but I was
perfectly ready for you to surprise me or answer in ways other than what I
expected. I wanted your honest responses. On the agree/disagree questions, for
example, in those cases where you seemed to agree, I was not expecting you to.
For the first five of the original questions, I had no idea what you would
answer.
You have seemed relatively willing to discuss Scientology based on your own
experiences. I am willing to believe that your experiences differ from the
experiences of other people I've read about here. For example, I believe
disconnection happens and can be traumatic for people on both sides; I also
believe what you've described about disconnection in your own life.
I'm interested in learning more about you and your experiences, as far as
you're willing to share them.
I'm also interested in knowing whether you are interested in the experiences of
those who have been hurt by Scientology.
I'm also interested in seeing for myself, through your responses (along with my
conversations with other Scientologists), how well Scientology helps you think
for yourself, look for yourself, and communicate. When you decline to answer
questions, you are not demonstrating an enhanced ability to communicate.
(You're not NECESSARILY demonstrating a reduced ability to communicate, either.
If you claim you can play tennis well, and then turn down a match, you're not
showing you play badly; you're just giving up an opportunity to show how well
you play. There is, of course, the evidence of all your other tennis matches,
or in this case, all the questions you DO choose to answer.)
> I will try with this post to clarify
> some of my answers, but as always, I reserve the right to leave any land
> mines or questions to which I don't know the answers, alone.
I continue to respect that right of yours, and I'll consider it still in effect
whether or not you note it in your subsequent posts.
If you wanted to be completely, totally clear, you could note "I don't want to
answer that right now" after each question you don't want to answer or "I don't
know" when you don't; that would help me know whether you didn't want to
discuss something or whether you didn't feel like you knew enough to answer
well. I'd also encourage general off-limits areas, so that I'll know not to
waste your and my time asking about things you're not willing to discuss. For
example, I understand that you don't want to discuss your level. I respect
that, and although one of my questions was taken as asking about your auditing,
I was only trying to clarify what your experiences were - as far as you're
willing to talk about them.
> Jour0 wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > > Jour0 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How long have you been in Scn, roughly?
> > > > (I was in for about a week, more than ten years ago.)
> > >
> > > A number of years. When I was a kid my Dad was into it and I used to go
> > > with him to the local mission. I couldn't figure out what all those
> > > boring adults were doing. :-) but I guess I could even count that as
> > > being in scn, which would make me almost a "lifer".
> >
> > Can you be a LITTLE more precise? For how long would you say that, if
someone
> > asked you "Are you a Scientologist?", you would have answered "Yes":
> >
> > a) less than 5 years
> > b) more than 5 years but less than 10 years
> > c) more than 10 years but less than 15 years
> > d) more than 15 years but less than 20 years
> > e) more than 20 years
>
> Yes, I *can* be a little more precise. But I have been reluctant so
> far, to share all my personal information with this newsgroup. And I
> still am. Put me down for more than 5 years.
I completely understand a reluctance to share ALL your personal information
with this newsgroup; I had hoped that my multiple choice options would be vague
enough to accommodate that reluctance, yet precise enough to give me a better
idea of your experience. I'm sorry you didn't wish to be more explicit, but
thanks for what you offered.
> > Can you tell me what constitutes "the tech"? Is EVERYTHING LRH wrote
"tech"?
> > (Surely the Battleship Earth stuff, for example, is not ...)
>
> Of course not. Battlefield Earth is a work of fiction.
> >
> > Is "Dianetics" part of the tech?
> > Is "All About Radiation"?
> > Is "Have You Lived Before This Life?"
> > Is "Intro to Scientology Ethics?"
> > Is "Science of Survival?"
> > Is "Child Dianetics?"
> > Is "Clear Body Clear Mind?"
> > Is "What Is Scientology?"
> > Is "The Volunteer Minister's Handbook?"
>
> Those are Scientology/Dianetics books and therefore would constitue part
> of the Hubbard tech.
Thank you very much for that. I have asked two other Scientologists to clarify
what constitutes the tech and got no answers. I really appreciate this.
> > > Such tech as I have applied correctly has always worked for me. The
> > > only time it didn't was when I misapplied it. (I can be *such* a
> > > doofus, at times)
> >
> > So you have never had the experience of the tech not working because
someone
> > else - your auditor or course supervisor, for example - applied the tech
> > incorrectly?
>
> When the tech is applied correctly it works. Humans being what they
> are, (imperfect beings who can and will make mistakes) sometimes they
> might not get it right the first time or two. This would include staff
> members, auditors, anyone in or out of Scientology doing anything
> whatsoever. So of course I've seen errors. I have also seen them
> corrected. In fact, I've personally made sure of such.
So, to clarify - has the tech ever not worked for you, because of an error made
by someone else? Or have you only seen this happen to other people?
And I'm glad to hear that the errors were corrected.
> > > > Is there any part of the tech you disagree with? Would you care to tell
me
> > what
> > > > it is?
> > > > (Yes. I think the scientific evidence disproves the theory of the
reactive
> > > > mind, for starters.)
> > >
> > > Gee. That's interesting. I don't.
> >
> > Can you refer me to the studies you've seen that tend to confirm the theory
of
> > the reactive mind?
>
> As an auditor I've encountered it. This is evidence I cannot ignore.
I would not ask you to ignore it, but neither would I call that scientific
evidence (the phrase used in my original question, above).
For the record, it really tees me off when people discount anecdotal evidence
out-of-hand, as if the mere fact of something being reported before it's been
verified scientifically were proof that it was false.
However, anecdotal evidence can be very misleading. It has been well documented
that people can believe incorrect explanations for their own experience.
The recent study done by the 9-year-old girl of psychic fields is a good
example. Alternative therapy practitioners were claiming to help their patients
by adjusting their psychic fields. She showed that this could not be the
correct explanation, since in double-blind tests, the practitioners could not
accurately detect whether there was a psychic field present or not.
That doesn't mean that those patients didn't feel better; it may even still be
true that it was the practitioners' actions that caused the improvement. What
it DOES mean is that the explanation for the phenomenon was incorrect.
The study I'm thinking of (although it's not the only one I've seen) showed
that researchers completely failed to recover any engrams from a man who had
been rendered unconcious and then hurt. In my opinion, this is far from an
ideal study, since it only involved a single subject; however, if we all have a
reactive mind and it always submits to auditing, surely the engrams should have
turned up.
To me, this strongly suggests that the explanation given for the success of
auditing is not the correct explanation.
What scientific evidence - published, peer-reviewed, independent studies - have
you seen that support the existence of the reactive mind?
And what is your reaction to the study I just mentioned that failed to recover
engrams? (I can try to find the URL for it, if you want.)
> > So, I ask again - are there any opinions of LRH's that you disagree with?
> >
> > And to complement that question, I offer a few examples. For each of the
> > following statements, taken from "Dianetics", do you agree, disagree, or
> > neither?
> >
> > "The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any
and
> > all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism,
sexual
> > sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is
actually
> > quite ill physically. ... He is very far from culpable for his condition,
but
> > he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that
the
> > tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for
it."
> > pp. 123-124
>
> Surely. An example of such a pervert would be someone that molests
> children. Someone like that is a danger to society.
So you agree with LRH that homosexuals and lesbians are a danger to society?
> > "The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not
> > computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see
nothing
> > wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one."
> > p. 409
>
> As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that
> after it happens, a child will be nervous when receiving a kiss from an
> uncle or even sitting in the same room as an adult man. This is what
> Hubbard was referring to.
As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that that
was not my experience. (I'm not saying YOU didn't have that reaction, I'm just
saying it's not universal.)
However, the part I disagree with is this:
"at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one."
Do you agree that a seven-year-old girl who has not been molested should see
nothing wrong in a passionate kiss?
> > "The past actions of an individual who has been cleared should be stricken
from
> > his record even as his illnesses have been, for with the cause removed
there
> > can be no point in retribution unless society itself is so aberrated that
it
> > desires to operate on sadistic principles. There is more than idealism here
for
> > it can be shown that aberration in individuals and the society rise in
> > progressive ratio to the amount of punishment employed."
> > p. 493
>
> Hubbard was working for practicality and against authoritarianism here.
> He was experimenting with the ideas of certain social changes that might
> be beneficial.
So, agree or disagree? Specifically, do you agree that "aberration in
individuals and the society rise in progressive ratio to the amount of
punishment employed" ? If so, do you think that the punitive elements of the
lower ethics conditions could have the effect of increasing aberration in
individuals and in Scientology?
> > So what is Scientology's attitude toward the anti-feminist writings
(especially
> > "Marriage Hats")? Are they still included in courses? Are they disavowed?
Are
> > they ignored?
>
> I don't know about that course. I saw someone on it a long time ago but
> have no idea if it's offered now.
Okay. Do you know whether "The Second Dynamic" is still used in courses?
(Oh, and I forgot to mention in my last post - I'm glad you have not
experienced gender discrimination within Scientology. In the handful of answers
I've received from individual Scientologists on that question, Scientology so
far is batting a thousand.)
> > Do you think it's a good idea to block access to information about Lisa
> > McPherson?
>
> Probably, what with all the mean-spirited wild speculations I've seen
> about what happened.
I'm not sure which web sites you might be referring to here, but it seems
you've been able to evaluate them for yourself, so it seems reasonable to
expect that other Scientologists could also evaluate them for themselves.
Do you believe this is contradictory to the ideas of "looking for yourself" and
"thinking for yourself"?
So, since I'm continuing to do these things, am I not a Suppressive Person?
(I'm really NOT trying to get you to say I'm a SP - I don't think of myself as
one, and I don't want you to, either. I'm just trying to understand how you
interpret these writings in relation to my actions.) At what point would my
speaking out against Scientology make you consider me a SP?
I'm sorry - are you saying you don't discuss YOUR auditing processes, or ANY
auditing processes?
As far as I know, the Introspection Rundown is not confidential. I read it at
the library.
I respect your right not to discuss your level, and I wasn't trying to get you
to ... I was just trying to establish how much information you had about the
IR, and how much more you were willing to acquire. I don't expect you to take
my word about what it contains, but if you're not willing to read it yourself,
I don't know how you can truly judge whether it contains instructions on
illegally detaining people.
> > I don't remember reading ANY posts on a.r.s. about new orgs in towns where
> > there weren't any a few years ago - although I certainly don't see all the
> > posts to a.r.s. Can you remember ANY names of towns, or can you point me to
any
> > specific posts, or can you suggest some keywords I could use in a DejaNews
> > search?
>
> I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
> least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.I
> believe Ann Arbor would be one.
>
> Another note on the non-shrinkage of CofS. An Org I deal with from time
> to time has five times as much staff as they did five years ago and has
> almost outgrown the two story commercial building they are in. At least
> for this particular Org, there is an expansion. However, I cannot
> comment on other Orgs that I do not deal with.
Okay, I'll search DejaNews on "Ann Arbor." If any others spring to mind, please
let me know.
However, the removal of several orgs from the Scientology (I keep typing
Scientolgoy! darn reactive mind!) Global Locator web pages seems to me to be
more indicative of shrinkage than expansion.
Your mileage may vary. (And apparently does.)
> One more thing: The direction of Dianetics and Scientology was for
> workability and practicality for use in lives and in society. Hubbard
> explored a good many possibilities in these areas.
>
> The techniques that he published were workable and they got results.
> For me, that's the bottom line.
Okay. For me, the bottom line on Scientology includes a whole bunch of other
factors, including the financial cost, the illegality of some of the practices,
and especially the suffering of the people Scientology hurt.
> > > > Thanks again for your contributions to the newsgroup! Even if you DO
turn
> > out
> > > > to be a troll, you've been interesting!
> > >
> > > Nah, I am what I say I am, except there is even more to the wonder and
> > > glory that is Claire Swazey than I have previously disclosed. (got to
> > > keep some of it under wraps,ya know!)
> >
> > Really? What are you hiding?
> >
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I just don't say everything about myself. Neither does anyone I know
> anywhere (whether on a.r.s. or in the ordinary work-a-day world)
> disclose every little thing about themselves. *You* don't.
Sorry, Claire - IT WAS A JOKE. I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious, but I did at
least put the little smiley in there to try to tip you off.
It may have been before your time, but it seemed like, at one time, all the
anonymous nasty-bots would include "What are you hiding?" in a lot of their
posts, echoing the Scientology edict that anyone who attacks Scientology has
something to hide. As you noted above, quite correctly in my opinion, EVERYONE
has something to hide. Thus, the Scientology edict is not untrue; it's just
misleading, as it implies that critics of Scientology have more to hide than
other people. (Boy, I bet Frank Oliver is mortified that that improper lane
change of his came out!)
You're quite right that I don't disclose every little thing about myself, and
you definitely have one up on me in that you're using your real name, whereas I
am posting under an alias.
I'm sorry my humorous intent wasn't obvious.
I'm glad you had a nice breather, and I hope you had a lovely time at your
friend's wedding reception.
Thanks again for your responses.
Jour
Rob Clark
>Rob Clark wrote:
>> a responsible organization, when a death occurs due to their policies, will
>> reexamine those policies and if necessary change them to avoid a future death.
>> scientology has done no such thing, and in fact they would prefer simply to
>> brush it under the rug, cover it up with whiteout, and pretend it never
>> happened.
>> rob
>I would think that it is likely that they have done just that. But no
>matter what they do, you will say it is not enough, IMHO.
yes, you might *prefer* to think that, but what concrete steps have actually
been taken to *guarantee* that no such event *ever* occurs again?
personally, i "would think" that no such action has been taken and that "Source"
has stated the final statement on this matter, that anyone who goes PTS-III is
to be isolated, just like lisa mcpherson, until they either die or admit their
"crimes."
i do not believe that any changes have been made, and i do believe that these
very same policies which led to the death of lisa mcpherson (who scientology
edits out of their "net nanny" as if her very name were an obscenity) continue
to this day and will continue to kill people.
perhaps i'm deluded but i have yet to hear the reason why i am deluded.
>C
rob
Ted Mayett (KOX)
wrote:
>> : I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
>> : least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.
This is correct. I have here the addresses and pictures of new orgs
and missions in Las Vegas:
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/shops/shops.html
If you would like the exact date that the
Dianetics Life Improvement Center Mission of Las Vegas opened I can
get that for you.
The Dianetics Center is not really new, it was opened around 1993 at a
different address. Locally the Church of Nevada states that this
"new" Dianetics Center was opened to meet the demand of new publics
reaching for the L Ron Hubbard Technology. This Dianetics Center
runs ads in the newspaper here offering Dianetics Workshops.
So yes, at least here in Vegas Scientology is Expanding and opening
new places. Enjoy the pictures.
John C. Randolph
-> Rob Clark wrote:
[snip]
-> > a responsible organization, when a death occurs due to their policies,
will
-> > reexamine those policies and if necessary change them to avoid a future
death.
-> > scientology has done no such thing, and in fact they would prefer simply
to
-> > brush it under the rug, cover it up with whiteout, and pretend it never
-> > happened.
-> >
-> > rob
->
-> I would think that it is likely that they have done just that.
As they say in certain computer advocacy newsgroups I frequent, "This turns
out not to be the case." Go look it up: the Co$ hasn't produced the people
who are named in the babywatch logs for questioning by the police in
Clearwater. In fact, they got them out of the country and are hiding them.
-> But no matter what they do, you will say it is not enough, IMHO.
Full cooperation with the murder investigation would be enough for me. The
Co$ could start by bringing the immediate culprits back to Florida to speak
to the cops.
-jcr
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: Rebecca Jo McLaughlin wrote:
: No,I would be right. It used to be that only a mission was there.
Sorry. I forget about all these corporate distinctions (org, mission,
foundation, etc). Please allow me to rephrase: there has been a
scientology *presence* in Ann Arbor for decades. You say they have
only recently graduated to Org? How recently? What are the criteria that
separate it from a Mission?
Beck
Claire Swazey
significant.For one thing, a Mission is a small franchise, generally,
(although in the past some missions became somewhat large) and they
offer a limited number of services.
An "Org" is a much larger center and can offer more than 10 times the
number of services. For an area to support an Org at all, when it
previously had only had a mission, would be an indication of some
measure of growth in the organization at a local level.
C
Claire Swazey
>
> Hi Claire!
>
> Thanks for your reply. Mine is below.
>
> I have snipped some to make it easier to focus on our conversation. I MIGHT
> suggest that you consider a little more snipping, too, in your own replies;
> I've seen one or two of yours where you quoted an entire reply and made just a
> short comment in the middle, which I found difficult to spot. Some netiquette
> guides suggest only quoting the portion of a post you're replying to. On the
> other hand, some people find it more useful to quote the entire message they're
> replying to, so those people would undoubtedly disagree with me. Just a
> suggestion; ignore it if you like.
Still somewhat new at the usenet stuff although I'm picking up more and
more as I go on, so the suggestion is appreciated.
>
>
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> Loaded questions? You say that like it's a bad thing ... ;-)
>
> Seriously, I looked up "loaded questions" in my dictionary (I disagree with
> many of the fundamental concepts of study tech but I will gladly admit that
> debating Scientology is getting me to use my dictionary more, and I think
> that's a good thing). Under "load," it says, "to phrase (a question, etc.) so
> as to elicit a desired answer or reaction."
Well, Jour, I think you probably may know what I mean.These questions
were indeed set up to elicit a desired answer or reaction, in a way they
were a bit of a set-up, each one a potential land-mine. I don't
particularly mind, however, I mean, for a Scn'ologist to poke her head
into a ng like this is in a way, just asking for it.
>
> To be completely honest, for some of my questions, I anticipated certain
> answers, and asked what I thought were rather pointed questions, but I was
> perfectly ready for you to surprise me or answer in ways other than what I
> expected. I wanted your honest responses. On the agree/disagree questions, for
> example, in those cases where you seemed to agree, I was not expecting you to.
> For the first five of the original questions, I had no idea what you would
> answer.
>
> You have seemed relatively willing to discuss Scientology based on your own
> experiences. I am willing to believe that your experiences differ from the
> experiences of other people I've read about here. For example, I believe
> disconnection happens and can be traumatic for people on both sides; I also
> believe what you've described about disconnection in your own life.
>
> I'm interested in learning more about you and your experiences, as far as
> you're willing to share them.
>
> I'm also interested in knowing whether you are interested in the experiences of
> those who have been hurt by Scientology.
I am interested in hearing anything and everything a.r.s. has to offer,
except the eternal name-calling (not you) I've had to endure.
However, let me tell you something. THis is something I've seen in the
non-Scn world. 1) I worked in this company,once, where a girl that
worked there became persona-non-grata with her coworkers. She had not
dealt with them smoothly,but she was, I think, fairly ok. They decided
she was a creep. Then, everything she did, no matter what it was, they
would find fault with.I mean, they were laying for this chick. They
would read things into what she said that weren't there and they would
even make things up although they convinced themselves that it was all
true.
2) I know a family wherein the dad was horrible and psychologically
abusive to his family to an extreme degree. And there was one incident
of physical abuse wherein a child's nose got broken,although oddly
enough (I say oddly because people like that usually do this sort of
thing more than once) he never hit a child again after that. But the
daily trauma he inflicted on them was more than they could bear. The
mother was a victim of it right there with the kids. Now, years later,
4 out of 5 kids remember all this. Some of them fault the mom a little
because she didn't do much about it,although they recognize she was a
victim to. But 1 out of the 5 kids, a girl (now woman) named Jane
remembers the mom as the abuser and is convinced that the other 4 sibs
have repressed everything and she is right, by god, and they are wrong.
This are points I keep in mind when I hear some of the claims people
make about my religion. I guess it can come down to who are ya going to
believe. Well, as a have a bias toward Scn, some of these accounts may
not always have a great deal of credibility with me, to be honest. Not
all, mind you, but certainly some.
>
> I'm also interested in seeing for myself, through your responses (along with my
> conversations with other Scientologists), how well Scientology helps you think
> for yourself, look for yourself, and communicate. When you decline to answer
> questions, you are not demonstrating an enhanced ability to >communicate.
Well, as I've stated on this ng before, I would appreciate it if people
would try to realize that my failings are my own (and believe me, I have
failings a-plenty) and not necessarily a reflection on the Church. Also,
being in this ng, which is an extremely hostile environment for someone
like me (Although a number of people have been quite civil, and some
have even been sweet) for the most part, many people are picking to
pieces everything I say, looking for the pill in the jam, and are
calling me names, etc. Well, I can take that, I really can, but I
cannot be expected to like it, and it is not wholly reasonable for me to
be expected to not be on my guard, so some of what you may see as lapses
and faults in communication stem from this.
> (You're not NECESSARILY demonstrating a reduced ability to communicate, either.
> If you claim you can play tennis well, and then turn down a match, you're not
> showing you play badly; you're just giving up an opportunity to show how well
> you play. There is, of course, the evidence of all your other tennis matches,
> or in this case, all the questions you DO choose to answer.)
>
<snip>
That's a complex question. I think I would have to say that I've seen
delivery of tech and policy impacted at times in the cases that there
were errors, but that even then, they still worked, just maybe not as
well.
>
> And I'm glad to hear that the errors were corrected.
>
<snip>
> > As an auditor I've encountered it. This is evidence I cannot ignore.
>
> I would not ask you to ignore it, but neither would I call that scientific
> evidence (the phrase used in my original question, above).
>
> For the record, it really tees me off when people discount anecdotal evidence
> out-of-hand, as if the mere fact of something being reported before it's been
> verified scientifically were proof that it was false.
>
> However, anecdotal evidence can be very misleading. It has been well documented
> that people can believe incorrect explanations for their own experience.
>
> The recent study done by the 9-year-old girl of psychic fields is a good
> example. Alternative therapy practitioners were claiming to help their patients
> by adjusting their psychic fields. She showed that this could not be the
> correct explanation, since in double-blind tests, the practitioners could not
> accurately detect whether there was a psychic field present or not.
>
> That doesn't mean that those patients didn't feel better; it may even still be
> true that it was the practitioners' actions that caused the improvement. What
> it DOES mean is that the explanation for the phenomenon was incorrect.
Well, it means that her studies showed that. I have seen, in my time,
alot of conflicting studies about various topics. For instance, I saw a
show on PBS, a few years ago, wherein these guys (can't remember their
names but I imagine someone out there in a.r.s. land has seen this and
will know what I am referring to) came up with a hypothethis that the
ozone layer is not shrinking, that this is a lie put out by DuPont
Chemical to sell a certain product that was going to replace another
product that is thought to impact the ozone layer. They had all kinds
of convincing proofs. I was really excited there for awhile, as I would
love to believe that our ozone layer is ok. But I have since concluded
(just bases on my opinion,I'm no scientist) that this was probably
untrue. But the thing is, they came up with some facts and studies that
sounded pretty darn convincing.
>
> The study I'm thinking of (although it's not the only one I've seen) showed
> that researchers completely failed to recover any engrams from a man who had
> been rendered unconcious and then hurt. In my opinion, this is far from an
> ideal study, since it only involved a single subject; however, if we all have a
> reactive mind and it always submits to auditing, surely the engrams should have
> turned up.
>
> To me, this strongly suggests that the explanation given for the success of
> auditing is not the correct explanation.
>
> What scientific evidence - published, peer-reviewed, independent studies - have
> you seen that support the existence of the reactive mind?
To be honest, I do not check for those things. As I have stated before
my bias is with Scn, not against it. My only tests (and I know that
some of the a.r.s. readers here are going to not like this attitude) and
criteria are that I check these things out myself and do they check out
when I do.
>
> And what is your reaction to the study I just mentioned that failed to recover
> engrams? (I can try to find the URL for it, if you want.)
>
<cut>
> > > "The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any
> and
> > > all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism,
> sexual
> > > sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is
> actually
> > > quite ill physically. ... He is very far from culpable for his condition,
> but
> > > he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that
> the
> > > tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for
> it."
> > > pp. 123-124
> >
> > Surely. An example of such a pervert would be someone that molests
> > children. Someone like that is a danger to society.
>
> So you agree with LRH that homosexuals and lesbians are a danger to society?
this one, I'm not touching.
>
> > > "The seven-year-old girl who shudders because a man kisses her is not
> > > computing; she is reacting to an engram since at seven she should see
> nothing
> > > wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one."
> > > p. 409
> >
> > As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that
> > after it happens, a child will be nervous when receiving a kiss from an
> > uncle or even sitting in the same room as an adult man. This is what
> > Hubbard was referring to.
>
> As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that that
> was not my experience. (I'm not saying YOU didn't have that reaction, I'm just
> saying it's not universal.)
Maybe not universal, nothing is, there are no absolutes, but certainly
common for a young girl to be skittish after an experience like that. I
can remember a couple months later sitting with a guidance counselor
(male) who wasn't much older than my attacker, in a room where the door
was shut and we two were the only ones there.Now, I knew this guy wasn't
going to start ripping of my clothese,etc, but all I could think was
"he's got one of *those* ugly things, ick" and it was very
distracting.Fortunately, after a few more months I was able to calm down
about that kind of thing.
>
> However, the part I disagree with is this:
>
> "at seven she should see nothing wrong in a kiss, not even a passionate one."
>
> Do you agree that a seven-year-old girl who has not been molested should see
> nothing wrong in a passionate kiss?
>
I can't find the reference in my Dianetics books, our editions must be
different. but going on the assumption, that it says just that, I would
say that the wording is a little odd. I really do not think Hubbard got
his jollies by having sex with little kids. Sometimes writers come up
with weird phrasing that misses the proof reading stage. For example,
L.M. Montgomery once wrote something about some youngish spinster's
slender throat imprisoned in a high collar (turn of the century book
wherein woman wore these high collars) which was quite plump and pretty
yet. And the reader is left thinking, which is it, slender or plump and
pretty? Maybe the passionate thing is a similar gaffe? I honestly
don't know.
<snip>
> > He was experimenting with the ideas of certain social changes that might
> > be beneficial.
>
> So, agree or disagree? Specifically, do you agree that "aberration in
> individuals and the society rise in progressive ratio to the amount of
> punishment employed" ? If so, do you think that the punitive elements of the
> lower ethics conditions could have the effect of increasing aberration in
> individuals and in Scientology?
I guess I do agree. I think what Hubbard was saying is that prisons etc,
tend to aberrate the individual even farther than he already is. I
would agree with this (did you ever see that movie with Kevin Bacon and
I think Keanu Reeves about this guy at Alcatraz-this was based on real
events- and the horrible way he was treated- and it totally screwed this
guy up and he wasn't doing too well to start with.)
I think Hubbard wanted and hoped that alternatives to such things could
be instituted. And I don't think the Scn Ethics are draconian, if
applied correctly. I have been through such actions, I have been in
situations where it seemed that CofS was *not* happy with yours truly at
all, and it didn't kill me off. No one lay a hand on me.
People on this ng have told me of abuses they have heard of or
witnessed. All I can say is that these are contra to Scn policy and
should never be condoned nor considered part of the religion.
>
<snip>
> >
> > I don't know about that course. I saw someone on it a long time ago but
> > have no idea if it's offered now.
>
> Okay. Do you know whether "The Second Dynamic" is still used in courses?
Are you referring to a tape, a book or a course entitled the Second
Dynamic?
>
> (Oh, and I forgot to mention in my last post - I'm glad you have not
> experienced gender discrimination within Scientology. In the handful of answers
> I've received from individual Scientologists on that question, Scientology so
> far is batting a thousand.)
>
> > > Do you think it's a good idea to block access to information about Lisa
> > > McPherson?
> >
> > Probably, what with all the mean-spirited wild speculations I've seen
> > about what happened.
>
> I'm not sure which web sites you might be referring to here, but it seems
> you've been able to evaluate them for yourself, so it seems reasonable to
> expect that other Scientologists could also evaluate them for themselves.
>
> Do you believe this is contradictory to the ideas of "looking for yourself" and
> "thinking for yourself"?
No comment on that one as I have not made up my mind about that.
>
> > >
> > > "A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or
> damage
> > > Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
> > > "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to
> Committees
><snip>
> > I know someone that (just once) threatened to sue or embarrass CofS. But
> > she did not do it again. So she did a suppressive thing once. That
> > does not make her an automatic sociopath. It makes her a person who did
> > a suppressive thing. Even good people can do bad things. This does
> > not make the afore-mentioned good people into a pack of Hitlers and
> > Bundys.
> >
> > So it *is* a suppressive act. 'Cause it suppresses Scn.
>
> So, since I'm continuing to do these things, am I not a Suppressive Person?
> (I'm really NOT trying to get you to say I'm a SP - I don't think of myself as
> one, and I don't want you to, either. I'm just trying to understand how you
> interpret these writings in relation to my actions.) At what point would my
> speaking out against Scientology make you consider me a SP?
I cannot say you are an SP as I do not know you and would thus be
totally unqualified to make such a determination. I do think you are
doing something that is suppressive to my church, however. Which would
either place you in the same category as the lady I mentioned in the
previous reply/post or would mean you were in fact an SP. When I see
people doing things I don't like, the way I look at it, (this is on a
personal level, remember I am not a spokeswoman for CofS ) I just think
"here is someone doing something with which I don't agree." and that's
pretty much the way I view stuff like that.
>
<snip>
><snip>
> > I do not discuss my training level, or auditing processes or
> > confidential materials. Sorry.
>
> I'm sorry - are you saying you don't discuss YOUR auditing processes, or ANY
> auditing processes?
Well, both I guess. I don't discuss my training and processing level
that I personally have, and I also do not discuss actual auditing
processes verbally, with anyone, Scientologist or non-Scientologist.
>
> As far as I know, the Introspection Rundown is not confidential. I read it at
> the library.
OK, I understand, but I don't discuss those things. Even if you were a
scientologist I wouldn't.
>
> I respect your right not to discuss your level, and I wasn't trying to get you
> to ... I was just trying to establish how much information you had about the
> IR, and how much more you were willing to acquire. I don't expect you to take
> my word about what it contains, but if you're not willing to read it yourself,
> I don't know how you can truly judge whether it contains instructions on
> illegally detaining people.
>
> > I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
> > least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.I
> > believe Ann Arbor would be one.
> >
> > Another note on the non-shrinkage of CofS. An Org I deal with from time
> > to time has five times as much staff as they did five years ago and has
> > almost outgrown the two story commercial building they are in. At least
> > for this particular Org, there is an expansion. However, I cannot
> > comment on other Orgs that I do not deal with.
>
> Okay, I'll search DejaNews on "Ann Arbor." If any others spring to mind, please
> let me know.
>
> However, the removal of several orgs from the Scientology (I keep typing
> Scientolgoy! darn reactive mind!) Global Locator web pages seems to me to be
> more indicative of shrinkage than expansion.
I know, or at least I think I know, that some Orgs have shut
down.However, a number of Orgs have started up, that were not there
before. I do not think it is shrinking. I have a book published 20
years ago,a Scn book, that has a list of Orgs. There are far more Orgs
nowadays than in this list. Also, the FLAG land base in Florida is
still doing a booming business. It would be hard for them to do as well
as they are, money being what it is and all, if there was a significant
reduction in Scientologists. Now, that is just my opinion and should be
taken as such. Don't ask me for statistics on that one 'cause I don't
have them.
No, it's cool. It's just that I have had some people try to out me, and
it was so weird 'cause I'm already out. I had people say look out the
window of your org, can't you see the woman picketing, you are so
transparent... And I was like, how can I do that, I'm here at home in
the computer room. I'm not contracted or volunteer staff anywhere. I
tell ya, Jour, it was like shouting in the wind there for awhile.
>
> I'm glad you had a nice breather, and I hope you had a lovely time at your
> friend's wedding reception.
Did I ever. The bride looked so radiant, I was very very happy for her
and happy to be there.
>
> Thanks again for your responses.
>
> Jour
Well, sure. However, two things:
1) I admit to having a bias toward Scn. Some people on the ng have been
upset about this. But that's how it is. I am communicating from this
bias and know my religion to be a good thing. Any abuses, if they
happen, and if they happen on my watch, would be addressed by me. I take
such things very seriously but I am not going to ditch my religion.
2) I'm not as good at this computer stuff as the majority of those
posting on a.r.s. so bear with me (which you have been very nice) when I
don't do the snipping thing right. I really admire how good alot of
the a.r.s. contributors are with this computer stuff.
Claire
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: I honestly don't know when they went from Org to Mission. But it is
: significant.For one thing, a Mission is a small franchise, generally,
: (although in the past some missions became somewhat large) and they
: offer a limited number of services.
So, in order to be an Org as opposed to a Mission, an Org franchise must
be purchased?
Beck
David Gerard
:Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
:> When I got the original post I saw that those were extremely
:> (intentionally so, IMO) loaded questions and I responded with the
:> answers that I felt they deserved.
:Loaded questions? You say that like it's a bad thing ... ;-)
Of course it's a bad thing. They may stimulate thought. The wrong thoughts
are a bad thing. One must learn to block them before ever thinking them.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
The above was written by the container formerly known as David Gerard.
See http://www.subgenius.com/ for details. It's too late to pay your $30.
David Gerard
:Well, Jour, I think you probably may know what I mean.These questions
:were indeed set up to elicit a desired answer or reaction, in a way they
:were a bit of a set-up, each one a potential land-mine.
Indeed. You might think bad thoughts, the sort of thoughts only a potential
suppressive would think.
xe...@the.satanic.org
[snip]
>Yes, I *can* be a little more precise. But I have been reluctant so
>far, to share all my personal information with this newsgroup. And I
>still am. Put me down for more than 5 years.
[and then we have...]
>As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that
>after it happens, a child will be nervous when receiving a kiss from an
>uncle or even sitting in the same room as an adult man. This is what
>Hubbard was referring to.
And this is all said with a straight face? I mean the part about your
reluctance "to share all your personal information?"
D "the cognitive dissonance" J "makes" F "my brain hurt"
[$cientology] now has the attention of the American Public, in a forum
controlled by rowdy, young, irreverent radicals who think the [cult] wants
to take away their liberty to say "fuck" to perfect strangers. In other
words, [$cientology has] picked a fight in a ring where the referee is the
other fighter's trainer. Brilliant - Cerberus on ARS way back in 95
Claire Swazey
> :were indeed set up to elicit a desired answer or reaction, in a way they
> :were a bit of a set-up, each one a potential land-mine.
>
> suppressive would think.
>
> --
> http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
> Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
> The above was written by the container formerly known as David Gerard.
> See http://www.subgenius.com/ for details. It's too late to pay your $30.
Of course I might. I'm not without faults and have been known to think
a bad thought or two...
C
Claire Swazey
> >far, to share all my personal information with this newsgroup. And I
> >still am. Put me down for more than 5 years.
>
>
> >As someone who has been molested as a child herself, I can tell you that
> >after it happens, a child will be nervous when receiving a kiss from an
> >uncle or even sitting in the same room as an adult man. This is what
> >Hubbard was referring to.
>
> reluctance "to share all your personal information?"
I said I didn't want to share *all* personal info. Primarily stuff
about training,case level,etc. Didn't say I wouldn't share any. Since
it's about me I get to pick and choose.
Claire Swazey
Orgs are not franchises.Missions are. Missions are started with some
kind of charter. I do not know how to set up an org, I must admit. But
I do know it is not the same as a mission.
C
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: > So, in order to be an Org as opposed to a Mission, an Org franchise must
: > be purchased?
: Orgs are not franchises.Missions are. Missions are started with some
: kind of charter. I do not know how to set up an org, I must admit. But
: I do know it is not the same as a mission.
Does anyone else know what's required to turn a Mission into an Org?
Beck
kEvin
John C. Randolph <jcr.r...@this.phrase.idiom.com> wrote:
>-> I would think that it is likely that they have done just that.
>As they say in certain computer advocacy newsgroups I frequent, "This turns
>out not to be the case." Go look it up: the Co$ hasn't produced the people
>who are named in the babywatch logs for questioning by the police in
>Clearwater. In fact, they got them out of the country and are hiding them.
They got them out of the country and hid them, but they've all been made
available for questioning by the police. It took months for this to
occur and the police weren't happy about the delays.
>-> But no matter what they do, you will say it is not enough, IMHO.
>Full cooperation with the murder investigation would be enough for me. The
>Co$ could start by bringing the immediate culprits back to Florida to speak
>to the cops.
They did allow the police to interview them. I think full cooperation
would be to tell the truth about Lisa's final days and produce the missing
babywatch logs. It would also include such "minor" things as dropping the
harassment and fair game activities against the medical examiner and the
doctor who performed the autopsy.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<xe...@mindspring.com> writes
>personally, i find it incredibly distasteful that they wish to turn lisa
>mcpherson into a "nonperson."
If you write to a Scientologist with their blinkers on,
perhaps you should write here as "L1sa NonPerson".
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> personally, i find it incredibly distasteful that they wish to turn lisa
>> incident, stating that the people who were at the vigil (where scientologists
>> blew out candles) "hated her guts" while she was alive.
>>
>> it is extremely disturbing, and reminds me of why i came here in the first
>> place, that they now wish to make lisa mcpherson a "nonperson" and that if
>they
>> had their way, none of their members would even know that lisa mcpherson had
>> ever even existed.
>>
>death.
>
>matter what they do, you will say it is not enough, IMHO.
The relevant "policies", administrative or technical, are:---
(1) That conventional medical treatment of mental problems is so
objectionable that, even if there are consequent physical problems
e.g. refusal to eat and drink properly, a Scientologist with such
problems should be removed from conventional treatment and looked
after by their fellow paritioners. Even if their fellow paritioners
may be medically incompetent, and might kill them by incompetence.
Said incompetence may not be by actions [attempting to use
drugs or surgery they don't properly understand], but simply by
ommissions [not spottting a dangerous symptom and the necessary
corerective action]. The death of L1sa NonPerson--for ScienoSitter!--
involved both i.e. not understanding when it's inappropriate to
prescribe chloral hydrate, and not setting up a glucose drip
when needed.
(2) The isolation step of the Introspection Rundown.
=====================================================================
Message-ID: <AIVkcRGp$sm1...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Re:Why I am a public critic of CoS [POSTED & MAILED]
In<3595CB4A...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> writes
>> >> Any comments, Claire?
Further questions.
Is it right that Scientology would not want a paritioner to undergo
psychiatric treatment -- I know what the stated reasons for this are --
and if she was in hospital chiefly because of a "psychotic break"
would probably withdraw her from treatment for this reason, to put
her under their own care? What would the appropriate action be??
Would HCOB of 23/jan/1974 Revision(of 25/apr/1991)'B', HCOB of
20/feb/1974 Revised (on 25/Apr/1991), HCOB of 06/mar/1974, and
HCOB of 20/apr/1974 Revised (on 25/apr/1991) be the applicable
documents?
==============================================================
What grounds do you have for saying that these policies have
changed, or that anything at all has changed?
In article <35a8184a...@news.mindspring.com>, Rob Clark
<xe...@mindspring.com> writes
>yes, you might *prefer* to think that, but what concrete steps have actually
>been taken to *guarantee* that no such event *ever* occurs again?
>personally, i "would think" that no such action has been taken and that "Source"
>has stated the final statement on this matter, that anyone who goes PTS-III is
>to be isolated, just like lisa mcpherson, until they either die or admit their
>"crimes."
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
>
>: I have seen mentions of names of Orgs, where several years ago, at
>: least, those towns did not have orgs or had a mission originally.I
>: believe Ann Arbor would be one.
>
There has been an Org or mission at An Arbor since the early days
of Scientology. I believe one of the few Scn books not by Hubbard
is some sort of self-help book published by "Scientology mission
of Ann Arbor."
In<35A7FDCE...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> writes
>No,I would be right. It used to be that only a mission was there.
zat right? how much did it have to grow to become a bOrg ??
In<8i1q1.3408$24.19...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Rebecca Jo McLaughlin:
> You say they have only recently graduated to Org? How recently?
>What are the criteria that separate it from a Mission?
In<YG6q1.3418$24.19...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Rebecca Jo McLaughlin:
>Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
>: I honestly don't know when they went from Org to Mission. But it is
>: significant.For one thing, a Mission is a small franchise, generally,
>: (although in the past some missions became somewhat large) and they
>: offer a limited number of services.
>
>So, in order to be an Org as opposed to a Mission, an Org franchise must
>be purchased?
NO: WORSE THAN THAT. You build the business as a Franchise, i.e. during
the risk-taking parts YOU carry the profit (or loss). Once it is
profitable, the CoS come along say "we will now do you the honour of
making this a directly owned part of CoS."
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: In<%9Tp1.3359$24.19...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Rebecca Jo McLaughlin:
: >Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: In<35A7FDCE...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> writes
: >No,I would be right. It used to be that only a mission was there.
: >So, in order to be an Org as opposed to a Mission, an Org franchise must
: >be purchased?
: NO: WORSE THAN THAT. You build the business as a Franchise, i.e. during
: the risk-taking parts YOU carry the profit (or loss). Once it is
: profitable, the CoS come along say "we will now do you the honour of
: making this a directly owned part of CoS."
Is it Gross Income that determines the promotion, or an increase in
members? And if the latter, do they use real numbers or Heber numbers?
Beck
Who has seen no *visible* signs of expansion in Ann Arbor - and I've been
lookin'.
mor...@gte.net
> >
> > So, in order to be an Org as opposed to a Mission, an Org franchise must
> > be purchased?
> >
>
> Orgs are not franchises.Missions are. Missions are started with some
> kind of charter. I do not know how to set up an org, I must admit. But
> I do know it is not the same as a mission.
>
>
In order to set up an org, you declare the missionholder, ( Dean Stokes,
Martin Samuel, Kingsley Wimbush, etc.etc.) , and the SO Missionaires come in
and the SO takes over. The "mission" is now staffed with SO, and is an "org".
jana
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Claire Swazey
>
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In<%9Tp1.3359$24.19...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Rebecca Jo McLaughlin:
> : >Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
>
> : In<35A7FDCE...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> writes
> : >No,I would be right. It used to be that only a mission was there.
>
> : >be purchased?
>
> : the risk-taking parts YOU carry the profit (or loss). Once it is
> : profitable, the CoS come along say "we will now do you the honour of
> : making this a directly owned part of CoS."
>
> Is it Gross Income that determines the promotion, or an increase in
> members? And if the latter, do they use real numbers or Heber numbers?
>
> Beck
> Who has seen no *visible* signs of expansion in Ann Arbor - and I've been
> lookin'.
I'll bet DeoMorto would know, if anyone would.
Claire
Jour0
> Still somewhat new at the usenet stuff although I'm picking up more
and
> more as I go on, so the suggestion is appreciated.
You're doing fine, IMHO. Everyone goes through a period of being a
newbie, and IMHO you avoided all the really annoying newbie mistakes.
(The types of netiquette violations I've seen people on a.r.s. get
flamed for are "me toos", which are replying to and quoting all of a
long message and just adding "I agree" at the end; spamming, which as
you probably know is posting so much off-topic or repetitive material
that it makes the newsgroup even harder to read; and just generally
posting off-topic. I haven't seen you do any of these.)
Also, personal style enters into it. I noticed you typed <snip> where
you snipped in that last post, which I usually don't do, but doing it is
probably better than not.
If you'd like more netiquette tips, you might want to look at
http://members.aol.com/macabrus/faqs.html or
http://www.islandnet.com/~tmc/html/articles/usentnws.htm , but as I
said, I think you're doing fine.
> > Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Loaded questions? You say that like it's a bad thing ... ;-)
> >
> > Seriously, I looked up "loaded questions" in my dictionary (I
disagree with
> > many of the fundamental concepts of study tech but I will gladly
admit that
> > debating Scientology is getting me to use my dictionary more, and I
think
> > that's a good thing). Under "load," it says, "to phrase (a question,
etc.)
so
> > as to elicit a desired answer or reaction."
>
> Well, Jour, I think you probably may know what I mean.These questions
> were indeed set up to elicit a desired answer or reaction, in a way
they
> were a bit of a set-up, each one a potential land-mine. I don't
> particularly mind, however, I mean, for a Scn'ologist to poke her head
> into a ng like this is in a way, just asking for it.
Well, now, I'd like to ask you for a little leap of faith, here. When I
said that the first five were not loaded, I meant that. They weren't
loaded in any way. For example, I was perfectly prepared for either
answer on "is there any part of the tech you disagree with / hasn't
worked for you", and I'm perfectly willing to believe that, as far as
you're concerned, the problems you've encountered have been through your
own misapplication.
I'll admit that with some questions, like "is there any LRH stuff
BESIDES the tech that you disagree with", I had some points I wanted to
discuss and I was trying to establish a basis for that discussion, but
with others, like "how long have you been a Scientologist," I honestly
wasn't looking for a particular answer (and frankly, with that one, I
can't see how you could think I was).
I'm willing to accept that you're trying to be as honest as you can be
without revealing more than you choose to. I'm asking you to believe the
same of me. The first five questions were not loaded. Given that, if
you're happy with your initial answers, fine; if you'd like to go back
and re-reply, please do.
> > To be completely honest, for some of my questions, I anticipated
certain
> > answers, and asked what I thought were rather pointed questions, but
I was
> > perfectly ready for you to surprise me or answer in ways other than
what I
> > expected. I wanted your honest responses. On the agree/disagree
questions,
for
> > example, in those cases where you seemed to agree, I was not
expecting you
to.
> > For the first five of the original questions, I had no idea what you
would
> > answer.
> > I'm interested in learning more about you and your experiences, as
far as
> > you're willing to share them.
> >
> > I'm also interested in knowing whether you are interested in the
experiences
of
> > those who have been hurt by Scientology.
>
> I am interested in hearing anything and everything a.r.s. has to
offer,
> except the eternal name-calling (not you) I've had to endure.
Of course I don't expect you to anxiously seek out name-calling or
abuse. If your newsreader has a killfile/filter, I suggest you check it
out and learn to use it. (It lets you ignore messages from certain
posters, or with certain words in the subject.) I've killfiled a number
of a.r.s. posters, some because I find them routinely abusive, some
because their arguments have consistently seemed invalid. If a.r.s. had
a lot fewer postings, I probably wouldn't killfile so much, but it
definitely makes it easier to focus on the stuff I DO want to read.
For what it's worth, I currently have you in my filters file to
highlight your messages, so I'll be sure to see them. As I've said, I'm
glad you're posting here, and I'm interested in what you have to say.
I understand your point (I think): we all interpret the world through
the lens of our experiences. Your second example also indicates that, in
some cases, our experiences blind us to (what appears to be,
objectively) the truth. I think that's one of the major points of
contention in this newsgroup: Scientologists think critics are unable,
or refusing, to see the truth, and critics think Scientologists are
unable, or refusing, to see the truth.
I try to temper my opinions with a willingness to objectively evaluate
new information. I strive to be willing to be wrong, and I think I
achieve that most of the time. Clearly that's not true of everyone on
a.r.s., but I do find that an encouraging number of critics are willing
to reverse their opinions in the face of compelling conflicting
evidence.
I have seen less of this trait in Scientologists - although admittedly,
there have been very few Scientologists here who could even manage the
most basic level of intelligent debate, and of course my selective
memory is going to emphasize the side I want to see.
However, to give you one quick example, the first time I picketed, my
sign accused Scn of being, among other things, anti-feminist. A
Scientologist came out of the org and said I should get my facts
straight - the ED of the org was a woman. I replied that LRH said in
Dianetics that women shouldn't compete with men. He said, "No he
didn't." I offered to show him the quote, and he declined.
Now, it's one thing to say, "That was a reflection of his times and of
course we all disregard that now" or something like that. It's entirely
another to say "He never said any such thing, and don't try to show me."
There's a big difference between "I disagree with your interpretation"
and "I don't even want to look at the evidence".
Although you've only been here a short while and I haven't read anywhere
near all of your posts, I can say that you have shown a greater
willingness to look at the evidence than other Scientologist posters
here. I'm not sure yet that I would give you an A on that score, but I
definitely wouldn't give you an F. (And I'm not really meaning to imply
that you should care how I would rate you; I'm just giving my
impression. As with everything else I say, ignore it if you want.)
At least, when I gave you those LRH quotes from Dianetics, you didn't
claim he never wrote them. Points for that.
Understood, and this is one of the reasons I am happy to grant you
plenty of slack. Even on non-contentious newsgroups (like over in
alt.fan.49ers or something), communication in plain text can easily
go astray.
I do not expect you to be perfect, and I do not attribute your
shortcomings to Scn.
Please remember, though, that Scn claims to make people more able -
better communicators, better reasoners, and so on. When I point out that
you're supposed to be able to communicate and reason better than the
rest of us, it's because of those claims. (Of course, without having
known you pre-Scientology, it's hard to know how much it may have helped
you improve. For all we know, you were a blithering idiot before your
first Scn course. ;-) )
> > So, to clarify - has the tech ever not worked for you, because of an
error
made
> > by someone else? Or have you only seen this happen to other people?
>
> That's a complex question. I think I would have to say that I've seen
> delivery of tech and policy impacted at times in the cases that there
> were errors, but that even then, they still worked, just maybe not as
> well.
I'm sorry - I don't think you were answering the question I was asking.
What I'm trying to find out here is: on occasions when the tech has not
worked for you because it was misapplied, was it ALWAYS you who did the
misapplying, or was it sometimes your auditor or supervisor or someone
else who misapplied it?
I apologize if I seem like I'm badgering; if you don't want to answer
this, just let me know.
I don't think I've seen the study but I do think I've seen it referred
to.
So when faced with conflicting evidence, the questions are: what does
the bulk of the evidence suggest, and how well were the studies done?
Typically, someone claiming to have done scientific work publishes the
studies in such a way that they can be easily duplicated by others, for
verification, and so that select variables can be changed, to test
whether the conclusions are correct. Without this kind of verification,
the claims are suspect. Although LRH published reams and reams about his
"research", to my knowledge he never published any useful specifics
about his processes: number of subjects, controls, variables altered,
hypotheses, results. The usual, standard stuff.
Thus, to my eyes, I see a tiny bit of scientific study on the one hand,
indicating that the reactive mind doesn't exist; and on the other side
of the scale, ZERO real scientific research indicating it does.
I don't discount your anecdotal evidence out of hand; I just believe
it's too prone to misinterpretation to be convincing. I think most
scientists would agree. I think it's outrageous to claim a scientific
basis for Scientology when there clearly isn't one.
And I'd still like to know your reaction to the study that I mentioned:
I understand this, and I freely admit that I don't look for scientific
studies corroborating everything in my life, either. The reason I'm
encouraging you to look for it, and to look at the scientific evidence
that is there, is because I think the normal process of accepting what
appears to be true, which works for most of us much of the time, is
misleading you in this case. I'm assuming, maybe incorrectly, that
you're interested in the truth, and I think the objective evidence shows
that you've missed the truth - the objective truth, verifyable through
well-designed studies - about the reactive mind. If Scn could come back
at me with a bunch of well-designed, well-executed studies showing that
the reactive mind exists, I'd be happy to admit that I was wrong and
that there's plenty of scientific evidence for the reactive mind. I'm
interested in the truth, and I'm willing to change my mind when the
evidence indicates that I should.
Well, although I AM deeply concerned about Scn abuses, that's not really
what I was trying to get at here.
Scn claims that there's no punishment in Scn. (I can give you the quote
from "What is Scn?" if you want it.) However, if you read "Intro to Scn
Ethics", there clearly is punishment and penalties.
LRH states above that aberration rises as punishment does. (I don't
actually know what "progressive ratio" means - off to the dictionary for
me.)
So, do you agree with that, and do you believe that the punitive aspects
of Scn ethics - even the non-draconian aspects - cause aberration?
> > Okay. Do you know whether "The Second Dynamic" is still used in
courses?
>
> Are you referring to a tape, a book or a course entitled the Second
> Dynamic?
I believe it's a book, but I don't know for sure.
> > So, since I'm continuing to do these things, am I not a Suppressive
Person?
> > (I'm really NOT trying to get you to say I'm a SP - I don't think of
myself
as
> > one, and I don't want you to, either. I'm just trying to understand
how you
> > interpret these writings in relation to my actions.) At what point
would my
> > speaking out against Scientology make you consider me a SP?
>
> I cannot say you are an SP as I do not know you and would thus be
> totally unqualified to make such a determination. I do think you are
> doing something that is suppressive to my church, however. Which
would
> either place you in the same category as the lady I mentioned in the
> previous reply/post or would mean you were in fact an SP. When I see
> people doing things I don't like, the way I look at it, (this is on a
> personal level, remember I am not a spokeswoman for CofS ) I just
think
> "here is someone doing something with which I don't agree." and
that's
> pretty much the way I view stuff like that.
OK. That's often the way I react to people doing things I don't agree
with, too, unless they're physically hurting someone.
> Well, sure. However, two things:
>
> 1) I admit to having a bias toward Scn. Some people on the ng have
been
> upset about this. But that's how it is. I am communicating from this
> bias and know my religion to be a good thing. Any abuses, if they
> happen, and if they happen on my watch, would be addressed by me. I
take
> such things very seriously but I am not going to ditch my religion.
I'm glad to hear you take such things very seriously.
I am certainly not trying to get you to ditch your religion. It does
seem odd to me that I can't get a Scientologist to criticize any element
of Scn, but I'm certainly not trying to get you to give up something
that's valuable to you.
And lest you think that I wouldn't criticize something I hold dear, I'll
prove you wrong. I have enormous reverence for the Dalai Lama and am
attracted to much of what little I know of Tibetan Buddhism, but I
believe it has some anti-feminist principles and I think the ones I've
seen mentioned are wrong, and I think that to the extent that he
supports them, he's doing the wrong thing.
Honestly, I think you and I are on the same side. I think Scn is
destroying itself with illegal, unethical, and fraudulent practices that
are not, in Scn terms, reflective of the greatest good for the greatest
number of dynamics. Since Scn seems to have value for a lot of people,
I'd like for it to continue to be around for them. More important to me
is getting Scn to stop doing things that hurt people; the amount of good
it's doing is secondary for me. I think Scn's abuses are bad for the
society I'm living in, bad for my fellow humans, and ultimately bad for
devout Scientologists. That's why I'm trying to help Scn get its ethics
in.
> 2) I'm not as good at this computer stuff as the majority of those
> posting on a.r.s. so bear with me (which you have been very nice) when
I
> don't do the snipping thing right. I really admire how good alot of
> the a.r.s. contributors are with this computer stuff.
Like I said, you're doing fine. And on top of the netiquette stuff, you
write clearly and are able to actually answer questions. You are miles
and miles above most of the Scientologist posters we've had here. I hope
you stick around.
Thanks,
Jour
Claire Swazey
<snip>
> You're doing fine, IMHO. Everyone goes through a period of being a
> newbie, and IMHO you avoided all the really annoying newbie mistakes.
> (The types of netiquette violations I've seen people on a.r.s. get
> flamed for are "me toos", which are replying to and quoting all of a
> long message and just adding "I agree" at the end; spamming, which as
> you probably know is posting so much off-topic or repetitive material
> that it makes the newsgroup even harder to read; and just generally
> posting off-topic. I haven't seen you do any of these.)
>
> Also, personal style enters into it. I noticed you typed <snip> where
> you snipped in that last post, which I usually don't do, but doing it is
> probably better than not.
>
> If you'd like more netiquette tips, you might want to look at
> http://members.aol.com/macabrus/faqs.html or
> http://www.islandnet.com/~tmc/html/articles/usentnws.htm , but as I
> said, I think you're doing fine.
Cool.Thanks.
>
<snip>
> Well, now, I'd like to ask you for a little leap of faith, here. When I
> said that the first five were not loaded, I meant that. They weren't
> loaded in any way. For example, I was perfectly prepared for either
> answer on "is there any part of the tech you disagree with / hasn't
> worked for you", and I'm perfectly willing to believe that, as far as
> you're concerned, the problems you've encountered have been through your
> own misapplication.
>
> I'll admit that with some questions, like "is there any LRH stuff
> BESIDES the tech that you disagree with", I had some points I wanted to
> discuss and I was trying to establish a basis for that discussion, but
> with others, like "how long have you been a Scientologist," I honestly
> wasn't looking for a particular answer (and frankly, with that one, I
> can't see how you could think I was).
Maybe I'm a little paranoid.
I agree completely. That's why I read and post here, I want to know
what's being said, and why.
Well, maybe not a totally blithering idiot, but I was somewhat clueless
about things. I think Scn helped me with that,but also working in the
legal and finance fields did,too, to be honest.
>
> > > So, to clarify - has the tech ever not worked for you, because of an
> error
> made
> > > by someone else? Or have you only seen this happen to other people?
> >
> > That's a complex question. I think I would have to say that I've seen
> > delivery of tech and policy impacted at times in the cases that there
> > were errors, but that even then, they still worked, just maybe not as
> > well.
>
> I'm sorry - I don't think you were answering the question I was asking.
>
> What I'm trying to find out here is: on occasions when the tech has not
> worked for you because it was misapplied, was it ALWAYS you who did the
> misapplying, or was it sometimes your auditor or supervisor or someone
> else who misapplied it?
Oh. Sometimes I made the error, and sometimes the auditor or supv did.
But as I said before, it has been my experience that even when mistakes
and misapplications of the tech were made, that the stuff still worked
at least somewhat. Just not as well. I can think of counseling
sessions I've delivered and ones I've had where I was the one who was
counseled. In some of these sessions,both categories, mistakes were
made. It affected the effectiveness to a degree but never completely
nullified it.
>
> I apologize if I seem like I'm badgering; if you don't want to answer
> this, just let me know.
>
> > > And I'm glad to hear that the errors were corrected.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> I don't think I've seen the study but I do think I've seen it referred
> to.
>
> So when faced with conflicting evidence, the questions are: what does
> the bulk of the evidence suggest, and how well were the studies done?
>
> Typically, someone claiming to have done scientific work publishes the
> studies in such a way that they can be easily duplicated by others, for
> verification, and so that select variables can be changed, to test
> whether the conclusions are correct. Without this kind of verification,
> the claims are suspect. Although LRH published reams and reams about his
> "research", to my knowledge he never published any useful specifics
> about his processes: number of subjects, controls, variables altered,
> hypotheses, results. The usual, standard stuff.
I think he may have, but I do not know for sure.
I myself only have anecdotal evidence regarding the efficacy of the
tech. I have seen some rather dramatic things happen, however.
>
> Thus, to my eyes, I see a tiny bit of scientific study on the one hand,
> indicating that the reactive mind doesn't exist; and on the other side
> of the scale, ZERO real scientific research indicating it does.
That could very well be the case. But to be honest, Scientologists do
not, IMHO, *care* about this. They,mainly, if they are anything like me
or John (I don't like to speak for the bulk of Scn'ologists as I do not
know them all) just care if they get results from the tech and if their
loved ones do,as well. I realize that this attitude will probably not
be approved of with the majority of contributors to this ng, but I
really think (at least at Casa Swazey) that this is pretty much the
deal.
If it sucked, I wouldn't be there.
>
> I don't discount your anecdotal evidence out of hand; I just believe
> it's too prone to misinterpretation to be convincing. I think most
> scientists would agree. I think it's outrageous to claim a scientific
> basis for Scientology when there clearly isn't one.
Ok, I understand that. But I don't particularly care if it's
scientific. I really don't. I just care if it works for me and for
other people to whom I deliver counseling sessions or supervised back
when I was a course supervisor. I know that Hubbard placed a degree of
emphasis on the scientific-ness of Scientology, but my interests in it
are spiritual only.
I think all of reality is subjective and fluid and changeable. And I am
not sure what to think about that study. It is interesting, that's for
sure. It would be really cool to find a highly classed auditor (higher
than me,for sure) who also had some scientific training of some sort,
who could maybe cooperate, (not collaborate, but cooperate) with an
independent researcher. THis would be good because such an auditor
would be able to have an idea of criteria to check for. But since such
a study may never be done maybe this is just a pipe dream.
>
<snip>
>
> Well, although I AM deeply concerned about Scn abuses, that's not really
> what I was trying to get at here.
>
> Scn claims that there's no punishment in Scn. (I can give you the quote
> from "What is Scn?" if you want it.) However, if you read "Intro to Scn
> Ethics", there clearly is punishment and penalties.
The purpose of ethics is not to punish. However if one gets an ethics
officer who does not see that, then misapplication of this policy can
occur. I mean, the first gradient of ethics (I'm paraphrasing here) is
to see something non-optimum, and do or say nothing, but just inspect it
silently. Well,that's pretty mild.
But just as one can find good course supvs and auditors in Scn, and some
who are not so good, I think one can find a variance in the competence
of ethics officers. The one with whom I deal is someone I know quite
well and on the very rare occasions he has had any issues with me, his
main thing was to simply ask me what occured. I have never felt like he
was going to haul off and slug me or something.
>
> LRH states above that aberration rises as punishment does. (I don't
> actually know what "progressive ratio" means - off to the dictionary for
> me.)
>
> So, do you agree with that, and do you believe that the punitive aspects
> of Scn ethics - even the non-draconian aspects - cause aberration?
I think anytime there is punishment instead of correction, that this
would cause or contribute to or at the very least, not correct,
aberration. That is why ethics is not about punishment. Any ethics
officer that punishes instead of handles is not doing it right and is
not being particularly helpful to the person.
>
> > > Okay. Do you know whether "The Second Dynamic" is still used in
> courses?
> >
> > Are you referring to a tape, a book or a course entitled the Second
> > Dynamic?
>
> I believe it's a book, but I don't know for sure.
>
<snip?
>
> OK. That's often the way I react to people doing things I don't agree
> with, too, unless they're physically hurting someone.
>
> > Well, sure. However, two things:
> >
> > 1) I admit to having a bias toward Scn. Some people on the ng have
> been
> > upset about this. But that's how it is. I am communicating from this
> > bias and know my religion to be a good thing. Any abuses, if they
> > happen, and if they happen on my watch, would be addressed by me. I
> take
> > such things very seriously but I am not going to ditch my religion.
>
> I'm glad to hear you take such things very seriously.
>
> I am certainly not trying to get you to ditch your religion. It does
> seem odd to me that I can't get a Scientologist to criticize any element
> of Scn, but I'm certainly not trying to get you to give up something
> that's valuable to you.
Well, I think there could be a little paranoia (which isn't rare on this
ng, alot of contributors here are as paranoid as can be) among
Scn'ologists that anything we say may be twisted or jumped on. I believe
this paranoia has basis in fact as sometimes that does happen. So
sometimes, at least in my case, we might end up being more paranoid than
is needed on occasion.
In my regular outside-world job, I have to explain things to people all
day long so that probably helps.
>
Starshadow
jo...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
This is about the sixth post I've read that only includes headers. Is
this another hip crime cancel thing?
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Cristino
I'd think so... My newsreader is full of "supersedes" by
HipCrime@(various sites). :-(
Cristino, SP3
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<stars...@mindless.com> writes
>In article <supersedes.1998071...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>jo...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>>
> This is about the sixth post I've read that only includes headers. Is
>this another hip crime cancel thing?
It's a troll, and you wisely omitted the test group from the
newsgroups line of your follow-up; or you would be bombarded
with test-reply shit.
Starshadow
says...
> In article <MPG.101678e16...@nntp.lightlink.com>, Starshadow
> <stars...@mindless.com> writes
> >In article <supersedes.1998071...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> >jo...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > This is about the sixth post I've read that only includes headers. Is
> >this another hip crime cancel thing?
>
> It's a troll, and you wisely omitted the test group from the
> newsgroups line of your follow-up; or you would be bombarded
> with test-reply shit.
>
Yeah, well, I'm getting my feed through lightlink and I'm only on one
of the three ngs it carries so I routinely chop off any other ng being
crossposted so the post won't hang up. But after I said that I noticed
some of my posts had been chopped too. I hope somebody manages to foil
that idiot soon...
Warrior
says...
>
>Also, in "Intro to Scn Ethics," LRH says that there are safeguards
>against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
>punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
>
<snip>
>
>But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
>ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
I would be happy to provide numerous references and quotes by Hubbard
wherein he wrote that "upstats" are rewarded and "downstats" are penalized.
"Lower conditions" are used in Scientology as punishment.
I was made to do hours of amends for leaving my key in the
xerox machine, even though no damage or financial harm resulted.
I queried the "treason" assignment to no avail. My "stats" were up
at the time, and I should have had "ethics protection". I was
ordered to do the "conditions formulas" from "TREASON" on up,
for "out-security".
This is just one small example. I can give plenty of others.
Warrior
Scientology is evil. See http://www.xenu.net
Jour0
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > I'll admit that with some questions, like "is there any LRH stuff
> > BESIDES the tech that you disagree with", I had some points I wanted
to
> > discuss and I was trying to establish a basis for that discussion,
but
> > with others, like "how long have you been a Scientologist," I
honestly
> > wasn't looking for a particular answer (and frankly, with that one,
I
> > can't see how you could think I was).
>
> Maybe I'm a little paranoid.
Heck, I'm paranoid as all get out. When you're publicly criticizing an
organization that's done things like frame a critic for sending bomb
threats, it's just good sense to be paranoid. ;-)
What I was saying above was that I couldn't see how even a paranoid
person could interpret the question, "How long have you been a
Scientologist" as a loaded question, or how I could twist any answer.
You've already described yourself as a long-time Scientologist, so I
can't imagine how, if you had answered my multiple-choice question, how
I could have tried to make you look bad with your answer.
> > I'm sorry - I don't think you were answering the question I was
asking.
> >
> > What I'm trying to find out here is: on occasions when the tech has
not
> > worked for you because it was misapplied, was it ALWAYS you who did
the
> > misapplying, or was it sometimes your auditor or supervisor or
someone
> > else who misapplied it?
>
> Oh. Sometimes I made the error, and sometimes the auditor or supv
did.
> But as I said before, it has been my experience that even when
mistakes
> and misapplications of the tech were made, that the stuff still worked
> at least somewhat. Just not as well. I can think of counseling
> sessions I've delivered and ones I've had where I was the one who was
> counseled. In some of these sessions,both categories, mistakes were
> made. It affected the effectiveness to a degree but never completely
> nullified it.
Thanks! That's what I was trying to clarify, and you clarified it.
> > Thus, to my eyes, I see a tiny bit of scientific study on the one
hand,
> > indicating that the reactive mind doesn't exist; and on the other
side
> > of the scale, ZERO real scientific research indicating it does.
>
> That could very well be the case. But to be honest, Scientologists do
> not, IMHO, *care* about this. They,mainly, if they are anything like
me
> or John (I don't like to speak for the bulk of Scn'ologists as I do
not
> know them all) just care if they get results from the tech and if
their
> loved ones do,as well. I realize that this attitude will probably not
> be approved of with the majority of contributors to this ng, but I
> really think (at least at Casa Swazey) that this is pretty much the
> deal.
> If it sucked, I wouldn't be there.
Obviously.
Note, though, that I didn't say it sucked. I said there was no
scientific basis for it.
> > I don't discount your anecdotal evidence out of hand; I just believe
> > it's too prone to misinterpretation to be convincing. I think most
> > scientists would agree. I think it's outrageous to claim a
scientific
> > basis for Scientology when there clearly isn't one.
>
> Ok, I understand that. But I don't particularly care if it's
> scientific. I really don't. I just care if it works for me and for
> other people to whom I deliver counseling sessions or supervised back
> when I was a course supervisor. I know that Hubbard placed a degree
of
> emphasis on the scientific-ness of Scientology, but my interests in it
> are spiritual only.
I understand. If you choose to ignore scientific information that
conflicts with your beliefs, that's entirely your right, and I don't
feel compelled to try to change your mind on this point, just as I don't
feel compelled to get creationist Christians to deal with the scientific
evidence against creationism.
My point is that Scientology is behaving fraudulently by claiming that
there is a scientific basis for Scientology. I recognize that you're not
a Scn spokesperson and that you didn't write "What is Scn?", so I don't
expect you to address the issue any further. Now you know, though, that
that's one area in which I believe Scn is behaving unethically - by
claiming a scientific basis where none exists.
> I think all of reality is subjective and fluid and changeable. And I
am
> not sure what to think about that study. It is interesting, that's
for
> sure. It would be really cool to find a highly classed auditor
(higher
> than me,for sure) who also had some scientific training of some sort,
> who could maybe cooperate, (not collaborate, but cooperate) with an
> independent researcher. THis would be good because such an auditor
> would be able to have an idea of criteria to check for. But since
such
> a study may never be done maybe this is just a pipe dream.
Well, I understand and share this viewpoint (reality being subjective
and changeable) up to a point; but I also think that certain things are
sufficiently universally true and repeatable as to be considered
non-subjective and non-changeable. You can't walk through a tree, no
matter how much you perceive that you can.
> > Scn claims that there's no punishment in Scn. (I can give you the
quote
> > from "What is Scn?" if you want it.) However, if you read "Intro to
Scn
> > Ethics", there clearly is punishment and penalties.
>
* The purpose of ethics is not to punish.
If the purpose of the dirty grey rag tied to the arm isn't to punish,
can you tell me what its purpose is?
Also, in "Intro to Scn Ethics," LRH says that there are safeguards
against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
> > So, do you agree with that, and do you believe that the punitive
aspects
> > of Scn ethics - even the non-draconian aspects - cause aberration?
>
> I think anytime there is punishment instead of correction, that this
> would cause or contribute to or at the very least, not correct,
> aberration. That is why ethics is not about punishment. Any ethics
> officer that punishes instead of handles is not doing it right and is
> not being particularly helpful to the person.
But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
> > I am certainly not trying to get you to ditch your religion. It does
> > seem odd to me that I can't get a Scientologist to criticize any
element
> > of Scn, but I'm certainly not trying to get you to give up something
> > that's valuable to you.
>
> Well, I think there could be a little paranoia (which isn't rare on
this
> ng, alot of contributors here are as paranoid as can be) among
> Scn'ologists that anything we say may be twisted or jumped on. I
believe
> this paranoia has basis in fact as sometimes that does happen. So
> sometimes, at least in my case, we might end up being more paranoid
than
> is needed on occasion.
As you've noticed, though, you'll get jumped on for NOT answering
questions, or for even appearing to be evasive. So, from that
perspective, you've got nothing to lose by attempting to answer
questions. If you were to offer some criticism of Scn, even something
small, I think it would increase your esteem in the eyes of some critics
(me, at least), since not doing so appears to support the theory that
Scientologists in good standing are unable to criticize Scientology.
I think the level of caution people develop about what they post here
can be a good and healthy thing - it makes you think about what you're
saying before you type (usually ;-) ). Hopefully, further experience on
a.r.s. will show you that people are allowed to retract, rephrase,
clarify, reask, change their minds, and agree to disagree. Granted,
there are a few jerks here who will dis you no matter what. I hope you
will ignore those people rather than letting them intimidate you into
silence on any point you do, in fact, wish to discuss.
Thanks,
Jour
Jour0
the repost.
I believe Claire has already responded to this, in a post that itself appears
to have been superseded, which I quoted in the reply I posted yesterday.
Pretty soon I'm going to have to shift into future-past-proto-imperfect, like
in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe."
;-)
Jour
----------------
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Still somewhat new at the usenet stuff although I'm picking up more
and
> more as I go on, so the suggestion is appreciated.
You're doing fine, IMHO. Everyone goes through a period of being a
newbie, and IMHO you avoided all the really annoying newbie mistakes.
(The types of netiquette violations I've seen people on a.r.s. get
flamed for are "me toos", which are replying to and quoting all of a
long message and just adding "I agree" at the end; spamming, which as
you probably know is posting so much off-topic or repetitive material
that it makes the newsgroup even harder to read; and just generally
posting off-topic. I haven't seen you do any of these.)
Also, personal style enters into it. I noticed you typed <snip> where
you snipped in that last post, which I usually don't do, but doing it is
probably better than not.
If you'd like more netiquette tips, you might want to look at
http://members.aol.com/macabrus/faqs.html or
http://www.islandnet.com/~tmc/html/articles/usentnws.htm , but as I
said, I think you're doing fine.
> > Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Loaded questions? You say that like it's a bad thing ... ;-)
> >
> > Seriously, I looked up "loaded questions" in my dictionary (I
disagree with
> > many of the fundamental concepts of study tech but I will gladly
admit that
> > debating Scientology is getting me to use my dictionary more, and I
think
> > that's a good thing). Under "load," it says, "to phrase (a question,
etc.)
so
> > as to elicit a desired answer or reaction."
>
> Well, Jour, I think you probably may know what I mean.These questions
> were indeed set up to elicit a desired answer or reaction, in a way
they
> were a bit of a set-up, each one a potential land-mine. I don't
> particularly mind, however, I mean, for a Scn'ologist to poke her head
> into a ng like this is in a way, just asking for it.
Well, now, I'd like to ask you for a little leap of faith, here. When I
said that the first five were not loaded, I meant that. They weren't
loaded in any way. For example, I was perfectly prepared for either
answer on "is there any part of the tech you disagree with / hasn't
worked for you", and I'm perfectly willing to believe that, as far as
you're concerned, the problems you've encountered have been through your
own misapplication.
I'll admit that with some questions, like "is there any LRH stuff
BESIDES the tech that you disagree with", I had some points I wanted to
discuss and I was trying to establish a basis for that discussion, but
with others, like "how long have you been a Scientologist," I honestly
wasn't looking for a particular answer (and frankly, with that one, I
can't see how you could think I was).
I'm willing to accept that you're trying to be as honest as you can be
Although you've only been here a short while and I haven't read anywhere
alt.fan.sondheim or something), communication in plain text can easily
go astray.
I do not expect you to be perfect, and I do not attribute your
shortcomings to Scn.
Please remember, though, that Scn claims to make people more able -
better communicators, better reasoners, and so on. When I point out that
you're supposed to be able to communicate and reason better than the
rest of us, it's because of those claims. (Of course, without having
known you pre-Scientology, it's hard to know how much it may have helped
you improve. For all we know, you were a blithering idiot before your
first Scn course. ;-) )
> > So, to clarify - has the tech ever not worked for you, because of an
error
made
> > by someone else? Or have you only seen this happen to other people?
>
> That's a complex question. I think I would have to say that I've seen
> delivery of tech and policy impacted at times in the cases that there
> were errors, but that even then, they still worked, just maybe not as
> well.
I'm sorry - I don't think you were answering the question I was asking.
What I'm trying to find out here is: on occasions when the tech has not
worked for you because it was misapplied, was it ALWAYS you who did the
misapplying, or was it sometimes your auditor or supervisor or someone
else who misapplied it?
I apologize if I seem like I'm badgering; if you don't want to answer
this, just let me know.
> > And I'm glad to hear that the errors were corrected.
> >
>
> <snip>
> > > As an auditor I've encountered it. This is evidence I cannot
ignore.
> >
> > I would not ask you to ignore it, but neither would I call that
scientific
I don't think I've seen the study but I do think I've seen it referred
to.
So when faced with conflicting evidence, the questions are: what does
the bulk of the evidence suggest, and how well were the studies done?
Typically, someone claiming to have done scientific work publishes the
studies in such a way that they can be easily duplicated by others, for
verification, and so that select variables can be changed, to test
whether the conclusions are correct. Without this kind of verification,
the claims are suspect. Although LRH published reams and reams about his
"research", to my knowledge he never published any useful specifics
about his processes: number of subjects, controls, variables altered,
hypotheses, results. The usual, standard stuff.
Thus, to my eyes, I see a tiny bit of scientific study on the one hand,
indicating that the reactive mind doesn't exist; and on the other side
of the scale, ZERO real scientific research indicating it does.
I don't discount your anecdotal evidence out of hand; I just believe
it's too prone to misinterpretation to be convincing. I think most
scientists would agree. I think it's outrageous to claim a scientific
basis for Scientology when there clearly isn't one.
And I'd still like to know your reaction to the study that I mentioned:
Well, although I AM deeply concerned about Scn abuses, that's not really
what I was trying to get at here.
Scn claims that there's no punishment in Scn. (I can give you the quote
from "What is Scn?" if you want it.) However, if you read "Intro to Scn
Ethics", there clearly is punishment and penalties.
LRH states above that aberration rises as punishment does. (I don't
actually know what "progressive ratio" means - off to the dictionary for
me.)
So, do you agree with that, and do you believe that the punitive aspects
of Scn ethics - even the non-draconian aspects - cause aberration?
> > Okay. Do you know whether "The Second Dynamic" is still used in
courses?
>
> Are you referring to a tape, a book or a course entitled the Second
> Dynamic?
I believe it's a book, but I don't know for sure.
> > So, since I'm continuing to do these things, am I not a Suppressive
Person?
> > (I'm really NOT trying to get you to say I'm a SP - I don't think of
myself
as
> > one, and I don't want you to, either. I'm just trying to understand
how you
> > interpret these writings in relation to my actions.) At what point
would my
> > speaking out against Scientology make you consider me a SP?
>
> I cannot say you are an SP as I do not know you and would thus be
> totally unqualified to make such a determination. I do think you are
> doing something that is suppressive to my church, however. Which
would
> either place you in the same category as the lady I mentioned in the
> previous reply/post or would mean you were in fact an SP. When I see
> people doing things I don't like, the way I look at it, (this is on a
> personal level, remember I am not a spokeswoman for CofS ) I just
think
> "here is someone doing something with which I don't agree." and
that's
> pretty much the way I view stuff like that.
OK. That's often the way I react to people doing things I don't agree
with, too, unless they're physically hurting someone.
> Well, sure. However, two things:
>
> 1) I admit to having a bias toward Scn. Some people on the ng have
been
> upset about this. But that's how it is. I am communicating from this
> bias and know my religion to be a good thing. Any abuses, if they
> happen, and if they happen on my watch, would be addressed by me. I
take
> such things very seriously but I am not going to ditch my religion.
I'm glad to hear you take such things very seriously.
I am certainly not trying to get you to ditch your religion. It does
seem odd to me that I can't get a Scientologist to criticize any element
of Scn, but I'm certainly not trying to get you to give up something
that's valuable to you.
And lest you think that I wouldn't criticize something I hold dear, I'll
Thanks,
Jour
claire swazey
>
<snip>
>
> Heck, I'm paranoid as all get out. When you're publicly criticizing an
> organization that's done things like frame a critic for sending bomb
> threats, it's just good sense to be paranoid. ;-)
Yeah, and when you're saying *anything* on a.r.s. it is also a good idea
to be paranoid.
>
> What I was saying above was that I couldn't see how even a paranoid
> person could interpret the question, "How long have you been a
> Scientologist" as a loaded question, or how I could twist any answer.
> You've already described yourself as a long-time Scientologist, so I
> can't imagine how, if you had answered my multiple-choice question, how
> I could have tried to make you look bad with your answer.
>
<snip>
> Thanks! That's what I was trying to clarify, and you clarified it.
>
> > > Thus, to my eyes, I see a tiny bit of scientific study on the one
> hand,
> > > indicating that the reactive mind doesn't exist; and on the other
> side
> > > of the scale, ZERO real scientific research indicating it does.
> >
<snip>
> Obviously.
>
> Note, though, that I didn't say it sucked. I said there was no
> scientific basis for it.
>
<snip>
>
> I understand. If you choose to ignore scientific information that
> conflicts with your beliefs, that's entirely your right, and I don't
> feel compelled to try to change your mind on this point, just as I don't
> feel compelled to get creationist Christians to deal with the scientific
> evidence against creationism.
I never said I ignore scientific information that conflicts with my
beliefs. I have a number of books on different scientific findings of
different types and care very little as to whether they have the
apparency of conflicting w/ Scn or not. IMNSHO, they for the most part,
don't. The only ones that do tend to conflict are the ones that
postulate the idea that people are just bodies and nothing more.
>
> My point is that Scientology is behaving fraudulently by claiming that
> there is a scientific basis for Scientology. I recognize that you're not
> a Scn spokesperson and that you didn't write "What is Scn?", so I don't
> expect you to address the issue any further. Now you know, though, that
> that's one area in which I believe Scn is behaving unethically - by
> claiming a scientific basis where none exists.
Scn does have a scientific basis. The World Book definition of Science
is:" Facts and laws arranged in an orderly system." Scn definitely has
facts,and it definitely has laws and it definitely arranges them in an
orderly system.
It does have philosophy mixed in with its facts, but facts it has,
nevertheless. Even some of the people on this ng admit that there are
*some* facts in it!
The basis of Scientology/Dianetics are the axioms and factors of same.
In that the factors and axioms are a system of laws and are orderly in
their arrangement and are predictive in their results,this would fall
under the definition of scientific.
Scientology is not in disagreement with basic scientific principles.
But it does mix philosophical ideas (such as the one where it is
postulated that man is a spiritual being) with these principles. This
alone would make Scientology unwelcome to certain elements in the
scientific community.
If one is dealing with the basics of Scientology there is no conflict
with science. The less basic aspects of Scn deal with things of the
spirit and so this would not be expected to dovetail with things
scientific in any case. Also as one gets farther from the basics one
winds up in the much larger field of opinion. This is true of any field
or study,such as biology or physics, as well as Scn.
><snip>
> Well, I understand and share this viewpoint (reality being subjective
> and changeable) up to a point; but I also think that certain things are
> sufficiently universally true and repeatable as to be considered
> non-subjective and non-changeable. You can't walk through a tree, no
> matter how much you perceive that you can.
Unless you're a Shao Lin priest. :-) Actually I hve heard of Hindu
holy men doing astounding things in that field.
>
> > > Scn claims that there's no punishment in Scn. (I can give you the
> quote
> > > from "What is Scn?" if you want it.) However, if you read "Intro to
> Scn
> > > Ethics", there clearly is punishment and penalties.
> >
> * The purpose of ethics is not to punish.
>
> If the purpose of the dirty grey rag tied to the arm isn't to punish,
> can you tell me what its purpose is?
I have not heard this story. But I gather you're speaking of the RPF.
There is a difference between Scientology Ethics and Scientology
Justice.
>
> Also, in "Intro to Scn Ethics," LRH says that there are safeguards
> against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
> punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
<snip>
>
> But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
> ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
No, they are not. I think you probably did not understand them.
>
<snip>
> > Well, I think there could be a little paranoia (which isn't rare on
> this
> > ng, alot of contributors here are as paranoid as can be) among
> > Scn'ologists that anything we say may be twisted or jumped on. I
> believe
> > this paranoia has basis in fact as sometimes that does happen. So
> > sometimes, at least in my case, we might end up being more paranoid
> than
> > is needed on occasion.
>
> As you've noticed, though, you'll get jumped on for NOT answering
> questions, or for even appearing to be evasive. So, from that
> perspective, you've got nothing to lose by attempting to answer
> questions. If you were to offer some criticism of Scn, even something
> small, I think it would increase your esteem in the eyes of some critics
> (me, at least), since not doing so appears to support the theory that
> Scientologists in good standing are unable to criticize Scientology.
>
> I think the level of caution people develop about what they post here
> can be a good and healthy thing - it makes you think about what you're
> saying before you type (usually ;-) ). Hopefully, further experience on
> a.r.s. will show you that people are allowed to retract, rephrase,
> clarify, reask, change their minds, and agree to disagree. Granted,
> there are a few jerks here who will dis you no matter what. I hope you
> will ignore those people rather than letting them intimidate you into
> silence on any point you do, in fact, wish to discuss.
>
Nothing ever intimidates me. Pisses me off, yes. Intimidates no. I had
made the decision not to share certain things about myself in the
beginning of when I started posting here. Anything I don't discuss, is
because I just don' wanna.But I appreciate the thought.
Claire
claire swazey
> >against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
> >punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
> >
> >
> >But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
> >ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
>
> wherein he wrote that "upstats" are rewarded and "downstats" are penalized.
> "Lower conditions" are used in Scientology as punishment.
Penalizing and punishing are two different things. In the corporation
in which I am employed,for example, there are penalties for things, but
those are not punishments. There is a difference. One of the things
about lowered stats is that you get lower pay. See, that's a penalty and
it is not a punishment in the sense you're trying to use the word.
The purpose of assigning someone a lowered condition is to indicate to
the person that they are in that condition. They are not being assigned
a lower condition,so much as they are *in* the lower condition and if no
one indicates it to them they cannot correct what they are doing wrong.
And, yes, sometimes incorrect calls get made. However,Scientology has
no monopoly on this, let me tell you.
>
> I was made to do hours of amends for leaving my key in the
> xerox machine, even though no damage or financial harm resulted.
> I queried the "treason" assignment to no avail. My "stats" were up
> at the time, and I should have had "ethics protection". I was
> ordered to do the "conditions formulas" from "TREASON" on up,
> for "out-security".
>
> This is just one small example. I can give plenty of others.
>
Claire
Steve Jebson
>
> I honestly don't know when they went from Org to Mission. But it is
> significant.For one thing, a Mission is a small franchise, generally,
> (although in the past some missions became somewhat large) and they
> offer a limited number of services.
The Ann Arbor org opened up in late 1983 or early 1984. About this
period of time was the peak period for converting Missions into Orgs.
The conversions had nothing to do with size. They were carried out
to increase direct controlby the Sea Org and the RTC over Scientology,
to eliminate the power of Mission Holders, who were viewed as ene-
mies, and to grab control of the Missions' cash.
In many cases, and this was one, it was also to compete with the Free
Zone. Much of the Ann Arbor Mission broke away to form a group that
was delivering all of Scientology, up to NOTs. (The old Mission, BTW,
went by the name of Scientology Ann Arbor. When they broke with the
RTC, they took the word Scientology out. I believe this explains the
odd listing of 'Ann Arbor' on the 1992 Enemies List.) To compete
with that at all, RTC needed to increase the range of services they
offered, at least up to the level of an org.
> An "Org" is a much larger center and can offer more than 10 times the
> number of services. For an area to support an Org at all, when it
> previously had only had a mission, would be an indication of some
> measure of growth in the organization at a local level.
The generality the 'Orgs are larger than Missions' is thoroughly false.
The largest missions from this period had 70 or more staff and up
to hundreds of students. Most were smaller, of course. The smaller
Orgs in many cases had less than 10 staff. The old Stevens Creek
Mission, for instance, was far larger than the current Stevens
Creek (San Jose) Org.
I have no personal knowledge of the old Ann Arbor Mission or the
current Org. However, the Mission was in a major college town
with a significant counterculture presence, exactly the sort of
place where the most successful Missions (Davis, Riverside)
often were. Two people connected with it, Ruth Minshull and
Margery Wakefield, played prominent roles in the history of the
subject. The likelihood is, it was a thriving Mission.
The claim that the replacement of a Mission with an Org is evidence
of growth in Co$ in Ann Arbor or anywhere else, is false. Here is
some real evidence, however, which I have cited before. The recent
Advance special issue stated that in the first year that AOLA was
open 90 Class VIIIs graduated and over 2,000 OT levels were com-
pleted. Advance's own completion lists show that in the past
year this number of OT completions at AOLA is down almost 90%
from that level - and there were NO Class VIII completions! This
in spite of the fact that ASHO, which was delivering the Class
VIII course when AOLA opened up, no longer does so. So the
annual level of Class VIII grads in LA is down from what was pro-
bably 150 - 200 to 0. If Claire has an explanation of how this
fits in with her belief that Co$ is expanding, I'd love to hear
it.
claire swazey
or something...
Jour0
claire swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Warrior wrote:
> >
> > In article <199807160523...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, jo...@aol.com
> > says...
> > >
> > >against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
> > >punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
> > >ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
> >
> > wherein he wrote that "upstats" are rewarded and "downstats" are penalized.
> > "Lower conditions" are used in Scientology as punishment.
>
> Penalizing and punishing are two different things. In the corporation
> in which I am employed,for example, there are penalties for things, but
> those are not punishments. There is a difference. One of the things
> about lowered stats is that you get lower pay. See, that's a penalty and
> it is not a punishment in the sense you're trying to use the word.
My dictionary disagrees with you. See my other post.
Jour
Jour0
> > My point is that Scientology is behaving fraudulently by claiming that
> > there is a scientific basis for Scientology. I recognize that you're not
> > a Scn spokesperson and that you didn't write "What is Scn?", so I don't
> > expect you to address the issue any further. Now you know, though, that
> > that's one area in which I believe Scn is behaving unethically - by
> > claiming a scientific basis where none exists.
>
> Scn does have a scientific basis. The World Book definition of Science
> is:" Facts and laws arranged in an orderly system." Scn definitely has
> facts,and it definitely has laws and it definitely arranges them in an
> orderly system.
Oh dear. Are we going to play Dueling Definitions? (My dictionary's definition
is quite different.)
I think what's meant by most people, and the scientific community in
particular, is that type of science characterized by the scientific method. It
implies rigorous testing by a variety of unaffiliated scientists. (Granted, I
am generalizing here, and you may counterclaim that most people do NOT have
this in mind. I think, however, that most state consumer law agencies do use
such a definition of "scientific basis.")
The scientific method's applicability to $cn can be shown by Hubbard's
inclusion of an essay on the scientific method as an appendix to Dianetics. A
few quotes from that essay are relevant:
"... the Scientific Method implies gleefully attacking, with every available
weapon of logic, every possible logical loophole in - your own structure of
logic and theory."
(Something that I think describes quite well what many here on a.r.s. are
trying to do.)
"It implies that a scientist's best friend will review his work starting with
the premise that it's all wrong, and do his best to prove it's wrong."
"For if a theory is good only when it works, then the first time it fails to
work - the first fact it encounters which does not fit - the theory must be
discarded, and a new and better one found."
And steps 4-7 of the summary of the Scientific Method:
"4. Perform an experiment and make observations on these predictions.
"5. As a result of the experiment, discard the hypothesis, or advance it now to
the status of "Theory."
"6. Make further predictions, further experiemtns, and collect more
observational evidence until a contradictory relevant fact is found.
"7. Discard the old theory, take the new total of observational data, and form
a new hypothesis."
- essay by John W. Campbell, from "Dianetics", pp. 505-511
Now, first of all, we have very, very little evidence of any credentialled
scientist doing any research into $cn tech. The few studies that we do have
appear to disprove, not support, the various hypotheses that make up Dianetics
- particularly the theory of the reactive mind.
For example, that less-than-ideal study I cited (which was, if I'm not
mistaken, done by people who actually believed in Dianetics tech) showed that
the hypothesis of the reactive mind failed. Thus, using the sci. method, we
should discard the theory in favor of a new and better one - one which, at
least, explains why the experimenters failed to retrieve the engramic
information given to the subject while unconcious.
While we're at it, we need to update the hypothesis to explain why the first
Clear that LRH presented to the public did not have the qualities he claimed
and was, for example, unable to remember the color of LRH's tie.
A scientific basis implies well-documented, publicly-published studies, by
multiple researchers, showing how the theory has been revised as various
experiments showed its flaws. This is standard scientific research. I have seen
nothing like this presented for $cn, and no official spokesperson for $cn seems
willing to present this information.
When an organization claims a scientific basis for something, it is their
responsibility to furnish the evidence.
(I recognize, as always, that you are not a $cn spokesperson, and I do not
expect you to have to provide this evidence - unless you claim that it exists,
in which case I'd appreciate cites so I can review it myself.)
> ><snip>
> > Well, I understand and share this viewpoint (reality being subjective
> > and changeable) up to a point; but I also think that certain things are
> > sufficiently universally true and repeatable as to be considered
> > non-subjective and non-changeable. You can't walk through a tree, no
> > matter how much you perceive that you can.
>
> Unless you're a Shao Lin priest. :-) Actually I hve heard of Hindu
> holy men doing astounding things in that field.
I, too, have heard of some astounding things. Have you ever seen any scientific
studies showing that these phenomena are repeatable under controlled
conditions? I haven't.
> > > > Scn claims that there's no punishment in Scn. (I can give you the
> > quote
> > > > from "What is Scn?" if you want it.) However, if you read "Intro to
> > Scn
> > > > Ethics", there clearly is punishment and penalties.
> > >
> > * The purpose of ethics is not to punish.
> >
> > If the purpose of the dirty grey rag tied to the arm isn't to punish,
> > can you tell me what its purpose is?
>
> I have not heard this story. But I gather you're speaking of the RPF.
> There is a difference between Scientology Ethics and Scientology
> Justice.
Oh. Can you tell me what the difference is?
I take it from your statement above that you're stating that the RPF is a part
of $cn Justice (not Ethics), and that there IS an element of punishment in $cn
Justice. Is this an accurate reflection of your position?
If so, how do you reconcile that with this quote from "What is $cn?":
"Punishment is not a factor in $cn justice, since it has long been proven in
society that punishment more often than not simply hardens the punished person
into patterns of destructive behavior." - p. 176
Is it your belief that there is NO punishment anywhere in $cn?
If you believe that there is some punishment in $cn, how do you reconcile that
practice with the statement that "it has long been proven" that punishment
makes people behave worse, not better?
> > Also, in "Intro to Scn Ethics," LRH says that there are safeguards
> > against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
> > punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
> <snip>
>
> >
> > But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
> > ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
>
> No, they are not. I think you probably did not understand them.
I was basing my statement on LRH's comment that there are safeguards against
over-punishment. "This then is a code of discipline which we have almost always
more or less used, made plain for everyone to see, with limits against
over-punishment ..." - Intro to $cn Ethics, p. 45
I believe this implies that there IS punishment, since otherwise there could be
no over-punishment. Do you disagree with my interpretation?
If so, what about the statement on p. 54 that "Crimes are PUNISHED by convening
Committees of Evidence..." (my emphasis)? How do you reconcile that with the
WIS? quote about punishment not being a factor in $cn justice?
Finally, just to whip out the dictionary again, here's my dictionary's first
two definitions for "punish":
1. to cause to undergo pain, loss, or suffering for a crime or wrongdoing 2. to
impose a penalty on a wrongdoer for (an offense)
LRH writes about penalties all over the place. According to my dictionary, this
is punishment.
> Nothing ever intimidates me. Pisses me off, yes. Intimidates no. I had
> made the decision not to share certain things about myself in the
> beginning of when I started posting here. Anything I don't discuss, is
> because I just don' wanna.But I appreciate the thought.
Good. I'm glad to hear it.
Jour
Warrior
>
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> In article <199807160523...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, jo...@aol.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
>> >punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
Yes. There definitely is an element of punishment in the assignment of
"ethics conditions". In my opinion, stating that there are "safeguards
against over-punishment" is wishful thinking, *in many cases*. It's a
theory, but not always a reality.
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
>> >ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
Of course they are.
>> I would be happy to provide numerous references and quotes by Hubbard
>> wherein he wrote that "upstats" are rewarded and "downstats" are penalized.
>> "Lower conditions" are used in Scientology as punishment.
>Penalizing and punishing are two different things. In the corporation
>in which I am employed,for example, there are penalties for things, but
>those are not punishments. There is a difference. One of the things
>about lowered stats is that you get lower pay. See, that's a penalty and
>it is not a punishment in the sense you're trying to use the word.
I am talking about Scientology, *not* a corporation in which you are
employed.
In Scientology, "penalizing" and "punishing" *are* inextricably related.
Hubbard said to "reward upstats" (increased production) and to "penalize
downstats" (decreased production). In Scientology, the penalty for *not*
producing more than the week before can, and does, include loss of pay
or pay cuts, no bonuses, restricted diet (rice and beans in the SO),
cancellation of "libs" (personal time off from post), ineligibility for
"auditing" and/or personal "enhancement", completion of "amends" and
working even longer hours to make sure one gets his/her "stats" up.
I don't know what world you live in, but where I come from, "penalty"
is defined as "a punishment established by law or authority for a crime
or offense". So please don't tell me that "penalizing and punishing are
two different things". I am a "Superliterate" (as certified by your
cult), so I hardly need to be told what the words "penalty" and
"punishment" mean.
>The purpose of assigning someone a lowered condition is to indicate to
>the person that they are in that condition. They are not being assigned
>a lower condition,so much as they are *in* the lower condition and if no
>one indicates it to them they cannot correct what they are doing wrong.
>And, yes, sometimes incorrect calls get made. However,Scientology has
>no monopoly on this, let me tell you.
The purpose of assigning a lower condition (lower than normal) in
Scientology is often to *make* the person *produce* more, i.e., to get
his/her "stats" up.
>> I was made to do hours of amends for leaving my key in the
>> xerox machine, even though no damage or financial harm resulted.
>> I queried the "treason" assignment to no avail. My "stats" were up
>> at the time, and I should have had "ethics protection". I was
>> ordered to do the "conditions formulas" from "TREASON" on up,
>> for "out-security".
>>
>> This is just one small example. I can give plenty of others.
>>
>>Warrior
claire swazey
>
> In article <35AED06B...@home.com>, claire says...
> >
> >Warrior wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <199807160523...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, jo...@aol.com
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >against over-punishment, which implies to me that there IS an element of
> >> >punishment in the ethics formulae themselves.
>
> "ethics conditions". In my opinion, stating that there are "safeguards
> against over-punishment" is wishful thinking, *in many cases*. It's a
> theory, but not always a reality.
One can correct an action without punishing and that is what ethics,
when properly applied, does. If it punishes, then it isn't ethics.
>
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >But, as I said above, I believe there's evidence that several of the
> >> >ethics formulae ARE about punishment, at least partially.
>
> Of course they are.
Nope.
>
> >> I would be happy to provide numerous references and quotes by Hubbard
> >> wherein he wrote that "upstats" are rewarded and "downstats" are penalized.
> >> "Lower conditions" are used in Scientology as punishment.
>
> >Penalizing and punishing are two different things. In the corporation
> >in which I am employed,for example, there are penalties for things, but
> >those are not punishments. There is a difference. One of the things
> >about lowered stats is that you get lower pay. See, that's a penalty and
> >it is not a punishment in the sense you're trying to use the word.
>
> I am talking about Scientology, *not* a corporation in which you are
> employed.
I was giving an example of where a penalty would not necessarily be a
punishment. And they do have a similar thing in Scientology wherein
one's staff pay can be affected by one's status or actions. So the
analogy is valid.
>
> In Scientology, "penalizing" and "punishing" *are* inextricably related.
> Hubbard said to "reward upstats" (increased production) and to "penalize
> downstats" (decreased production). In Scientology, the penalty for *not*
> producing more than the week before can, and does, include loss of pay
> or pay cuts, no bonuses, restricted diet (rice and beans in the SO),
> cancellation of "libs" (personal time off from post), ineligibility for
> "auditing" and/or personal "enhancement", completion of "amends" and
> working even longer hours to make sure one gets his/her "stats" up.
>
> I don't know what world you live in, but where I come from, "penalty"
> is defined as "a punishment established by law or authority for a crime
> or offense". So please don't tell me that "penalizing and punishing are
> two different things". I am a "Superliterate" (as certified by your
> cult), so I hardly need to be told what the words "penalty" and
> "punishment" mean.
I am glad you are a superliterate. I am glad you still care so much
about the states and certs you achieved while in Scn. You seem to me,
Warrior, to be somewhat of a closet Scientologist. How very odd.
>
> >The purpose of assigning someone a lowered condition is to indicate to
> >the person that they are in that condition. They are not being assigned
> >a lower condition,so much as they are *in* the lower condition and if no
> >one indicates it to them they cannot correct what they are doing wrong.
> >And, yes, sometimes incorrect calls get made. However,Scientology has
> >no monopoly on this, let me tell you.
>
> The purpose of assigning a lower condition (lower than normal) in
> Scientology is often to *make* the person *produce* more, i.e., to get
> his/her "stats" up.
No, it's to correct a problem. And conditions are not truly assigned,
they are spotted and indicated.
>
> >> I was made to do hours of amends for leaving my key in the
> >> xerox machine, even though no damage or financial harm resulted.
> >> I queried the "treason" assignment to no avail. My "stats" were up
> >> at the time, and I should have had "ethics protection". I was
> >> ordered to do the "conditions formulas" from "TREASON" on up,
> >> for "out-security".
> >>
> >> This is just one small example. I can give plenty of others.
> >>
Yes, I know. You have a wealth of gripes against CofS.
C
Jour0
Sorry to take so long to reply to this ... between my busy week and
trying to figure out where we were in the thread, I got a little behind.
claire swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Jo...@aol.com wrote:
> > A scientific basis implies well-documented, publicly-published
studies, by
> > multiple researchers, showing how the theory has been revised as
various
> > experiments showed its flaws. This is standard scientific research. I have
> > seen nothing like this presented for $cn, and no official spokesperson for
$cn
> > seems willing to present this information.
>
> Perhaps they know that no matter what they say, no matter what they
> present, it will be scoffed at and sneered at by those unfriendly to
> Scn? Just my speculation.
Well, as I quoted earlier in the excerpt from the "Scientific Method"
appendix in "Dianetics":
> > "... the Scientific Method implies gleefully attacking, with every
available
> > weapon of logic, every possible logical loophole in - your own structure of
> > logic and theory."
Scoffing and sneering will probably happen, but scientists are more
likely to "gleefully attack" whatever evidence is presented to look for
errors, which is what's supposed to happen. This is true whether the
scientist, personally, wants to prove or disprove the theory - a really
good scientist gleefully attacks his/her own results and theories, to
find errors and revise the theory before others do.
Many - maybe most - of the most fundamental scientific theories
currently embraced today, those we consider almost proven, were
originally scoffed at and sneered at. A good scientist works to rebut
arguments and revise theories to explain the conflicts between the
hypothesis and the theory. Presumably LRH was advocating exactly this
approach by including the "Scientific Method" essay in "Dianetics."
> Anyway, they really don't have to if they don't want to. I certainly do
> not care if they ever do.
You may not, but I do, and I think it's entirely likely that consumer
law officials do, too. The makers of herbal supplements have been
prosecuted for claiming that their products had certain effects on
people without the scientific evidence to back that up. The makers of
laundry balls have been prosecuted in Oregon for claiming a scientific
basis for the way their product worked, without any evidence to back
that up.
Scientologists often tell me (you haven't, that I recall, but my
handlers have) that Scientology would never do something illegal. Well,
guess what - I think it's illegal to claim a scientific basis for
something when there isn't one. Thus, I disagree with your statement
that "they really don't have to if they don't want to." I understand
that you don't care personally whether they do or not, because the
anecdotal/experiential evidence you've seen is convincing for you.
However, I would think that you might see this (claiming something that
isn't there) as unethical, and take action to encourage the organization
to stop making unsupported claims. I know you've said in the past that,
when you see an inappropriate action, you take steps to address it.
Since the unsupported claims are (I believe clearly) fraudulent and thus
unethical and illegal, I would think you would care, because Scientology
isn't supposed to be doing unethical or illegal things, and because
doing them creates liabilities for Scn, represents overts, and is likely
to ultimately result in problems for Scn.
> > Oh. Can you tell me what the difference is?
>
> Justice is "the action of the group against the individual when he has
> failed to get his own ethics in" -Admin dictionary/Scn.
>
> It does include punishment if necessary.
>
> Ethics does not.
<snip>
> > If so, how do you reconcile that with this quote from "What is
$cn?":
> >
> > "Punishment is not a factor in $cn justice, since it has long been
proven in
> > society that punishment more often than not simply hardens the
punished person
> > into patterns of destructive behavior." - p. 176
>
> Acc to the Admin dictionary there can be punishment involved in
justice.
So what is your reaction to the quote from "What is Scn"? Is it an
error? Is it a lie?
Thanks for your replies to my other questions. As always, I hope you
have (had) a great weekend.
Jour
P/M
claire swazey
>
> Hi Claire!
>
> Sorry to take so long to reply to this ... between my busy week and
> trying to figure out where we were in the thread, I got a little behind.
>
> claire swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Well, as I quoted earlier in the excerpt from the "Scientific Method"
> appendix in "Dianetics":
> Scoffing and sneering will probably happen, but scientists are more
> likely to "gleefully attack" whatever evidence is presented to look for
> errors, which is what's supposed to happen. This is true whether the
> scientist, personally, wants to prove or disprove the theory - a really
> good scientist gleefully attacks his/her own results and theories, to
> find errors and revise the theory before others do.
>
> Many - maybe most - of the most fundamental scientific theories
> currently embraced today, those we consider almost proven, were
> originally scoffed at and sneered at. A good scientist works to rebut
> arguments and revise theories to explain the conflicts between the
> hypothesis and the theory. Presumably LRH was advocating exactly this
> approach by including the "Scientific Method" essay in "Dianetics."
>
> > Anyway, they really don't have to if they don't want to. I certainly do
> > not care if they ever do.
>
> You may not, but I do, and I think it's entirely likely that consumer
> law officials do, too. The makers of herbal supplements have been
> prosecuted for claiming that their products had certain effects on
> people without the scientific evidence to back that up. The makers of
> laundry balls have been prosecuted in Oregon for claiming a scientific
> basis for the way their product worked, without any evidence to back
> that up.
I doubt very much that consumer law officials are going to be
interesting in starting something with CofS. But then, I also doubt
that CofS officials would care if they did or didn't.
I quoted from the Admin dictionary which is a Scientology dictionary.
Therefore I have given you a Scientology reference and therefore what I
stated was correct. I do not have (nor do I want) a copy of "What is
Scientology" and cannot quote from it so I am not going to be much help
to you there.
>
> Thanks for your replies to my other questions. As always, I hope you
> have (had) a great weekend.
Wasn't bad, but it was too hot.
C
j-p.s
>
Claire, I'm sure you're _still_ not snipping quoted material enough. I had
to wait twenty seconds for my news host to stall before giving me
ninety-five lines of your posting, when maybe only twenty of them were
yours.
Time is money, bay-beh. At least it is when you're on British Telecom.
--
J-P
http://www.c-u-p.demon.co.uk/ -- see who's playing at The Edinburgh Fringe
Cruel & Unusual Punishment present: SQUARE PEGS 24th-29th August 1998
claire swazey
>
> In article <35BD1A3D...@home.com>, claire swazey wrote:
> >
>
> Claire, I'm sure you're _still_ not snipping quoted material enough. I had
> to wait twenty seconds for my news host to stall before giving me
> ninety-five lines of your posting, when maybe only twenty of them were
> yours.
Damn. I've been trying to, and have been reviewing the posts before I
send them. Sometimes I leave stuff in when I think it's needed for
clarification. (get that, claire-ification? Oh bad pun-- havent had my
coffee yet...) I will try to do better in the future.
>
> Time is money, bay-beh. At least it is when you're on British Telecom.
Gotcha.
>