What Really Happened in INCOMM - Part 1
Dan Garvin
in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex. They no longer appeared at
meals in their private dining room, even those who had non-INCOMM
spouses they normally dined with. In fact, they never even came home
any more. Late at night and early in the morning, they could sometimes
be seen parading single file, under the eagle eyes of imported
security guards, from the INCOMM offices to a locked stairwell that
leads to the INCOMM berthing wing on the fourth floor of the Main
Building (the Y-shaped building that fronts on Fountain Avenue). Apart
from that, for four months these people were rarely seen by others.
They never went anywhere unescorted by security guards (even RPFers
can be escorted by other RPFers), and seldom went anywhere, period.
They never saw their spouses or children unless it was by a chance
encounter while being herded to or from their special berthing or,
occasionally, taken elsewhere on some special task.
What the hell was going on? This was unprecedented, even in an
environment where paranoia is de rigueur. Other Sea Org members who
asked about it were told, "You are not to even *think* about it. Don't
wonder, don't speculate. Do not try to find out. Do not talk about it
with others. It is none of your business." Once in a while, before the
four months were up, someone would re-enter normal Sea Org society
from "inside," but they were silent as monks about what had happened.
Finally, toward the end, the INCOMM prison started emptying out
rapidly. People went back to post, except for half a dozen or so who
turned up on the RPF and a few who were dismissed from the Sea Org.
However, none of them said a word, and to this day practically nobody
knows what happened. When they were released, the prisoners were
ordered not to tell anyone, even those with high security clearances,
anything about what had occurred or what was done to them. The truth
is, most of the incarcerated never really found out themselves *why*
they had spent several months under house arrest and perpetual guard.
This part of the story answers the question, "Why did it happen?"
In January of the same year, I was still in OSA International. I was
working on a special project to create a newer, better computer system
for OSA to be able to search and interrelate its mountains of
dossiers, reports, legal documents, media, and other information in
order to better reach conclusions about whom to attack and how. INCOMM
was supposed to do all computerization, but they had never done much
for OSA and had little interest in helping, so OSA did it on their
own. A public Scientologist, former DSA Boston staff brought out to LA
for just this purpose, had been working with me for several years on
earlier versions of the same system. He is a programmer par excellence
and designed the system and wrote most of the software for it.
The system was so successful that users kept demanding more and more.
Finally we decided that a major new version was needed, a nearly
complete rewrite. But computer systems were not supposed to be
designed or developed outside INCOMM, and INCOMM didn't want to do it.
RTC, who directly runs INCOMM but also deals directly with OSA, had to
mediate. We could do the system ourselves, but we would have to do it
within INCOMM and under the supervision of the Commanding Officer of
INCOMM, Greg Johnston, if I recall his name correctly. Greg is the guy
pictured doing TRs in the Scientology Handbook from pages 164 through
182. Since neither my non-SO associate nor I had clearances to work in
INCOMM, we had to work in a special wing that had been set up behind
Reception. There were a few other non-cleared personnel in the same
wing doing other projects for INCOMM.
OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
Information Center, and it's where all the important information
(other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized. All OSA staff are
required to brief themselves on CIC weekly, or they don't get paid for
the week. One day, I was on the 12th floor and found the conference
room had been closed off. It had been taken over by RTC. That had
happened before, so I wasn't surprised, but this lasted longer than
usual. Then, a few days later, I was told to report there. I still had
no idea what was up.
I knocked and was admitted. Warren McShane was there. So was an RTC
sec-checker named Manuela, along with two INCOMM technical personnel.
I had been "invited" because I was well known for continually finding
gaping holes in INCOMM's pathetic computer security. McShane wanted
know if I thought there were still some ways that general users could
get access to everything in the computer. I said, "Sure, probably."
Every time I had reported something, INCOMM had eventually fixed that,
but they had never done an overhaul to find similar security flaws I
hadn't happened to run across yet.
So he briefed me. A confidential report from the private computer
files of the Investigations Aide, Linda Hamel, had been posted on
a.r.s. They were trying to find out how the report could have been
gotten and who had done it. This was no minor security breach.
"Investigations" means "intelligence." This is the espionage and dirty
(dirtier!) tricks division of OSA. Their "eyes only" secrets are so
secret that even other OSA personnel do not have access to them. If
somebody could get to Linda Hamel's files, then *no* information was
safe -- not even RTC's. This was the equivalent of a five-alarm fire,
except not even OSA could be told what had happened. Everybody was a
potential suspect, and all the Invest personnel were kept under watch,
in case someone who had legitimate access to the document had posted
it.
What was the document? Many of you will remember it. It was about the
incident with Tom Klemesrud. The problem with Tom was his refusal to
de-host Dennis Erlich and other anti-Scientologists for posting NOTs
materials and being a general nuisance to Scientology. They sent in
Miss Bloody Butt, who got Tom to take her home with him and then
smeared blood all over the bathroom and elsewhere and was supposed to
try to frame Tom for attacking her. The stolen document, a report
about these events, was posted through anonymous remailer
anon.penet.fi, the poster going by -AB-. -AB- had been on a.r.s. for
some time and was well known, but had never before done anything to
distinguish himself. He was just a pro-Scientology, pro-COS apologist.
So he got this document from Linda Hamel's computer files and posted
it as evidence "from the source" in favor of Scientology's version of
the story. Linda or somebody else in Invest recognized it and reported
the breach, and all hell broke loose -- but quietly, quietly.
Nobody knew who -AB- was, of course, and Julf, who ran anon.penet.fi,
was not saying. Take a moment to envision how maddening this must have
been to Miscavige and RTC: They *knew* there was a spy. They *knew*
that either it was somebody highly placed and completely trusted, or
else their entire computer system was compromised. It's difficult to
imagine which alternative would have been worse. They couldn't do a
broad purge, because they'd be getting rid of many people they utterly
depended on, and even then could not be sure of getting the culprit.
And they could not let *anyone* know of the security breach, except
the minimum number who absolutely needed to know. They didn't have
resources to do broad sec-checking; they were sec-checking the Invest
personnel who had opportunity, if not motive, to commit the crime, but
if it was a low-level Sea Org member who had found a way past the
computer's security, it could take months or years to find him by sec
checking.
The INCOMM personnel working with us were trying to crack into various
internet systems to discover clues that might lead to the identity of
-AB-. They were also investigating internally for weaknesses in their
system and searching the computers for clues as to who might have
posted the document. They were also correcting the flaws I reported to
them. The first few were easy for me: I already knew of several, which
I had been using myself, not to snoop, but to have access to programs
that made my own job more efficient. I "should have" reported them
earlier, but they were great timesavers and they were not accessible
to just anybody, so I hadn't up to that point. But then I went on to
find dozens more, particularly under the account of a former CO of
INCOMM, who had apparently set up his own access prior to moving off
the post. Quite convenient for him. It wasn't really leading any
closer to unmasking -AB-, but at least they were finally doing
something comprehensive about their truly lame security. (I know, I
know -- if only I had left *before* fixing their security -- but I
have a feeling it's still pretty bad, just in different ways. They
don't trust "wog" security systems, so they're forced to rely on their
own, often incompetent and always overworked, personnel.)
Meanwhile, Warren McShane was attacking the problem from different
angles. He told us he'd briefed the Invest personnel: He wasn't even
interested in punishing anybody, and wouldn't do so if the person
confessed; he just wanted to know *how* it had been done. I remember
thinking, "Yeah, right. That'll work." But, then again, anybody crazy
enough to do what -AB- had done (believing it would help Scientology,
and believing he'd get away with it) might be crazy enough to believe
such a bald-faced lie.
McShane took us down to the LA Police Department to talk with the
officer handling the case. We told him what we knew so far. He didn't
have much to say. He said it looked like an inside job. As if we
didn't know.
I had come to the end of my search for computer security gaps, so I
moved on. I created a database, into which I loaded all the phone
records from the PAC Base phone system, which records the number,
time, length, and station of every call, incoming or outgoing (without
the incoming number if caller ID is blocked). This was to narrow the
possibilities of who could have been posting around the times we were
concerned with. It wasn't helping much yet, but it might later.
Halfway around the globe, Julf in Finland was still refusing to tell
us anything about -AB-. McShane had contacts there and was getting
somebody to lean on Julf -- hard -- but he wasn't budging. However, we
had two things in our favor: Stealing computer data is an actual crime
under actual (not Scientological) penal codes; and, according to
McShane, some people had been using anon.penet.fi to post child
pornography, so Julf was already in hot water. I'm hazy on the
details, but I think the Finnish police got involved, and finally Julf
revealed the ISP of -AB-. He either couldn't or wouldn't tell us
-AB-'s actual identity.
This proved to be the big break in the case, but not right away. The
ISP was Cal Tech Pasadena. Road trip! Several of us, including some
Invest personnel, piled in to a van and headed for the college. The
Invest heavies went to the computer center and demanded their help in
finding out who had posted the document. The computer center told the
Invest heavies to get lost. There were a couple more attempts, but
they went nowhere. Apparently, though, -AB- was an alumnus, or he
wouldn't have had an account there. So we trundled off to the library
and started going through yearbooks, looking at photos. After several
days of little or no sleep, and an unknown number of years since the
culprit's graduation, we failed to find anybody we knew.
We spent several hours hunting, though. When we finally came back, I
think I had a snooze and came in after dinner. "Did you hear? We found
out who -AB- is!" No, I hadn't heard. But when we had been at Cal
Tech, somebody had managed to get their access phone numbers. Since
almost nobody in the Sea Org is allowed to have an internet connection
and even fewer would have an account at Cal Tech, it was a simple
matter to find from the phone system records when and from where the
phone calls to -AB-'s ISP were made. This led directly to the night
computer operator in INCOMM. This is another name for something like
the network admin. Computer operations personnel spend their waking
hours inside the holy of holies, the glass-enclosed Computer Room.
When you have a problem with the computer, you call and ask for
"Operations," and you talk to whomever is in there at the moment. He
fixes whatever's wrong and, in between calls, does routine admin work
like backups.
Computer operators were above suspicion. It had never occurred to any
of us for more than an instant to suspect anyone in INCOMM. After we
knew, it was a forehead-slapping "DUH!", but not even McShane had
seriously believed someone in INCOMM, with complete access to
everything on every computer, would publicly post a stolen document.
It was *too* obvious. They had to know they'd be the prime suspects,
so they'd know better than to do it, because they'd get caught pronto.
Besides, -AB- from his postings seemed out of touch with reality (as
we in OSA and RTC knew it to be), and INCOMM qualifications were far
too tight to have let such a person in. Nevertheless, there he was.
I had spoken with Tom Rummelhart a number of times, but never met him
and still do not know what he looks like. But, as Tom Klemesrud
revealed several years ago, Tom Rummelhart was -AB-, and this is who
Tom Rummelhart was. He apparently had listed his occupation as
Director of Computerization, but that's a bit more grand than what he
actually was. Although he had the access of an admin, as an operator
he would not have had authority to grant or revoke anyone's accounts
on his own, create or change data structures, or do much of anything
but keep the computers running and maintained, fix problems, and carry
out certain instructions from others in INCOMM. If he was truly
"Director" of anything, he may have been the lead operator or Director
of Operations -- sort of a chief technical flunky -- but I never heard
of him being even that. As far as I ever knew, he was just a regular
operator.
According to one of the INCOMM personnel on the project, Rummelhart
had deleted the computer logs that recorded his clandestine internet
activies and his theft of the secret document. However, he had
neglected to delete all the saved earlier versions of the same logs,
which were found once we knew where to look. Tch! Even I, an unwashed
non-INCOMM lowlife who was not supposed to know such things, knew
better than that! Anyway, -AB- had been caught.
My then-wife, also in OSA, asked me, "Who is Tom Rummelhart and why
has he been in session all day with Manuela? Does it have to do with
the project you're on?" I told her he was an INCOMM operator and yes,
it had to do with our project, but I couldn't say more. His all-day
"session" would have been Manuela sec-checking the living daylights
out of him, to see what else he'd done and whether he was a plant sent
in by one of our many enemies. Unsurprisingly, he was not. It was
impossible to issue a Suppressive Person Declare on him; they'd have
had to say what he did. So he just disappeared. After that day, Tom
Rummelhart's name was never heard more in PAC.
Mission accomplished. Finally, we could go home and get some sleep.
Except I couldn't. I had been two weeks or more full time on this, and
the clock was still ticking on my real project, the overhaul of the
OSA Computer System. Also, I had to put together a proposal for making
the OSA computers utterly impervious and secure. Fortunately, my
non-SO associate had continued to work away while I was off catching
spies. A couple early mornings later, I was sitting in my office
behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
To Be Continued
Dan
Kim P
Dan Garvin wrote:
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggg the suspense is killing me...
Kim P
Cerridwen
Wow! Leaving me hanging like this!!
Please get to Part II soon. This is great stuff.
Thanks so much for posting here, Dan.
Your contribution is really appreciated.
Cerri
"Critical thinking demands we question the unproven, not that
we meekly accept it." Diane Richardson
For Stats on Scn go to: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/
For News on Scientology go to: http://www.scientologywatch.org
Phil Scott
Spectacular posting Dan...I am looking forward to the rest of the series.
I hope you have released it to several established critics and the press for
retention in the event that the cult sees fit to insure you dont post
further....that will be your best life insurance.
Phil Scott
"Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
Hartley Patterson
> On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
> had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
> locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex.
Fascinating, and worthy of a larger audience. Some nerdy techno journal
would snap this up - try them. Call it 'Fear and Panic on L Ron Hubbard
Way'.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and
how to outrun Thread.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Tom Klemesrud
I am of course curious of who handled the Woolard assault on me.
Was it Linda Hamel? Warren McShane?
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
wrote:
WEBBED with color images from the original WIRED MAGAZINE article
alt.scientology.war and linked...
http://www.lermanet.com/dangarvin/
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
Support http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
<tom...@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote:
>Very courageous of you to post this, and I thank you immensely.
>
>I am of course curious of who handled the Woolard assault on me.
> Was it Linda Hamel? Warren McShane?
And Id like a copy of that original posting by -AB- tom
see http://www.lermanet.com/dangarvin/
you look pretty good
Arnie
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
IDA J 007
>From: dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin)
>Date: 11/16/2003 6:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>
Thank you Dan for this post. I am waiting for Part 2. This is one of the many
stories that should be aired and viewed by all those that were told "it isn't
so" it is only "made up" etc. etc.
I have forwarded this to those that should know the truth.
Thank you once more You are indeed special! I am so happy that you are free
from the big con.
Ida Camburn
"You must have crossed the river to tell the crocodile he has bad breath"
Chinese proverb #117B
Ken Milhone
Hi Dan,
Thanks for posting this on a.r.s. I read it last night on OCMB and
found it so interesting, I CCP'd and sent it to a very active critic,
who said it read like a spy novel and be sure to send Part 11.
Since I had never heard this story before, I did a google search last
night too and found this very informave post by ptsc which includes
the "Ms Bloody Butt" story.
Now that your post is on a.r.s., I shall send it to some more critics.
As Braveheart's Girlfriend
(I think it was) said, "I smell a book".
Good Luck,
Ken
mimus
<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Dan Garvin:
>> On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
>> in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
>> had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
>> locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex.
>
>Fascinating, and worthy of a larger audience. Some nerdy techno journal
>would snap this up - try them. Call it 'Fear and Panic on L Ron Hubbard
>Way'.
I *agree* with this post!
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
http://www.holysmoke.org/sm/tabayoyon.htm
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
http://www.holysmoke.org/lm/lm062.htm
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
http://www.skeptictank.org/handlars.htm
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Fredric L. Rice
>McShane took us down to the LA Police Department to talk with the
>officer handling the case. We told him what we knew so far. He didn't
>have much to say. He said it looked like an inside job. As if we
>didn't know.
No shit?! The criminal enterprise actually took this to the police? I
find that very bizarre. It's like a Gambino Mafia member going to the
cops when one of their own rats out evidence to a U. S. Marshall.
>Computer operators were above suspicion. It had never occurred to any
>of us for more than an instant to suspect anyone in INCOMM. After we
>knew, it was a forehead-slapping "DUH!", but not even McShane had
>seriously believed someone in INCOMM, with complete access to
>everything on every computer, would publicly post a stolen document.
<rofl!> The criminal mindset. This crook would fit in well on COPS
given he takes off his shirt first and then runs. I mean it was
obvious at the start that it was a fellow Scientologist that exposed
the evidence in public. I can't imagine anybody would think it came
from outside.
>It was *too* obvious. They had to know they'd be the prime suspects,
>so they'd know better than to do it, because they'd get caught pronto.
>Besides, -AB- from his postings seemed out of touch with reality (as
>we in OSA and RTC knew it to be), and INCOMM qualifications were far
>too tight to have let such a person in. Nevertheless, there he was.
Name a Scientologist who _isn't_ out of touch with reality.
>I had spoken with Tom Rummelhart a number of times, but never met him
>and still do not know what he looks like. But, as Tom Klemesrud
>revealed several years ago, Tom Rummelhart was -AB-, and this is who
>Tom Rummelhart was.
That's Thomas Rummelhart.
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/ stats/source/source063.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/newman.htm
http://www.offlines.org/harass/sp983.htm
>My then-wife, also in OSA, asked me, "Who is Tom Rummelhart and why
>has he been in session all day with Manuela? Does it have to do with
>the project you're on?" I told her he was an INCOMM operator and yes,
>it had to do with our project, but I couldn't say more. His all-day
>"session" would have been Manuela sec-checking the living daylights
>out of him, to see what else he'd done and whether he was a plant sent
>in by one of our many enemies.
Translation: Sent in by the FBI, LAPD, Interpol, et al.
>Mission accomplished. Finally, we could go home and get some sleep.
>Except I couldn't. I had been two weeks or more full time on this, and
>the clock was still ticking on my real project, the overhaul of the
>OSA Computer System. Also, I had to put together a proposal for making
>the OSA computers utterly impervious and secure. Fortunately, my
>non-SO associate had continued to work away while I was off catching
>spies. A couple early mornings later, I was sitting in my office
>behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
>night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
You should do a detailed write-up on the computer systems and theirsecurity
and post it in public.
Fascinating.
---
Yes, George W. Bush is an unelected baby killing fascist dictator.
Also: Scientology's International President (Audio files of this
nutter available at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice )
Warrior
Dan Garvin says...
Thanks very much for this, Dan!
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
michael pattinson
Looking forward to the continuation : ))
M.
*************
dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote in message news:<587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>...
Phil Chitester
<gigantic skip>
> It was
> impossible to issue a Suppressive Person Declare on him; they'd have
> had to say what he did. So he just disappeared. After that day, Tom
> Rummelhart's name was never heard more in PAC.
Probably homeless like me. Or he works in OSA on deep cover
assignments. Kind of the same thing.
> Mission accomplished. Finally, we could go home and get some sleep.
> Except I couldn't. I had been two weeks or more full time on this, and
> the clock was still ticking on my real project, the overhaul of the
> OSA Computer System. Also, I had to put together a proposal for making
> the OSA computers utterly impervious and secure. Fortunately, my
> non-SO associate had continued to work away while I was off catching
> spies. A couple early mornings later, I was sitting in my office
> behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
> night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
>
> To Be Continued
Is that going to be the part about how you went totally raving nuts
after you realized you were a no case gain R/Ser and turned against
the Church and destroyed all the files?
I hate that R/S thing. I've got muscle twitches... oh, oh no, I
mentioned it again.
>
> Dan
Nice account. Please continue to bring us all up to date on what all
those evil-doers at INCOMM are up to. They're the real heroes of
evildom with all those computer files, security measures, policies on
potential trouble sources and day long sec-checking. Oh, Oh no!
Phil
Phil Scott
"Phil Chitester" <dpchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip
Is this what you were responding to cult boy...from Dan Garvin, reposted
below?
Dan Garvin typed:
in by one of our many enemies. Unsurprisingly, he was not. It was
impossible to issue a Suppressive Person Declare on him; they'd have
had to say what he did. So he just disappeared. After that day, Tom
Rummelhart's name was never heard more in PAC.
Mission accomplished. Finally, we could go home and get some sleep.
Except I couldn't. I had been two weeks or more full time on this, and
the clock was still ticking on my real project, the overhaul of the
OSA Computer System. Also, I had to put together a proposal for making
the OSA computers utterly impervious and secure. Fortunately, my
non-SO associate had continued to work away while I was off catching
spies. A couple early mornings later, I was sitting in my office
behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
To Be Continued
Dan
:)
Zinj
Bloodybutt', I thought those who haven't seen it might enjoy the
original 'outsider's' view.
The whole story was pretty fantastic, and was widely doubted at
the time, although I suspect that current knowledge of the Cult
makes it much more credible on its face, albeit still pretty
damn weird!
Personally I abandoned my doubts when I ran into an eery
parallel in Hubbard's 'Mission Earth' involving the use of a
female carrying blood filled bladders to 'discredit' an 'enemy'.
It was so similar that I have no doubt now that OSA actually
*uses* Hubbard fiction as its template for RL action.
Miss Bloodybutt follows:
Who is Tom Klemesrud, who is "Miss Blood", and what is the
"Blood Incident"? In Tom's own words, taken from selected posts
to ars:
Note: this section is not included because of Tom's importance
on ars or the investigation into Scientology, but rather to
provide one person's testimony about a Scientology harassment
campaign. Many more stories like Tom's are covered on the net
and in the reference books on Scientology, scary tales of the
cult's KGB-like Office of Special Affairs (OSA) and their bag of
dirty tricks used to wage virtual war on their critics, ex-
members and the journalists who report on the cult's activities
alike; this is one such story:
I operate a hobby bulletin board system situated in my apartment
in Hollywood. This bulletin board system provides its
subscribers with access to the Internet through connection to
Netcom Online Services, a commercial access provider.
Prior to January 14, 1995, [the date of the blood incident] I
was contacted by attorneys for the Religious Technology Center
(hereinafter referred to as "RTC"), a Church of Scientology
organization. The attorneys for RTC informed me that a
subscriber to my system, Dennis Erlich, was allegedly violating
RTC's copyrighted materials by making postings of those
materials to the Internet. RTC's attorneys demanded action to
block Mr. Erlich's access to the Internet via my bulletin board
system. I contacted RTC's attorneys and requested that they
provide me with copies of the copyrighted materials so that I
could compare it with what Mr. Erlich had posted to the
Internet. They refused to do so and I refused to take action
against Mr. Erlich.
On January 14, 1995, I was in contact with plaintiff [Linda
Woolard, aka "Miss Bloodybutt" herein for the first and only
time in my life.
I met the plaintiff at a bar. Contrary to her assertions that I
approached her, she approached me. She identified herself as an
agent for the IRS. Part of our discussion concerned the bulletin
board system I operated and she expressed an interest in seeing
the system. Therefore, the plaintiff accompanied me to my
apartment in North Hollywood.
The bar was in Burbank on my way home. I have not been there for
years. I do not hang out there. I know the management there and
is why I chose to go there. You would think they had to have
been following me.
She--or someone else--had to have at least been following me
from the Burbank airport. The cab driver was the only one who
knew where I wanted to go. We had trouble finding the place too,
driving back and forth on the surrounding streets. They may have
been in touch with the airline, according to info I have.
"Miss Blood" got access to the internet site by claiming to be
an IRS CID agent, re-investigating the tax status of the CoS. I
sat down a light colored dinette chair for her to sit on. There
were no stains on that chair after she had sat on it--I have
witnesses. So, she was not bleeding-- "soaking," before she went
into the bathroom.
She excused herself to the bathroom. She took some time, so I
checked on her to find much blood _smeared_ all over the
bathroom: On the floor, walls, shower doors, but little in the
toilet. After I had discovered her, she came out of the bathroom
and said: "I am from the Church of Scientology, and I think that
you should do as Thomas Small has instructed you to do--delete
Dennis Erlich from the BBS."
I am just reporting what happened. The first thing she said when
I found her sitting on the toilet in the bathroom with about a
pint of blood on the floor in front of her was: "Tom, we have
got to stop having rough sex like this."
Of course, I was fully clothed, with my shoes on, being a
gentleman, because previous to this, she was an IRS Criminal
Investigation Division agent in my mind. She impersonated one,
and dropped names that are only know previously in confidential
files at IRS CID, or to a former Federal Grand Jury. Woolard was
engaging in psychological terrorism, in my opinion. Or, perhaps
she thought by mentioning this bizarre notion, I might believe
it happened.
I was shocked, and went to call for help. She came out of the
bathroom and came to me saying this: "I am a representative of
the Church of Scientology, and I think you should do as attorney
Thomas Small has said you should do--disconnect Dennis Erlich
from the Internet."
She immediately returned to the bathroom.
She told me she was sent on a mission to do what she was doing.
I believe she did not know I had called the police and had left
the apartment door wide open for them to come in. She was
surprised to see them. She left several things behind.
Then she came out undressed, saying: "I have been sent on a
mission, and I have been instructed to put some blood in your
bed." She said this courteously, with a smile. As she turned to
lay down on the bed, I saw the sausage of blood nestled in her
crotch. She wiggled her butt in the bed, got up, looked at the
stain on the sheets to see if she liked the stain, and returned
to the bathroom. She did this with no interference from me.
A phone call was placed to 911. However, the telephone call was
placed by me. When the police came to my apartment, I was in
fact arrested on the false allegations of the plaintiff that I
threatened her. The police never pursued these allegations.
She told the police she had a unique medical problem. This
problem is of the type that caused a few pints of blood to be
smeared on bathroom walls, in my shower, on carpets, my chairs,
and bed. The medical problem takes the form of causing all my
linens, and new rolls of toilet paper to be strewn on the floor
and rubbed in the produce of her problem.
In fact, the blood came from a bag, bladder, or balloon nestled
in her crotch. I saw it. If this is a medical problem, then she
has an intestine or artery running outside her body filled with
cold almost coagulated blood.
Subsequent to January 14, 1995, I have made postings to the
Internet to alert Internet users to what I consider to be a
"set-up" to coerce me to censor the free speech rights [of]
users of the Internet. At no time have I ever posted to the
Internet or caused or to be posted to the Internet by others the
address or telephone number of plaintiff.
What plaintiff apparently forgot to advise this Court of is that
there is current litigation filed on February 8, 1995, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entitled Religious Technology Center, a California
non-profit corporation; and Bridge Publications, Inc., a
California non-profit corporation v. Netcom Online
Communications Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Dennis
Erlich, an individual; and Tom Klemesrud, an individual, dba
Clearwood Data Services, Case Number C-9520091 RMW.
In that action, RTC attempts to hold me, and Netcom Online
Communications responsible for copyright violations of
Scientology's "sacred scriptures." On November 21, 1995, United
States District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte made the following
ruling:
"The Court finds that 'plaintiffs' (RTC) have not met their
burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits as to
either Netcom or Klemesrud. The only viable theory of
infringement is contributory infringement, and there is little
evidence that Netcom or Klemesrud knew or should have known that
Erlich was involved in copyright infringement of plaintiff's
works and was not entitled to a fair use defense, especially as
they did not receive notice of the alleged infringement until
after all but one of the postings was completed. Further, their
participation in the infringement was not substantial.
Accordingly, plaintiffs will not likely prevail on their
claims."
Plaintiff's allegations that I have harassed her are totally
without merit. In fact, some allegations of harassment are false
on their face. For example, plaintiff's allegations on page 9
that I was present at the Whiskey Bend Bar on San Fernando Road
in Burbank on May 27, 1995 are false. In fact, on May 27, 1995,
I was in Thompson, Iowa for my father's funeral. (See Exhibits
"3" and "4" attached hereto.) I did not even return to
California until May 28, 1995. It is therefore impossible for
plaintiff's absurd allegations that I caused her to hemorrhage
and have to be seen in an emergency room to be true. The
allegation that the plaintiff observed me on the evening of
November 16, 1995 standing across the street and staring in the
direction of her apartment is also false. I went to work on
November 16, 1995, and my work hours were from 3:00 p.m. to at
least 2:00 a.m. Therefore, it is again impossible for plaintiff
to have observed me.
I have never been to the plaintiff's place of residence in
Burbank and do not intend to go there. I have never threatened
the plaintiff, never assaulted the plaintiff, never stalked the
plaintiff, never harassed the plaintiff, nor do I have any
intention to do so in the future.
The temporary restraining order in place acts as a prior
restraint of speech on my part: "defendant shall not make any
Internet postings about the plaintiff or the 1/14/95 incident
involving the plaintiff" and is a violation of my First
Amendment rights. The TRO also potentially acts to block my
attorneys in the RTC v. Netcom case from performing legitimate
reasonable investigation through licensed investigators to
adequately defend me in the unmeritorious lawsuit. It is my
opinion that the application for TRO re harassment is a second
"set up" by Ms. Woolard similar to the way I was set up on
January 14, 1995.
Miss Blood's sister revealed to a newspaper reporter Miss Blood
has no medical problems.
And then there is RTC & Bridge Publications vs. Netcom, Dennis
Erlich, and Tom Klemesrud, dba Clearwood Data Services; Exhibit
A: "Spread lurid blood sex crimes -- actual evidence
[manufactured] to the press [on the perceived enemies of the
cult] ..." -L. Ron Hubbard, [Tom's comments in brackets]
This is not a "bizarre incident," it is textbook Hubbard put in
to action: verbatim. It is bizarre to law abiding citizens who
now have to be wondering why this cult that masquerades as a
religion, is getting non-profit organization tax status. That is
being looked in to now.
-AB- came on here with a supposed declaration from a "Linda W"
that was a totally manufactured, and false account of events
January 14th, when she entered my residence, impersonating an
IRS CID agent; then proceeded without my impedance, to smear
blood all over the walls, floors, and furniture in my dwelling--
the Internet site of Support.COM.
As it is turning out, Linda W is a big zero in the databases: I,
on the other hand, am a known, law-abiding, member of the
community in Los Angeles, and have lived here for years.
Journalists have found in database searches that Linda W is
coming out to be a zero--so far non-existent. She dos not have
California ID either Driver License, or valid ID card. She has
never sued or been sued; never owned property. Never been
arrested. Does not, and has never subscribed to one magazine or
newspaper. Is not registered to vote. She lives "with her
boyfriend in Burbank," according to the OSA declaration.
-AB- got the name of Linda W at a time when the Los Angeles
Police Department was the only organization--other than possible
conspirators, in this possible HIV blood attack on me--that had
her name.
-AB- either obtained the information, ie., her name and address,
illegally from the Los Angeles Police Department, or was
involved in the actual blood attack--which would be a
conspiracy, no? -AB- has since dropped his anonymous penet.fi
account in an apparent attempt to hide.
Now Vega--that respected anonymous pillar of the news group,
comes along and buys the fabricated story, and gets involved
trying to lend credence to this untruthful story. He states that
he has the woman's name and telephone number and is satisfied
that AB's story seems to check out.
After I had refuted the story, Vega states in error that I had
only refuted who had placed the 911 call, and did not refute the
other ugly, details of this scurrilous story.
Vega said Old Timer has the details of how -AB- obtained the
information. These details that Vega says Old Timer has, may be
evidence in a criminal conspiracy to commit assault--an assault
on me, or possible complicity of law enforcement providing -AB-
confidential LAPD information, or worse.
Old Timer gave credence to the story by saying she/he has a
"hunch" that OSA was not involved, and that the fabricated story
may have some truth in it. BTW, the story has already been
factually debunked by police and journalists.
Both Vega, and Old Timer quoted the entire original libelous -
AB- posting, further dragging my name through the mud for all
the world to see.
The story that Vega and Old Timer supported, ended up to be the
Church of Scientology International, OSA version, with questions
to be addressed to Helena Kobrin, Attorney for Scientology--the
Attorney that originally demanded, a few weeks earlier, that I
delete Dennis Erlich's access to the Net. This OSA version was
sent as a FAX to the Los Angeles Times in an attempt to kill the
Daniel Akst Postcard from Cyberspace story.
I hope you don't think blood attacks from dangerous net abusing
cults, is something we Sysops have to put up with as a routine
daily event.
Today [Thursday, November 30th, 1995] Linda Lee Woolard--the
woman who impersonated an IRS Agent January 14th, 1995; then
smeared blood all over my apartment, while saying: "I am a
representative from Scientology, and I think you should do as
attorney Thomas Small has instructed you to do-- disconnect
Dennis Erlich from the Internet..." was served ex parte papers
to amend a temporary restraining order she had file Nov. 21st in
Los Angeles Superior Court.
In her application for the temporary restraining order she had
asked that another person, (who I don't want named), stop
investigating Woolard and household members and family; and not
to post on the internet or publicize her name, address, phone
number.
Her application and the actual restraining order differed. Here
is the language of the original temporary restraining order:
"The defendant shall not have anyone else, specifically surveil,
follow, telephone, threaten or make physical contact with the
plaintiff. The defendant shall not make any internet posting
about the plaintiff or the 1-14-95 incident involving the
plaintiff."
This language is clearly an unconstitutional restrain of 1st
Amendment Free Speech rights.
The above [TRO] was lifted yesterday by Anthony S. Jones in an
ex parte application for an amended TRO, and served on Woolard
earlier today.
In a declaration, that is not signed, or show what the last page
is, Woolard says that on May 27th, 1995 I was stalking her at a
bar in Burbank. In fact I was 1,500 miles away in Thompson,
Iowa--for this was the day of my Dad's funeral.
She said after seeing me at the bar in Burbank watching her, she
"became terrified and ran into the women's bathroom to get away
from him. She immediately began hemorrhaging from her rectum
because of the emotional distress she was once again
experiencing by being in the vicinity [1,500 miles] of the
defendant. When her friends went into the bathroom to see what
was wrong they found her bleeding profusely. They phoned for an
ambulance. She was transported and treated in the emergency room
at Thompson Memorial Medical Center in Burbank. Later at about
6:00 am on May 28th, 1995 she was transferred by ambulance to
Olive View - UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar for further
treatment. She was released later that afternoon."
Unlike in her January 23rd, 1995 sworn declaration--which
Scientology Helena Kobrin FAXed to the Los Angeles Times to kill
a story about the 1-14-95 blood attack--in which Woolard says:
"I have never been in a Church of Scientology and I don't know
anyone who is a Scientologist,"
Woolard, in the new declaration says:
"As described above, prior to this incident the Plaintiff had
never been a member of the Church of Scientology, had never
known any of its members and had never taken directions from
it."
Subsequent to this incident, I was not unconvinced that she was
not a freezoner trying to set-up Scientology. I even considered
that maybe she was telling the truth--that she was an IRS
Agent--perhaps trying to set Scientology up. If Ingram is half
an investigator, he would have found out that I have the
reputation of being very honest. I even paid back my government
guaranteed student loan in the 70's. Yet, Scientology never
considered here, that an honest man might be telling the truth.
They had an opportunity to try to lay this off on the freezone,
and did not take it. I submit it is because it is exactly as it
seems, a bungled Scientology set-up attempt. They know it, and
is why they never considered what I said might be true.
Just as soon as she got the papers lifting the gag order on me,
someone-- perhaps she--moved to pre-empt anything I might post
on the Net by posting the anonymous court papers. Two hours
after she was served, at 2:31 pm PST the anonymous post
appeared.
Like I wasn't at the Whiskey Bend bar May 27th, but at my
father's funeral; and like I was working when Woolard reported I
was outside her apartment November 16th, I was not even at the
courthouse. [in response to a claim that Tom got up and ran out
of the courthouse during session] I don't think the Scieno's
know exactly what I look like. Buy the December issue of _Wired_
to see my picture...
Where was I? Home, taking a nap. This second set-up attempt was
so pathetic, it was laughable. I simply don't understand the
stories that this cult was feared in the past. This
"technology" doesn't work.
Don Wager, Esq., Linda Woolard's attorney has somehow
ascertained the name of my insurance company, and has contacted
my insurance company, paying for my defense, in an apparent
attempt to undermine my insurance coverage, and defense, in the
Federal action RTC & Bridge Publications V. Erlich, Klemesrud &
Netcom.
Woolard's attorney has mis-represented the Superior Court's
order of 12/6/95 to my insurance company.
Since the Superior Court case was settled, and Woolard cannot
use a lawyer for small claims, why is Attorney Don Wager working
for Woolard? How is she able to pay him? How did he find out who
my insurance company was? How is he paying for investigation to
find this out facts about me--such as who my insurance company
is?
It will be interesting to see if--as in a case against the Cult
Awareness Network--a letter writing campaign from individual
Scientologists to my insurance company, follows the Woolard
contact of my insurance company.
----------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Tom about a subsequent small claims case brought by Linda
Woolard:
After I found out her name January 25th, a journalist checked
DMV for an California ID card on her, and could not find one,
though she claims to have had one. She said in court that she
did not know about the internet, so someone else provided her to
ARS messages to submit to the judge. (However, her occupation on
the police report was listed as "Domputer" [sic]). She submitted
medical bills from her emergency visit to the hospitals after
she had a bleeding episode the night of may 27th. She said I
caused that to happen in court by threatening her at the Burbank
bar; when in fact I was in Iowa. She had no other medical bill
to show the court prior to May 28th, 1995.
The court bailiff, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy was
informed that there may be a warrant out for the private
detective sitting in court next to the Plaintiff, for felony
impersonation of a peace officer. The Deputy had the phone
number, a picture and the case and warrant numbers. He said he
would check it out. Yet, Ingram was allowed to sit peacefully in
court next to the LAPD officers for twenty minutes or more,
until he stroll out of the Los Angeles Municipal Courthouse, a
few minutes before the judge asked to talk to him. Ironically,
"impersonating a peace officer," is what I testified that the
Plaintiff did the night of January 14th. It is what the
Plaintiff did, among other things.
If I won, I won. If she won, the award, it is based on untruths
told in court that day: 1) I was in a Burbank bar May 27th; 2) I
was outside her apartment the evening of November 16th; 3) Her
original Superior Court order was upheld in her favor in the
hearing December 6th. These statements are demonstrably false,
and I would have proved that if the judge would have given me
the chance. Furthermore, they were demonstrated to her to be
untruth in the Superior Court hearing earlier on December 6th,
1995.
After handing about 15 ARS messages to the judge, she went on to
say she has never heard of "Seismotology," and doesn't know
anything about it.
I had material that would have disproved all of this, but the
judge would not look at my material, or give me the time to
mention these discrepancies. The judge only looked at
highlighted ARS postings that truthfully described the evidence
and events of the evening in question. The plaintiff paid with
some sort of anonymous checks, for the two police officers to
come to court. The judge asked them why are you here. They
responded, they didn't know. They did here the plaintiff make a
very serious accusations that she neither mentioned in the 911
calls, or told to the police at the scene--an accusation that
was faxed by Helena Kobrin from the Church of Scientology
International and OSA, to the Los Angeles Times libeling me.
If Plaintiff is awarded money from my insurance company, it will
be from a case in which incorrect statements where made. This
will come out in the federal case.
Ingram was there, and walked in with her. He left after about
twnety minutes leaving the Plaintiff on her own. Perhaps he had
to catch a plane to Rotterdam.
I want to thank the Plaintiff for paying the LAPD officers to
come a hear the discrepancies between what she told them, and
and said on the two 911 calls; and what she said under oath.
Martin Hunt / mar...@islandnet.com / March 23 1997
Zinj
--
ScientologyŽ - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
Lulu Belle
<snip>
> Mission accomplished. Finally, we could go home and get some sleep.
> Except I couldn't. I had been two weeks or more full time on this, and
> the clock was still ticking on my real project, the overhaul of the
> OSA Computer System. Also, I had to put together a proposal for making
> the OSA computers utterly impervious and secure. Fortunately, my
> non-SO associate had continued to work away while I was off catching
> spies. A couple early mornings later, I was sitting in my office
> behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
> night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
Let me guess.
A twelve man RTC mission led by the then-WDC Reserves.
Keith Henson
>While we're waiting for Part II of Dan's 'Insiders View of the
>Bloodybutt', I thought those who haven't seen it might enjoy the
>original 'outsider's' view.
>
>The whole story was pretty fantastic, and was widely doubted at
>the time, although I suspect that current knowledge of the Cult
>makes it much more credible on its face, albeit still pretty
>damn weird!
>
>Personally I abandoned my doubts when I ran into an eery
>parallel in Hubbard's 'Mission Earth' involving the use of a
>female carrying blood filled bladders to 'discredit' an 'enemy'.
>
>It was so similar that I have no doubt now that OSA actually
>*uses* Hubbard fiction as its template for RL action.
Snip
Much thanks to Dan for posting this amazing inside view, and to zinj
for the background.
Though I didn't doubt it had happened, the story was just utterly
weird to me for many years, in fact, it was only after I escaped to
Canada that I understood what was going on. The object was to get Tom
Klemesrud arrested for murder and kept in jail for an extended time
while the cops searched (not too hard) for a body to go with the blood
all over Tom's apartment. There were people like Ida Camburn and
Percilla Coats with a lot more exposure to the cults operations that
understood what they were trying to do at once. Unfortunately, I
never asked them so it remained a mystery to me for close to 7 years.
It has become clear in the last year that Tom was dosed with chloral
hydrate. This was done in the course of attempting to frame him for
murder, which upgrades the crime of using chloral hydrate. If law
enforcement didn't fear the cult suing them so much, they could have
put Ms Blood and everyone above her away for 40 years on the charge of
using the drug on Tom.
Keith Henson
Zinj
hkhe...@rogers.com says...
The only disagreement I have here is that I doubt that 'murder'
charges were intended, but rape.
And I doubt they actually intended to file them, but merely to
scare the bejeezus out of a stupid 'wog'.
Had he not called 911, she would have attempted to leave with
the extortion hanging in the air, but without filing any report
that would have raised interesting questions.
St Cuthbert's Host
> On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
> had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
> locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex. They no longer appeared at
> meals in their private dining room, even those who had non-INCOMM
> spouses they normally dined with. In fact, they never even came home
> any more. Late at night and early in the morning, they could sometimes
> be seen parading single file, under the eagle eyes of imported
> security guards, from the INCOMM offices to a locked stairwell that
> leads to the INCOMM berthing wing on the fourth floor of the Main
> Building (the Y-shaped building that fronts on Fountain Avenue). Apart
> from that, for four months these people were rarely seen by others.
> They never went anywhere unescorted by security guards (even RPFers
> can be escorted by other RPFers), and seldom went anywhere, period.
> They never saw their spouses or children unless it was by a chance
> encounter while being herded to or from their special berthing or,
> occasionally, taken elsewhere on some special task.
>
Dan!
excellent piece indeed - looking forward to the next installment.
Gotta say that this first part just cracked me up - I could just imagine
how 'serious' it all was and just thinking about it makes me very happy
indeed that I was not there!
Sometime we have to sit down for a beer.
deo
Magoo
needed, and more of it :)
I await part two !
Tory/Magoo!
"Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
Jurybox
Scientology is weak, and from within Scientology will destroy
itself. We critics are nothing more than witnesses of
Scientology self-destructing.
In article <587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>
--
"I do not believe in ... any of Scientology's absolutist
platitudes that attempt to reduce all of life and thought,
essentially complex activities, to a few simplistic functions
of a tiny handful of variables.
Dan Garvin, ex-Scientologist extraordinaire; after
25 years in the Sea Org he defines Scientology in
one sentence.
Xenu made me do it!
Feisty
This is amazing! The necessity to reduce credibility is definitely showing it's unforesaken
legitimacy when reading an account like this. What a story, and with such detail.
This is what happens at the Big Blue -omg- ! SO much for the glitzy banners.
What were they doing with those people being shipped out during this time, and
who walked in - the big cliffhanger - this ought to be a book, really....
Feisty
>
> Dan
>
Android Cat
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:59:16 -0000, Hartley Patterson
> <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dan Garvin:
>>> On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing
>>> happened in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of
>>> others who had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the
>>> org's perpetually locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex.
>>
>> Fascinating, and worthy of a larger audience. Some nerdy techno
>> journal would snap this up - try them. Call it 'Fear and Panic on L
>> Ron Hubbard Way'.
>
> I *agree* with this post!
It sounds like it would make a good core for a science-fiction story.
(Xenupunk style?) It's hard to make people realize that this stuff is
real in the weird world of Co$.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Warrior
Was Tom Ashworth posted as WDC Reserves in early 1995?
Virginia
Dan Garvin...Dan Garvin..damn that name sounds familiar.
I was in external comm FB/IMO/FB (it kept changing names) with Foster
Tompkins, Mike Weeks, Carlos Anselmo, Bill Rhodes, Jim Balfour, Beth and
John Bond, etc. during approximately late 1978 to May 1983.
Do I know you?
My name then was Virginia Rhodes.
I remember when Foster had recruited Mike weeks, to develop the first large
computer system in the Sea org. (that I know of). I think that what Foster
told me about that, is that he recruited him literally out of the Silicon
Valley area at the time. Also, our computers were BIG in those days, we had
two. Big floor model small refrigerator sized jobbies. One was called
affectionately "Hal", and the other "Charlie".
I also remember when Foster first began approaching SOR (Sea Org Reserves)
for financing to put I believe it was the whole communications (telex)
network on computers. Lots of meetings. Foster was what you would call a
"high pressure" salesman type. He got the financing and we then got better
systems, etc., and the program was implemented. We had a special dropped
ceiling in External Comm, with pipes of freon for cooling, and something
about our air conditioning system also took out moisture. So, while the rest
of the West Coast Building was not very comfortable, External Comm always
had a constant, fairly humidity free temperature, which was great. (just a
little trivia there).
> On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
> had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
> locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex.
Was Foster still head of INCOMM?
Sounds like what I believe it was the FBI, did for computer profiling and
creating simulated personality models for interaction.
INCOMM
> was supposed to do all computerization, but they had never done much
> for OSA and had little interest in helping, so OSA did it on their
> own. A public Scientologist, former DSA Boston staff brought out to LA
> for just this purpose, had been working with me for several years on
> earlier versions of the same system. He is a programmer par excellence
> and designed the system and wrote most of the software for it.
Was that Mike Weeks? He was a great programmer too. If not, what was the
guys name?
>
> The system was so successful that users kept demanding more and more.
> Finally we decided that a major new version was needed, a nearly
> complete rewrite. But computer systems were not supposed to be
> designed or developed outside INCOMM, and INCOMM didn't want to do it.
> RTC, who directly runs INCOMM but also deals directly with OSA, had to
> mediate. We could do the system ourselves, but we would have to do it
> within INCOMM and under the supervision of the Commanding Officer of
> INCOMM, Greg Johnston, if I recall his name correctly. Greg is the guy
> pictured doing TRs in the Scientology Handbook from pages 164 through
> 182. Since neither my non-SO associate nor I had clearances to work in
> INCOMM, we had to work in a special wing that had been set up behind
> Reception. There were a few other non-cleared personnel in the same
> wing doing other projects for INCOMM.
>
> OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
> Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
> and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized.
Ahh... yes. Kathy O'Gorman's territory. She said to Mike on the phone, back
in 1999, that she was OSA CIC IC.
Nothing like ending up at the heart of the rat's nest eh?
:-/
I remember reading about that.
The stolen document, a report
> about these events, was posted through anonymous remailer
> anon.penet.fi, the poster going by -AB-. -AB- had been on a.r.s. for
> some time and was well known, but had never before done anything to
> distinguish himself. He was just a pro-Scientology, pro-COS apologist.
What does pro scientology pro COS apologist mean?
Does that mean the guy was out of the Church?
> So he got this document from Linda Hamel's computer files and posted
> it as evidence "from the source" in favor of Scientology's version of
> the story. Linda or somebody else in Invest recognized it and reported
> the breach, and all hell broke loose -- but quietly, quietly.
>
> Nobody knew who -AB- was, of course, and Julf, who ran anon.penet.fi,
> was not saying.
Who is Julf? Is he a scientologist?
That sounds like Foster, is that right?
Interesting. That's one of our "regulars" into Mike's websites. Maybe a
coincidence, maybe not.
In External Comm Flag, that was Jim Balfour. He was usually the "Nite op".
>
> Computer operators were above suspicion. It had never occurred to any
> of us for more than an instant to suspect anyone in INCOMM. After we
> knew, it was a forehead-slapping "DUH!", but not even McShane had
> seriously believed someone in INCOMM, with complete access to
> everything on every computer, would publicly post a stolen document.
> It was *too* obvious. They had to know they'd be the prime suspects,
> so they'd know better than to do it, because they'd get caught pronto.
> Besides, -AB- from his postings seemed out of touch with reality (as
> we in OSA and RTC knew it to be), and INCOMM qualifications were far
> too tight to have let such a person in. Nevertheless, there he was.
>
> I had spoken with Tom Rummelhart a number of times, but never met him
> and still do not know what he looks like. But, as Tom Klemesrud
> revealed several years ago, Tom Rummelhart was -AB-, and this is who
> Tom Rummelhart was.
How interesting.
> Mission accomplished. Finally, we could go home and get some sleep.
> Except I couldn't. I had been two weeks or more full time on this, and
> the clock was still ticking on my real project, the overhaul of the
> OSA Computer System. Also, I had to put together a proposal for making
> the OSA computers utterly impervious and secure. Fortunately, my
> non-SO associate had continued to work away while I was off catching
> spies. A couple early mornings later, I was sitting in my office
> behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
> night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
>
> To Be Continued
>
> Dan
Fascinating post. Thanks for posting it.
So...where'd Foster go btw?
Virginia McClaughry
Ex SO
>"Dan Garvin" wrote in message
>
>INCOMM
>> was supposed to do all computerization, but they had never done much
>> for OSA and had little interest in helping, so OSA did it on their
>> own. A public Scientologist, former DSA Boston staff brought out to LA
>> for just this purpose, had been working with me for several years on
>> earlier versions of the same system. He is a programmer par excellence
>> and designed the system and wrote most of the software for it.
>
>Was that Mike Weeks? He was a great programmer too. If not, what was the
>guys name?
Steve Ford.
Keith Henson
>In article <3fba49a5....@news2.lightlink.com>,
>hkhe...@rogers.com says...
snip
>> Though I didn't doubt it had happened, the story was just utterly
>> weird to me for many years, in fact, it was only after I escaped to
>> Canada that I understood what was going on. The object was to get Tom
>> Klemesrud arrested for murder and kept in jail for an extended time
>> while the cops searched (not too hard) for a body to go with the blood
>> all over Tom's apartment. There were people like Ida Camburn and
>> Percilla Coats with a lot more exposure to the cults operations that
>> understood what they were trying to do at once. Unfortunately, I
>> never asked them so it remained a mystery to me for close to 7 years.
>>
>> It has become clear in the last year that Tom was dosed with chloral
>> hydrate. This was done in the course of attempting to frame him for
>> murder, which upgrades the crime of using chloral hydrate. If law
>> enforcement didn't fear the cult suing them so much, they could have
>> put Ms Blood and everyone above her away for 40 years on the charge of
>> using the drug on Tom.
>>
>> Keith Henson
>
>The only disagreement I have here is that I doubt that 'murder'
>charges were intended, but rape.
>
>And I doubt they actually intended to file them, but merely to
>scare the bejeezus out of a stupid 'wog'.
I think they intended for the investigation to be for murder. Here is
why. Rape would have required a victim, and I *really* doubt Linda
Wollard intended to stick around after Tom passed out from the chloral
hydrate. She was an interesting person in that there were almost *no*
records about her anywhere. Had Tom passed out, I have no doubt that
Clean Gene (probably waiting around the corner) would have called the
cops about "screams" coming from Tom's apartment. The cops would have
burst in, found Tom on the floor and the place looking like a butcher
shop.
But I agree with you Zinj that the cult probably intended more to
scare the hell out of Tom with the aid of the LAPD and the DA than to
get him convicted. (After all, no body--though it is *possible* that
the cult was planning to play *really* rough and that by fouling up
the op, Tom saved Linda's life). Even when the op went sour, the cult
tried to get the DA to file charges against Tom. The DA knew what
they had was way too weak to make a case and didn't try, but with an
apartment with a few pints of blood around . . . my guess is that Tom
would have been in jail for weeks to months, because Ms Wollard would
not be found. As it was, it cost him $3k to get out on bond the next
day.
>Had he not called 911, she would have attempted to leave with
>the extortion hanging in the air, but without filing any report
>that would have raised interesting questions.
It certainly would have. For one thing there was the IRS card Linda
showed Tom to gain access to his apartment. At that time it was not
known that the IRS deal with scientology brought into being the
"Church Tax Compliance Committee," effectively giving scientology
agents status from the IRS.
All in all, it is on a par with the Great Train Robbery for drama.
Keith Henson
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Dan Garvin wrote:
> On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
> had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
> locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex. They no longer appeared at
> order to better reach conclusions about whom to attack and how. INCOMM
> was supposed to do all computerization, but they had never done much
> for OSA and had little interest in helping, so OSA did it on their
> own. A public Scientologist, former DSA Boston staff brought out to LA
> for just this purpose, had been working with me for several years on
> earlier versions of the same system. He is a programmer par excellence
> and designed the system and wrote most of the software for it.
>
> The system was so successful that users kept demanding more and more.
> Finally we decided that a major new version was needed, a nearly
> complete rewrite. But computer systems were not supposed to be
> designed or developed outside INCOMM, and INCOMM didn't want to do it.
> RTC, who directly runs INCOMM but also deals directly with OSA, had to
> mediate. We could do the system ourselves, but we would have to do it
> within INCOMM and under the supervision of the Commanding Officer of
> INCOMM, Greg Johnston, if I recall his name correctly. Greg is the guy
> pictured doing TRs in the Scientology Handbook from pages 164 through
> 182. Since neither my non-SO associate nor I had clearances to work in
> INCOMM, we had to work in a special wing that had been set up behind
> Reception. There were a few other non-cleared personnel in the same
> wing doing other projects for INCOMM.
>
> OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
> Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
> and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized. All OSA staff are
> try to frame Tom for attacking her. The stolen document, a report
> about these events, was posted through anonymous remailer
> anon.penet.fi, the poster going by -AB-. -AB- had been on a.r.s. for
> some time and was well known, but had never before done anything to
> distinguish himself. He was just a pro-Scientology, pro-COS apologist.
> So he got this document from Linda Hamel's computer files and posted
> it as evidence "from the source" in favor of Scientology's version of
> the story. Linda or somebody else in Invest recognized it and reported
> the breach, and all hell broke loose -- but quietly, quietly.
>
> Nobody knew who -AB- was, of course, and Julf, who ran anon.penet.fi,
> was not saying. Take a moment to envision how maddening this must have
> the post. Quite convenient for him. It wasn't really leading any
> ISP was Cal Tech Pasadena. Road trip! Several of us, including some
> Invest personnel, piled in to a van and headed for the college. The
> Invest heavies went to the computer center and demanded their help in
> finding out who had posted the document. The computer center told the
> Invest heavies to get lost. There were a couple more attempts, but
> they went nowhere. Apparently, though, -AB- was an alumnus, or he
> wouldn't have had an account there. So we trundled off to the library
> and started going through yearbooks, looking at photos. After several
> days of little or no sleep, and an unknown number of years since the
> culprit's graduation, we failed to find anybody we knew.
>
> We spent several hours hunting, though. When we finally came back, I
> think I had a snooze and came in after dinner. "Did you hear? We found
> out who -AB- is!" No, I hadn't heard. But when we had been at Cal
> Tech, somebody had managed to get their access phone numbers. Since
> almost nobody in the Sea Org is allowed to have an internet connection
> and even fewer would have an account at Cal Tech, it was a simple
> matter to find from the phone system records when and from where the
> phone calls to -AB-'s ISP were made. This led directly to the night
> computer operator in INCOMM. This is another name for something like
> the network admin. Computer operations personnel spend their waking
> hours inside the holy of holies, the glass-enclosed Computer Room.
> When you have a problem with the computer, you call and ask for
> "Operations," and you talk to whomever is in there at the moment. He
> fixes whatever's wrong and, in between calls, does routine admin work
> like backups.
>
> Computer operators were above suspicion. It had never occurred to any
> of us for more than an instant to suspect anyone in INCOMM. After we
> knew, it was a forehead-slapping "DUH!", but not even McShane had
> seriously believed someone in INCOMM, with complete access to
> everything on every computer, would publicly post a stolen document.
> It was *too* obvious. They had to know they'd be the prime suspects,
> so they'd know better than to do it, because they'd get caught pronto.
> Besides, -AB- from his postings seemed out of touch with reality (as
> we in OSA and RTC knew it to be), and INCOMM qualifications were far
> too tight to have let such a person in. Nevertheless, there he was.
>
> I had spoken with Tom Rummelhart a number of times, but never met him
> and still do not know what he looks like. But, as Tom Klemesrud
> revealed several years ago, Tom Rummelhart was -AB-, and this is who
> Tom Rummelhart was. He apparently had listed his occupation as
THANK YOOUUUU!
And please get on with shipping part 2. Prettyplease, with sugar on top??
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, j.tin...@ieee.org/jens_t...@yahoo.com
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mdk Linux / odds and ends
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"and sometimes I dream, where all the other people dance" The Cure
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/uc14imJs3AlyPBIRApQYAKDgnup5zz9wT+ClzypLPmJlzXbT6ACfXBuF
8Bs7tvLriSrRES2Fy9m5uqE=
=p6Dn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Magoo
<root@127.1> wrote in message
news:hoajrv0f9m4r8okfb...@4ax.com...
> In <587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>,
> dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote:
>
> >On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> >in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
> >had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
> >locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex. They no longer appeared at
> >meals in their private dining room, even those who had non-INCOMM
> >spouses they normally dined with. In fact, they never even came home
> >any more. Late at night and early in the morning, they could sometimes
> >be seen parading single file, under the eagle eyes of imported
> >security guards, from the INCOMM offices to a locked stairwell that
> >leads to the INCOMM berthing wing on the fourth floor of the Main
> >Building (the Y-shaped building that fronts on Fountain Avenue). Apart
> >from that, for four months these people were rarely seen by others.
> >They never went anywhere unescorted by security guards (even RPFers
> >can be escorted by other RPFers), and seldom went anywhere, period.
> >They never saw their spouses or children unless it was by a chance
> >encounter while being herded to or from their special berthing or,
> >occasionally, taken elsewhere on some special task.
>
>
> Why did they have to rely on invest missions and PIs, when they had
> all the OT8s? Being masters of matter, energy, space and time,
> couldn't an OT just go back in time to when the breach occurred, see
> who did it, come forward in time, report it, and get the
> promotion/bonus and Sunday libs?
>
> Or, to put it another way, why didn't an OT go forward to when the
> identity of the perp was know, come back to present time, report it,
> and collect the promotion/bonus and Sunday libs?
>
> Or, to put it yet another way, why didn't a future OT, who knew the
> identity of the perp, travel back in time to when this happened,
> report the perp to present time OSA (thus saving the nut cult a tidy
> bit of change) and then return to their own present to collect a
> promotion/bonus and Sunday libs?
>
> It seems to me that OTs are severely under-utilized. In fact, if
> there are any OTs, it seems they don't utilize them at all. OTOH,
> maybe they have quite a few OTs, but they're all provisioned to the
> "Keeping Davey/Rinder/Marty/OTC/DaHo/Moxon/RTC/Karno Out of Jail Task
> Force."
Now now......Ok, sure, so many OT 8's can't fix people, can't fix their own
body's or finances or even fix their own homes....let alone other people's
universes.
Don't forget,,,,,,,DM announced it was the OT 8's who 'brought down the
Berlin Wall".
So come on....don't be ~So~ hard on um. :)
I'm kidding, but in truth, I never saw ANYTHING as ruthless as mobs of
people LITERALLY thinking like what you posted above. It's ~~really~~scarry
to hear and see.
Tory/Magoo!
Virginia
"Magoo" <Mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
Tory,
Did I get this wrong...that basically you're scared of the idea of OT's?
Virginia
>
> Tory/Magoo!
>
>
Dan Garvin
"Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> Dan Garvin...Dan Garvin..damn that name sounds familiar.
>
> I was in external comm FB/IMO/FB (it kept changing names) with Foster
> Tompkins, Mike Weeks, Carlos Anselmo, Bill Rhodes, Jim Balfour, Beth and
> John Bond, etc. during approximately late 1978 to May 1983.
I knew all those people. I can't picture Mike, but I remember all the rest
very well. Beth and John are still in Ext Comm in the HGB. Or were two years
ago. Foster's uplines. I don't know where the rest ended up.
> Do I know you?
Yes. I was in Flag Mimeo from 1978 through early 1983 (MF I/C then
Proofreader), then Programs Bureau more or less till the move from CW to LA
in Summer 1984.
> My name then was Virginia Rhodes.
>
> I remember when Foster had recruited Mike weeks, to develop the first
large
> computer system in the Sea org. (that I know of). I think that what Foster
> told me about that, is that he recruited him literally out of the Silicon
> Valley area at the time. Also, our computers were BIG in those days, we
had
> two. Big floor model small refrigerator sized jobbies. One was called
> affectionately "Hal", and the other "Charlie".
I worked with them some, during some all hands and also while I was getting
busted as a Pgms Chief. It's where I learned a lot about what later became
INCOMM computers. They were the same ones, from WICAT.
> I also remember when Foster first began approaching SOR (Sea Org Reserves)
> for financing to put I believe it was the whole communications (telex)
> network on computers. Lots of meetings. Foster was what you would call a
> "high pressure" salesman type. He got the financing and we then got better
> systems, etc., and the program was implemented. We had a special dropped
> ceiling in External Comm, with pipes of freon for cooling, and something
> about our air conditioning system also took out moisture. So, while the
rest
> of the West Coast Building was not very comfortable, External Comm always
> had a constant, fairly humidity free temperature, which was great. (just a
> little trivia there).
Constantly *COLD* -- it didn't need to be that cold for the computers, but
what I heard was that Foster liked it that way so he always maintained that
the computers needed it to be that temperature. I didn't mind, I liked the
cold too. And there was usually good music in there.
> > On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> > in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
> > had had dealings with INCOMM, disappeared behind the org's perpetually
> > locked doors in the "Big Blue" complex.
>
> Was Foster still head of INCOMM?
Nope. Not in INCOMM at all. Don't know what he's been doing since he left
INCOMM.
<snip>
> > In January of the same year, I was still in OSA International. I was
> > working on a special project to create a newer, better computer system
> > for OSA to be able to search and interrelate its mountains of
> > dossiers, reports, legal documents, media, and other information in
> > order to better reach conclusions about whom to attack and how.
>
> Sounds like what I believe it was the FBI, did for computer profiling and
> creating simulated personality models for interaction.
Nothing that fancy. But highly searchable.
> INCOMM
> > was supposed to do all computerization, but they had never done much
> > for OSA and had little interest in helping, so OSA did it on their
> > own. A public Scientologist, former DSA Boston staff brought out to LA
> > for just this purpose, had been working with me for several years on
> > earlier versions of the same system. He is a programmer par excellence
> > and designed the system and wrote most of the software for it.
>
> Was that Mike Weeks? He was a great programmer too. If not, what was the
> guys name?
No, this guy was never in the SO, and I do not want to violate his privacy
unnecessarily. You probably would not have known him unless you were in the
Boston area.
<snip>
> > OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
> > Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> > floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
> > and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> > Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> > (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized.
>
> Ahh... yes. Kathy O'Gorman's territory. She said to Mike on the phone,
back
> in 1999, that she was OSA CIC IC.
KO was my senior from 1992 through 1994.
<snip>
> The stolen document, a report
> > about these events, was posted through anonymous remailer
> > anon.penet.fi, the poster going by -AB-. -AB- had been on a.r.s. for
> > some time and was well known, but had never before done anything to
> > distinguish himself. He was just a pro-Scientology, pro-COS apologist.
>
>
> What does pro scientology pro COS apologist mean?
>
> Does that mean the guy was out of the Church?
An apologist is someone who defends a doctrine, faith, action, etc. At the
time, we had no idea whether he was in the Church or out of it. He (or she)
was just some anonymous person who was regularly posting on a.r.s., but in
favor of the Church and of Scientology itself. As it turned out, he was in
the Church, but of course now he's out, whether he likes it or not.
> > Nobody knew who -AB- was, of course, and Julf, who ran anon.penet.fi,
> > was not saying.
>
> Who is Julf? Is he a scientologist?
Not a Scientologist. The operator of the anonymous remailer service
that -AB- was using. If he reveals who his users are, they're not anonymous
anymore, and nobody will want to use his service.
<snip>
> > to just anybody, so I hadn't up to that point. But then I went on to
> > find dozens more, particularly under the account of a former CO of
> > INCOMM, who had apparently set up his own access prior to moving off
> > the post. Quite convenient for him.
>
> That sounds like Foster, is that right?
That's right.
<snip>
> > When you have a problem with the computer, you call and ask for
> > "Operations," and you talk to whomever is in there at the moment. He
> > fixes whatever's wrong and, in between calls, does routine admin work
> > like backups.
>
> In External Comm Flag, that was Jim Balfour. He was usually the "Nite op".
Yep. Different duties, but similar sort of idea.
<snip>
> So...where'd Foster go btw?
He was up lines in 1995. I don't think I've seen him since. He's probably
still there. His kid, Sterling, is all grown up and was working at the HGB
last I knew.
Dan
Virginia
"Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
news:3fb82...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> > "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > Dan Garvin...Dan Garvin..damn that name sounds familiar.
> >
> > I was in external comm FB/IMO/FB (it kept changing names) with Foster
> > Tompkins, Mike Weeks, Carlos Anselmo, Bill Rhodes, Jim Balfour, Beth and
> > John Bond, etc. during approximately late 1978 to May 1983.
>
> I knew all those people. I can't picture Mike, but I remember all the rest
> very well.
He was short, Blond kind of longish layered hair, big head compared to his
body, had a kind of a gymnast build, brown eyes. You might remember him if I
remind you that he was after having a 2d with Orit (waitress in the lemon
tree I think) for a long time until she finally married him.
Oh, I also forgot to list Mr. Willie Nelson fan himself, Andy Milne!
Remember Andy? What a cranky old fart he was, he even called himself that.
LOL
Is Donna Rice still in the Sea Org?
>Beth and John are still in Ext Comm in the HGB. Or were two years
> ago.
Wow. That's a long time on the same post. Jim Balfour was still the telex op
at Flag, when I was on Solo Nots, say 96? I think.
>Foster's uplines.
That's Foster for ya.
>I don't know where the rest ended up.
Bill (my ex-husband) went out of the Sea Org, and is still out, but is
currently disconnected from me, but may be (unverified) no longer on OT 7
due to financial considerations.
>
> > Do I know you?
>
> Yes. I was in Flag Mimeo from 1978 through early 1983 (MF I/C then
> Proofreader), then Programs Bureau more or less till the move from CW to
LA
> in Summer 1984.
OH yea! I remember now! Mimeo. You were a pretty funny guy sometimes as I
recall.
That's also when I was there - mid 1978 til I routed out in June 1983.
>
> > My name then was Virginia Rhodes.
> >
> > I remember when Foster had recruited Mike weeks, to develop the first
> large
> > computer system in the Sea org. (that I know of). I think that what
Foster
> > told me about that, is that he recruited him literally out of the
Silicon
> > Valley area at the time. Also, our computers were BIG in those days, we
> had
> > two. Big floor model small refrigerator sized jobbies. One was called
> > affectionately "Hal", and the other "Charlie".
>
> I worked with them some, during some all hands and also while I was
getting
> busted as a Pgms Chief. It's where I learned a lot about what later became
> INCOMM computers. They were the same ones, from WICAT.
Wow, didn't know that.
>
> > I also remember when Foster first began approaching SOR (Sea Org
Reserves)
> > for financing to put I believe it was the whole communications (telex)
> > network on computers. Lots of meetings. Foster was what you would call a
> > "high pressure" salesman type. He got the financing and we then got
better
> > systems, etc., and the program was implemented. We had a special dropped
> > ceiling in External Comm, with pipes of freon for cooling, and something
> > about our air conditioning system also took out moisture. So, while the
> rest
> > of the West Coast Building was not very comfortable, External Comm
always
> > had a constant, fairly humidity free temperature, which was great. (just
a
> > little trivia there).
>
> Constantly *COLD*
LOL, yeah 'tis true, it was COLD.
-- it didn't need to be that cold for the computers, but
> what I heard was that Foster liked it that way so he always maintained
that
> the computers needed it to be that temperature.
Yeah Foster and the BS. I remember when ever a new CO would come on post,
and would come looking to External Comm for personnel (since we were fully
staffed post wise technically), and Foster always had the same schpiel he
did. He would take one of the rolls of carbons of telex traffic coming in or
going out, and throw it dramatically across the floor and say "THIS is how
much traffic we got in the last (insert time interval of Foster's choice)
minutes!!!!!"
The person would go away thinking they need to PUT personnel in External
Comm, every time. LOL. Of course, minor detail that the huge line of paper
from the roll, that dramatically stretched across the floor, was usually
some telex op in Africa or something hitting carriage return 500 times
because they couldn't figure out how to work the computer!
:-/
Ah yes, Foster and the BS.
I didn't mind, I liked the
> cold too. And there was usually good music in there.
Yea, we had quite the collection of music between all of us there's
contributions.
snip
>
> No, this guy was never in the SO, and I do not want to violate his privacy
> unnecessarily. You probably would not have known him unless you were in
the
> Boston area.
Ok, no I probably wouldn't.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
> > > Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> > > floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
> > > and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> > > Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> > > (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized.
> >
> > Ahh... yes. Kathy O'Gorman's territory. She said to Mike on the phone,
> back
> > in 1999, that she was OSA CIC IC.
>
> KO was my senior from 1992 through 1994.
>
> <snip>
Ick. Make that Double Ick.
So, what was that like having KO as a senior - can you share any experiences
about that?
Snip
Thanks a lot for answering!
Virginia McClaughry
Dan Garvin
> in LA. All the personnel of INCOMM, along with a number of others who
Dammit! I just discovered that most of my replies to all of your
replies have never propagated from my worthless NNTP server. They come
back to me so it looks like they did, but they never get sent anywhere
else. This is probably true of past threads as well.
I have to go now, but later will go through and re-post through Google
everything recent that did not make it out.
Sorry. Sometimes you *don't* get what you pay for.
Dan
Dan Garvin
from my NNTP server:
"Tom Klemesrud" <tom...@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote in message
news:3FB7C6...@netscape.DELETE.net...
> Very courageous of you to post this, and I thank you immensely.
>
> I am of course curious of who handled the Woolard assault on me.
> Was it Linda Hamel? Warren McShane?
Tom, I was not in on the details of that. That was undoubtedly one of
those
"eyes only" affairs. However, I think it is safe to assume that Warren
McShane did not handle it. He was long since a big shot in RTC and
would not
be involved in "grunt work" like that unless there was some special
reason
that OSA could not handle it. This was probably handled by OSA Int
alone,
with routine reports to RTC, till it blew up.
Here is what I would surmise: The whole affair would probably have
been run
by one of four people in Invest OSA Int: Linda Hamel, Angel Casillas,
Colin
Thorne, or Doug Jacobsen. (Doug is now out of the SO for medical
reasons. I
saw him once after he left; he said he was working on paying off his
freeloader debt. Colin may be out of OSA now but still in the SO.) OSA
Int
wants to stay "legal," and for that reason I suspect that the OSA Int
handler really may not have known exactly what was being done and that
the
details were planned and carried out by a third party, such as one of
the
many PIs and PI firms they employ. Then if anything goes wrong or
somebody
gets caught, the perpetrator really isn't directly connected to
Scientology,
and Scientology officials really did not "know" that the PI was doing
anything illegal. Instead, there would be a virtually unprovable
understanding between them that the PI does whatever it takes to get
the
desired result, doesn't report having done anything illegal, and
assumes all
the risk -- and gets paid accordingly.
So the report in Linda Hamel's computer files may have been a
"sanitized"
version of what happened, provided by the PI to OSA Int. I don't even
remember what was in it -- can't find it in Google, just a little back
and
forth regarding it.
Dan
Dan Garvin
from my NNTP server:
Beautiful job!
thanks
Dan
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com <ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<q6ifrv84ll9air7oe...@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Nov 2003 06:24:45 -0800, dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin)
> wrote:
>
> WEBBED with color images from the original WIRED MAGAZINE article
> alt.scientology.war and linked...
>
> http://www.lermanet.com/dangarvin/
>
>
>
> I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
> The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
> The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
> Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
> Support http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
> The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
Dan Garvin
from my NNTP server:
St Cuthbert's Host <cuth...@cuthbert.not> wrote in message news:<20031117023...@netnews.comcast.net>...
LOL -- no, you did not want to be there. As for "seriousness" -- you
ain't
seen nothin' yet. Wait till next weekend's installment.
> Sometime we have to sit down for a beer.
I'm in southwestern Michigan. Gimme a holler if you're in the 'hood,
or tell
me where you live in case I go there.
Dan
> deo
Dan Garvin
from my NNTP server:
"Jens Tingleff" <jens_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpcii...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dan Garvin wrote:
>
> > On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> > in LA.
<snip>
> behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
> > night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
> >
> > To Be Continued
> >
> > Dan
>
> THANK YOOUUUU!
>
> And please get on with shipping part 2. Prettyplease, with sugar on top??
>
> Best Regards
>
> Jens
Don't worry. Next weekend. I promise. Don't touch that dial.
Dan
Dan Garvin
from my NNTP server:
"Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:vrfpfsb...@corp.supernews.com...
> dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote:
>
> >McShane took us down to the LA Police Department to talk with the
> >officer handling the case. We told him what we knew so far. He didn't
> >have much to say. He said it looked like an inside job. As if we
> >didn't know.
>
> No shit?! The criminal enterprise actually took this to the police? I
> find that very bizarre. It's like a Gambino Mafia member going to the
> cops when one of their own rats out evidence to a U. S. Marshall.
It shows how confident they are they're untouchable. (But they're
not!) But
this document was not evidence against them, it was favorable to them,
or
would have been if it wasn't bogus.
> >Computer operators were above suspicion. It had never occurred to any
> >of us for more than an instant to suspect anyone in INCOMM. After we
> >knew, it was a forehead-slapping "DUH!", but not even McShane had
> >seriously believed someone in INCOMM, with complete access to
> >everything on every computer, would publicly post a stolen document.
>
> <rofl!> The criminal mindset. This crook would fit in well on COPS
> given he takes off his shirt first and then runs. I mean it was
> obvious at the start that it was a fellow Scientologist that exposed
> the evidence in public. I can't imagine anybody would think it came
> from outside.
Nobody thought it came from the outside -- the question was where, out
of
close to a thousand SO members in PAC, on the inside did it come from?
Dan
Dan Garvin
Dan Garvin
news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:3fb82...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Garvin...Dan Garvin..damn that name sounds familiar.
> > >
> > > I was in external comm FB/IMO/FB (it kept changing names) with Foster
> > > Tompkins, Mike Weeks, Carlos Anselmo, Bill Rhodes, Jim Balfour, Beth
and
> > > John Bond, etc. during approximately late 1978 to May 1983.
> >
> > I knew all those people. I can't picture Mike, but I remember all the
rest
> > very well.
>
> He was short, Blond kind of longish layered hair, big head compared to his
> body, had a kind of a gymnast build, brown eyes. You might remember him if
I
> remind you that he was after having a 2d with Orit (waitress in the lemon
> tree I think) for a long time until she finally married him.
It's coming back to me. I remember Orit and that she was married to him. I'm
sure I'd recognize him.
> Oh, I also forgot to list Mr. Willie Nelson fan himself, Andy Milne!
Yep. And Tony D'Urso. And wasn't Tony Searing in there too?
> Remember Andy? What a cranky old fart he was, he even called himself that.
Yes, but my memory gets a little mixed up, because there was a different
Andrew Milne I worked with for years in OSA after that.
> Is Donna Rice still in the Sea Org?
No, she left in I think 1983 or 1984.
> >Beth and John are still in Ext Comm in the HGB. Or were two years
> > ago.
>
> Wow. That's a long time on the same post. Jim Balfour was still the telex
op
> at Flag, when I was on Solo Nots, say 96? I think.
Sounds about right.
<snip>
> >I don't know where the rest ended up.
>
> Bill (my ex-husband) went out of the Sea Org, and is still out, but is
> currently disconnected from me, but may be (unverified) no longer on OT 7
> due to financial considerations.
That would be good. Hope he wises up.
> > > Do I know you?
> >
> > Yes. I was in Flag Mimeo from 1978 through early 1983 (MF I/C then
> > Proofreader), then Programs Bureau more or less till the move from CW to
> LA
> > in Summer 1984.
>
> OH yea! I remember now! Mimeo. You were a pretty funny guy sometimes as I
> recall.
Still am :-)
> -- it didn't need to be that cold for the computers, but
> > what I heard was that Foster liked it that way so he always maintained
> that
> > the computers needed it to be that temperature.
>
> Yeah Foster and the BS. I remember when ever a new CO would come on post,
> and would come looking to External Comm for personnel (since we were fully
> staffed post wise technically), and Foster always had the same schpiel he
> did. He would take one of the rolls of carbons of telex traffic coming in
or
> going out, and throw it dramatically across the floor and say "THIS is how
> much traffic we got in the last (insert time interval of Foster's choice)
> minutes!!!!!"
>
> The person would go away thinking they need to PUT personnel in External
> Comm, every time. LOL. Of course, minor detail that the huge line of paper
> from the roll, that dramatically stretched across the floor, was usually
> some telex op in Africa or something hitting carriage return 500 times
> because they couldn't figure out how to work the computer!
>
> :-/
>
> Ah yes, Foster and the BS.
Well, he hasn't changed any. And truth is, his was one of the only areas
anywhere in the world that was adequately manned and stayed that way. Rising
high in that world requires either extraordinary cruelty or consummate BS
skills. Both at once make a superstar. Failing to realize that was my
downfall and my ultimate salvation.
<snip>
> > > > OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
> > > > Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> > > > floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
> > > > and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> > > > Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> > > > (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized.
> > >
> > > Ahh... yes. Kathy O'Gorman's territory. She said to Mike on the phone,
> > back
> > > in 1999, that she was OSA CIC IC.
> >
> > KO was my senior from 1992 through 1994.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Ick. Make that Double Ick.
>
> So, what was that like having KO as a senior - can you share any
experiences
> about that?
Believe it or not, I considered her my best and most intelligent senior the
whole time I was in the SO. I know others have had *very* unpleasant
experiences with her. Part of it was that, in her eyes, I could do no wrong.
I would never have wanted to be on her bad side. We understood each other
very well. We had both been on staff or in the SO forever, we were both
officers, we both agreed on what was wrong and what it would take to get
things truly On Source. And we're both very short!
She used to call me "Garcia," in reference to the Elbert Hubbard essay, "A
Message to Garcia" (http://www.birdsnest.com/garcia.htm), which Hubbard read
in full into an early lecture, claiming Elbert was his uncle. It's about the
characteristics of the perfect subordinate or employee, and is or was well
known in higher corporate circles. KO actually meant I was "Rowan," not
"Garcia." She recognized that her part as the boss was to know what was
going on and to not issue stupid, pointless, or impossible orders. So we got
along great. It was like we were in an unofficial club -- she would be the
same way, when she was the junior to somebody else. Club members would
recognize each other instantly, like shining beacons across the dark gulf of
incompetence and carelessness.
This monolithic top-down approach is really how the entire Scientology
network is supposed to run, and the essay's influence is clear in policies
like the definition of "backflash" and the injunctions against requiring
orders to do your job. It would work if people really were suited to being
part of a machine and if Scientology really was capable of curing
incompetence and stupidity, but they're not and it's not. So stupid juniors
and stupid seniors in Scientology orgs and management prevent the effective
ones from getting much done. The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
ones, and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
we can all be grateful for.
KO was utterly devoted to the principle of Keeping Scientology Working and
the infallibility of LRH. If anything wasn't ideal, LRH policy was not being
followed, and intelligent selection and enforcement of the right policy (or
Flag Order, etc.) would fix it. Within limits, and with a lot of, um,
constructive reasoning, this is a viable approach, because Hubbard can be
found to have said, at one time or another, almost anything about almost
anything. Freud was brilliant and good. Freud was crazy and evil. Science is
our only hope. Science is destroying the world. You get the picture. So a
"Garcia" recognizes what needs to be done, picks out the right policy to
justify it, and forges ahead -- and, usually, trips over idiots or is shot
by them, till he or she learns to quit trying.
This uncompromising KSW orientation is behind the ruthlessness you encounter
in otherwise good people in Scientology. "We'd rather have you dead than
incapable." "We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't
cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized
future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own
destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here
and now with and in Scientology."
KO also held more conspiracy theory per cubic centimeter than anyone else I
ever knew. I tried to believe with her, because I thought she knew pretty
much everything and could never be wrong, but it was difficult. Jonestown
was not mass suicide and Jim Jones was a great guy. They were all murdered
because they happened to be close to a secret R&R camp for spies and
mercenaries, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew about it ahead of time and
covered it all up to protect the camp. The whole psychiatric conspiracy to
eliminate Scientology and dominate the world. Quentin was murdered by
Scientology enemies to get to LRH. PDH and implants. Fletcher Prouty on
LRH's war history. Phony ex-CIA exposes to cover up the real CIA truth. The
World Bank conspiracy of RJ 67 fame. The Tenyaka Memorial was her gospel.
(http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tenyaka+group:alt.religion.scientology.*+
group:alt.religion.scientology.*+group:alt.religion.scientology.*&hl=en&lr=&
ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=alt.religion.scientology.*&selm=385cf3df.639720201%4
0news.snafu.de&rnum=8) And, of course, bits of some these things actually
were true. That's what makes a good conspiracy theory.
That was her solution to the cognitive dissonance experienced by anyone who
tries to believe in all of Scientology and everything Hubbard ever wrote or
said. We all had our solutions, or we left. It may be too late for her, but
if she ever managed to free her mind from the cult, she would be a wonderful
person.
Dan
Dan Garvin
"Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:3fb82...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Garvin...Dan Garvin..damn that name sounds familiar.
> > >
> > > I was in external comm FB/IMO/FB (it kept changing names) with Foster
> > > Tompkins, Mike Weeks, Carlos Anselmo, Bill Rhodes, Jim Balfour, Beth
and
> > > John Bond, etc. during approximately late 1978 to May 1983.
> >
> > I knew all those people. I can't picture Mike, but I remember all the
rest
> > very well.
>
> He was short, Blond kind of longish layered hair, big head compared to his
> body, had a kind of a gymnast build, brown eyes. You might remember him if
I
> remind you that he was after having a 2d with Orit (waitress in the lemon
> tree I think) for a long time until she finally married him.
It's coming back to me. I remember Orit and that she was married to him. I'm
sure I'd recognize him.
> Oh, I also forgot to list Mr. Willie Nelson fan himself, Andy Milne!
Yep. And Tony D'Urso. And wasn't Tony Searing in there too?
> Remember Andy? What a cranky old fart he was, he even called himself that.
Yes, but my memory gets a little mixed up, because there was a different
Andrew Milne I worked with for years in OSA after that.
> Is Donna Rice still in the Sea Org?
No, she left in I think 1983 or 1984.
> >Beth and John are still in Ext Comm in the HGB. Or were two years
> > ago.
>
> Wow. That's a long time on the same post. Jim Balfour was still the telex
op
> at Flag, when I was on Solo Nots, say 96? I think.
Sounds about right.
<snip>
> >I don't know where the rest ended up.
>
> Bill (my ex-husband) went out of the Sea Org, and is still out, but is
> currently disconnected from me, but may be (unverified) no longer on OT 7
> due to financial considerations.
That would be good. Hope he wises up.
> > > Do I know you?
> >
> > Yes. I was in Flag Mimeo from 1978 through early 1983 (MF I/C then
> > Proofreader), then Programs Bureau more or less till the move from CW to
> LA
> > in Summer 1984.
>
> OH yea! I remember now! Mimeo. You were a pretty funny guy sometimes as I
> recall.
Still am :-)
> -- it didn't need to be that cold for the computers, but
> > what I heard was that Foster liked it that way so he always maintained
> that
> > the computers needed it to be that temperature.
>
> Yeah Foster and the BS. I remember when ever a new CO would come on post,
> and would come looking to External Comm for personnel (since we were fully
> staffed post wise technically), and Foster always had the same schpiel he
> did. He would take one of the rolls of carbons of telex traffic coming in
or
> going out, and throw it dramatically across the floor and say "THIS is how
> much traffic we got in the last (insert time interval of Foster's choice)
> minutes!!!!!"
>
> The person would go away thinking they need to PUT personnel in External
> Comm, every time. LOL. Of course, minor detail that the huge line of paper
> from the roll, that dramatically stretched across the floor, was usually
> some telex op in Africa or something hitting carriage return 500 times
> because they couldn't figure out how to work the computer!
>
> :-/
>
> Ah yes, Foster and the BS.
Well, he hasn't changed any. And truth is, his was one of the only areas
anywhere in the world that was adequately manned and stayed that way. Rising
high in that world requires either extraordinary cruelty or consummate BS
skills. Both at once make a superstar. Failing to realize that was my
downfall and my ultimate salvation.
<snip>
> > > > OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood Guaranty
> > > > Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> > > > floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference room
> > > > and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> > > > Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> > > > (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized.
> > >
> > > Ahh... yes. Kathy O'Gorman's territory. She said to Mike on the phone,
> > back
> > > in 1999, that she was OSA CIC IC.
> >
> > KO was my senior from 1992 through 1994.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Ick. Make that Double Ick.
>
> So, what was that like having KO as a senior - can you share any
experiences
> about that?
Believe it or not, I considered her my best and most intelligent senior the
Dan Garvin
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dan Garvin wrote:
>
> > On St. Valentine's Day, February, 1995, a very strange thing happened
> > in LA.
<snip>
> behind INCOMM reception, trying to stay awake after having worked all
> > night. It was February 14th, Valentine's Day. In walked ...
> >
> > To Be Continued
> >
> > Dan
>
> THANK YOOUUUU!
>
> And please get on with shipping part 2. Prettyplease, with sugar on top??
>
> Best Regards
>
> Jens
Don't worry. Next weekend. I promise. Don't touch that dial.
Dan
> - --
Jommy Cross
msg <3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com>:<snip>
>> I'm kidding, but in truth, I never saw ANYTHING as ruthless as mobs of
>> people LITERALLY thinking like what you posted above. It's
>~~really~~scarry
>> to hear and see.
>
>Tory,
>
>
>Did I get this wrong...that basically you're scared of the idea of OT's?
>
>Virginia
Yes, you got that wrong.
Can you see the difference between 'OTs' and 'crazed culties who beleive in
OTs', Virginia?
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
Lulu Belle
> In article <7db3d0ad.03111...@posting.google.com>, Lulu Belle says...
> >
> >dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote in message
> >news:<587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> >
> >
> >Let me guess.
> >
> >A twelve man RTC mission led by the then-WDC Reserves.
>
> Was Tom Ashworth posted as WDC Reserves in early 1995?
Yup.
Keith Henson
wrote:
>I am reposting this reply through Google, since it did not propagate
The FBI has a tip page. Not that I think anything will come of it,
just for the public record.
*********
There is an open public discussion on the news group
alt.religion.scientology about a series of very serious crimes and the
failure of law enforcement to respond starting in 1995 and continuing
for years. The initial crime involved dosing a victim with a
controlled drug while committing a felony, possible corruption of
public officials (LAPD, IRS and a state court) and a number of other
related activities by the scientology cult. As you may know this
group's highest leaders were convicted of crimes against the US. The
thread is "What Really Happened in INCOMM - Part 1." Just thought the
FBI should know about this story since it is hurting the reputation of
law enforcement for a cult to get away with this abuse. Keith Henson
*********
Mike Gormez
<587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>:
>So the report in Linda Hamel's computer files may have been a
>"sanitized"
>version of what happened, provided by the PI to OSA Int. I don't even
>remember what was in it -- can't find it in Google, just a little back
>and
>forth regarding it.
I have the following on http://whyaretheydead.net/krasel/INCOMM.html
webbed but got that from another page because it no longer is in Google
groups:
Xref: netcom.com alt.religion.scientology:29571
Message-ID: <221442Z...@anon.penet.fi>
Path:
netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!
news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: an14...@anon.penet.fi (-AB-)
X-Anonymously-To: alt.religion.scientology
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Reply-To: an14...@anon.penet.fi
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:07:53 UTC
Subject: Set-up of sysop - data
Lines: 131
Dear Readers,
This is a serious matter and I do not make the below post lightly.
I have the name and phone number of the victim in the matter with
Tom Klemesrud. I will not post these, as I feel that would be violation
of
her privacy before the matter has come out properly on police channels.
But due to the relevance and implications to this newsgroup I am posting
the
below, and without ANY of my own comments.
However, just to show I am not faking, I will e-mail the specific
name and phone number privately to Vega, who has proven him/herself to be
one of the most trustworthy and fair members of this newsgroup.
Rod, I am going to need more time on the FAQ answers -- I've been
a little busy recently!
Below are the victim's statements:
> LINDA W. interview :
>
> She first met Klemesrud at the Cinnamon Cinder on Saturday,
> the night of the incident. She took a taxi there as she doesn't
> drive. She was wearing levis and a bulky sweater.
>
> When she arrived at the bar, Klemesrud was already there. He
> struck up a conversation with her. They started talking and were
> like "psychic friends." She was drinking vodka and he was drinking
> heavily as well.
>
> He said let's go to the lounge where my friends are. The
> bar was a country & western bar. She had a puppy puppet which she
> left at the bar.
>
> After spending about 3 1/4 hours at the bar they got into a
> taxi (the bartender, Jack, called a cab).
>
> They went to another bar in the corner strip mall, a clean
> and classy bar.
>
> Klemesrud seemed to know the bartender there really well, he
> was about 50.
>
> When Klemesrud was ready to go, he said "Let's go, ride with
> me in a taxi to my place so I get home okay." The bartender asked
> her to help him get home (she was planning to take the same taxi
> home).
>
> The taxi driver arrived. Klemesrud got into a verbal fight
> with the driver.
>
> When they arrived at Klemesrud's home, he asked her to come
> up to make sure he got in okay. It was a nice place.
>
> They went up to his apartment.
>
> There were a lot of computers there. He said, "look at this,
> this is the Internet."
>
> She has a guitar and Klemesrud had a guitar at home. He
> asked if she played the guitar.
>
> She'd had a rectal bleeding problem bad for about a year, but
> had never seen a doctor for this. She hemmoraged when she was
> under stress and drank a lot. She had to go to the bathroom every
> 10 minutes when she drank beer, a lot of alcohol.
>
> When they got inside, she was bleeding badly. She told him
> about her problem. Her pants were soaked. She went into the
> bathroom and took her pants and panties off, they were soaked, and
> put a towel around her. She was walking around.
>
> Klemesrud talked about the Internet and said he worked with
> kids on the Internet. He asked her if she believed he worked with
> kids. She was fond of kids and thought he must be okay.
>
> Klemesrud said, "I want to show you something." He got a 10
> gauge shotgun. He had already seen the blood at this point.
>
> Klemesrud starts saying, "I know you're from the CIA." She
> said, "I'm from the CIA???"
>
> Klemesrud said, "You cannot go to the bathroom, you're from
> the CIA. You'll cut your wrists, I know it."
>
> Klemesrud told her that if she didn't fuck him, she would
> never leave the place alive.
>
> She said that Klemesrud scared the hell out of her and held a
> gun to her head. He said, "I can kill you right now but maybe I
> won't bother - I can kill myself."
>
> She said she was so scared she couldn't see straight, she was
> terrified. She talked him down a lot [[calmed?]].
>
> Klemesrud said, "I know the Church of Scientology and I know
> they send people out." She didn't know what he was talking about.
> She had heard of the C of S but had never been in such a Church.
>
> Klemesrud said, "Look at this, I can do anything that I want.
> I can call the Church and say you're from the CIA. Do you think I
> should kill you? Watch this, maybe I'll kill myself."
>
> He threatened to hit her and did shoved her around. He wouldn't
> let her go to the bathroom unless he watched her.
>
> Klemesrud kept calling the C of S on the phone and saying, "I
> have someone here who is "in condition" [[sic]] and I don't want anymore
> of these people coming here." He repeatedly did this. She
> thought he was nuts.
>
> She got to the phone and dialed 911. Klemesrud hung up and
> she called 911 again. This time she got through and told the 911
> operator, "I've got a guy here has a shotgun. You'd better send
> someone over here. He may kill himself."
>
> When the police came, they said she could put her pants on,
> although they were full of blood.
>
> Klemesrud told the officers, "I cut myself." She said no way,
> he was lying.
>
> When asked how the blood got all over the apartment, she said
> that he pushed her all around the place. He never tried to rape
> her.
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
Lulu Belle
Keith Henson
wrote:
>"On 18 Nov 2003 13:39:15 -0800, dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote in
><587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>:
>
>>So the report in Linda Hamel's computer files may have been a
>>"sanitized"
>>version of what happened, provided by the PI to OSA Int. I don't even
>>remember what was in it -- can't find it in Google, just a little back
>>and
>>forth regarding it.
>
>I have the following on http://whyaretheydead.net/krasel/INCOMM.html
>webbed but got that from another page because it no longer is in Google
>groups:
snip
Ah. Thank you Mike. Thus is the deleted post put back.
There was some discussion recently about where Rummelhart is nowadays.
Could someone make that part of the record too?
Keith Henson
Invader Zim
If there really were any OTs, this newsgroup wouldn't exist. Unless, of
course, the OTs wanted it to for some reason.
Come to think of it, totalitarian groups do need a common enemy for
their members to focus on. It improves that siege mentality that binds
them together so effectively. We're not REALLY critical of Scientology,
the OTs just made us that way! <snicker>
zim
Tom Klemesrud
Haverhill, MA.
>
> Keith Henson
Android Cat
> Jommy Cross wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:31:26 -0800, "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net>
>> wrote in msg <3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>>>
>>> OT's?
>>
>>
>> Can you see the difference between 'OTs' and 'crazed culties who
>> beleive in OTs', Virginia?
>
> of course, the OTs wanted it to for some reason.
> Come to think of it, totalitarian groups do need a common enemy for
> their members to focus on. It improves that siege mentality that binds
> them together so effectively. We're not REALLY critical of
> Scientology, the OTs just made us that way! <snicker>
They're just mocking up their reactive critics. (And the rest of the real
world.)
It's amazing how Co$ always finds One More Thing to explain why they
couldn't make it go right -- After all, if they apply the tech and
duplicate source, it will all work prefectly. If it doesn't, it's not
their fault, they just need to find the PTS, the SP, the engram, the
reactive bank, something on the Whole-Track, the BT, clusters of BTs, the
sleeping BT, the sleeping drugged BT...
Always peeling another layer from the Mystic Onion, looking for onion
seeds. Sad.
--
Ron of that ilk.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
-- Philip K. Dick
Dan Garvin
Dan
"Mike Gormez" <mgo...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:n45mrvk7uluesdbd1...@4ax.com...
> "On 18 Nov 2003 13:39:15 -0800, dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote in
> <587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >So the report in Linda Hamel's computer files may have been a
> >"sanitized"
> >version of what happened, provided by the PI to OSA Int. I don't even
> >remember what was in it -- can't find it in Google, just a little back
> >and
> >forth regarding it.
>
> I have the following on http://whyaretheydead.net/krasel/INCOMM.html
> webbed but got that from another page because it no longer is in Google
> groups:
>
. . .
Fredric L. Rice
>Don't worry. Next weekend. I promise. Don't touch that dial.
It's utterly fascinating. It's probably pointless but I'm going to forward
this to the Los Angeles Field Offices of the FBI if only for addition to
the "sporgery" file. Some of the names you've mentioned are also names
that Tory mentioned, it looks to me. I don't expect the Feds to ever come
down on Scientology and exterminate them, but if individual criminals get
tagged from time to time, any intelligence information is useful.
Wishful thinking, yeah.
---
Yes, George W. Bush is an unelected baby killing fascist dictator.
Also: Scientology's International President (Audio files of this
nutter available at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice )
Your odd claim is technically known as "A crock o' shit." - Shydavid
Fredric L. Rice
>I am reposting this reply through Google, since it did not propagate
>from my NNTP server:
>"Fredric L. Rice" <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
>news:vrfpfsb...@corp.supernews.com...
>> dang...@skyenet.net (Dan Garvin) wrote:
>>>McShane took us down to the LA Police Department to talk with the
>>>officer handling the case. We told him what we knew so far. He didn't
>>>have much to say. He said it looked like an inside job. As if we
>>>didn't know.
>> No shit?! The criminal enterprise actually took this to the police? I
>> find that very bizarre. It's like a Gambino Mafia member going to the
>> cops when one of their own rats out evidence to a U. S. Marshall.
>It shows how confident they are they're untouchable. (But they're
>not!) But this document was not evidence against them, it was
>favorable to them, or would have been if it wasn't bogus.
I wasn't thinking in terms of the context of the -AB- extraction as
being useful or damaging evidence. I was thinking of the police and
other law enforcement agencies acquiring evidence _about_ Scientology
from their complaint.
From the the _police's_ point of view, Scientology's reporting of
a document that was leaked into the public was an intelligence windfall
for _them_. The police would have gone through the motions to take a
report and pretend to question any witnesses, and they might even had
asked their DA's office for an indictment if they could have located
the leak, but that would have been gravy for what Scientology was
handing them free of charge. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll try to explain
my reasoning briefly:
When Scientology reported the dissemination of a supposedly secret and
secure document, what they did was inform the police -- and thereby the
FBI and all other interested Federal agencies -- that Scientology had
just admitted to maintaining documents such as what they reported as
having been published. The police -- during the course of their
investigation -- will have learned that Scientology maintains a fairly
extensive computer system which they try to secure -- not because it's
a financial point of weakness but because it's a source of possible
evidence for criminal and civil prosecutions, and a source of documents
that are collected according to their "Fair Use" racketeering and
their extensive foreign and domestic espionage efforts.
I assume that since this INCOMM system utilizes (these days, any way)
variants on multichannel encryption microwave carrier burts between
major Scientology business offices and exchangeg records internationally
that the system maintains evidence that the Feds would like to seize.
So much so, in fact, that I recall reading about the goons pulling the
plug one day after getting a tip that they were about to be raided.
Dave Bird
<dang...@skyenet.net> writes:
>Computer operators were above suspicion. It had never occurred to any of
>us for more than an instant to suspect anyone in INCOMM. After we knew,
>it was a forehead-slapping "DUH!", but not even McShane had seriously
>believed someone in INCOMM, with complete access to everything on every
>They had to know they'd be the prime suspects, so they'd know better
>than to do it, because they'd get caught pronto. Besides, -AB- from his
>postings seemed out of touch with reality (as we in OSA and RTC knew it
>to be), and INCOMM qualifications were far too tight to have let such a
>person in. Nevertheless, there he was.
>
>I had spoken with Tom Rummelhart a number of times, but never met him
>and still do not know what he looks like. But, as Tom Klemesrud revealed
>several years ago, Tom Rummelhart was -AB-, and this is who Tom
>Rummelhart was. He apparently had listed his occupation as Director of
>Computerization, but that's a bit more grand than what he actually was.
>Although he had the access of an admin, as an operator he would not have
>had authority to grant or revoke anyone's accounts on his own, create or
>change data structures, or do much of anything but keep the computers
>running and maintained, fix problems, and carry out certain instructions
>from others in INCOMM. If he was truly "Director" of anything, he may
>have been the lead operator or Director of Operations -- sort of a chief
>technical flunky -- but I never heard of him being even that. As far as
>I ever knew, he was just a regular operator.
This is fascinating stuff which gives a lot of new insights, the most
interesting info I have read on the newsgroup for some time.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Virginia
Re: Tony Searing? Not that I know of, and Tony D'urso was in Folo Wus I
believe.
>
> > Remember Andy? What a cranky old fart he was, he even called himself
that.
>
> Yes, but my memory gets a little mixed up, because there was a different
> Andrew Milne I worked with for years in OSA after that.
Perhaps it's the same one, as I had heard he went into OSA or somewhere back
at oh...early 80's?
>
> > Is Donna Rice still in the Sea Org?
>
> No, she left in I think 1983 or 1984.
Good for her.
>
> > >Beth and John are still in Ext Comm in the HGB. Or were two years
> > > ago.
> >
> > Wow. That's a long time on the same post. Jim Balfour was still the
telex
> op
> > at Flag, when I was on Solo Nots, say 96? I think.
>
> Sounds about right.
>
> <snip>
>
> > >I don't know where the rest ended up.
> >
> > Bill (my ex-husband) went out of the Sea Org, and is still out, but is
> > currently disconnected from me, but may be (unverified) no longer on OT
7
> > due to financial considerations.
>
> That would be good. Hope he wises up.
Sure.
>
> > > > Do I know you?
> > >
> > > Yes. I was in Flag Mimeo from 1978 through early 1983 (MF I/C then
> > > Proofreader), then Programs Bureau more or less till the move from CW
to
> > LA
> > > in Summer 1984.
> >
> > OH yea! I remember now! Mimeo. You were a pretty funny guy sometimes as
I
> > recall.
>
> Still am :-)
You weren't in mimeo very much as I recall, (if you're the guy I'm thinking
of), didn't you get sent on missions a lot of the time?
Yes. First thing he told me, was to do my Full Hat and Staff Status I and
II. I did, and learned I couldn't be removed from post without a commev so
whenever someone *tried* I would simply say basically Great, when's my
commev? - and that would be the end of that.
Rising
> high in that world requires either extraordinary cruelty or consummate BS
> skills.
I think that's a rather overly sweeping statement. Not that there weren't
those with the above qualities *risen high* mind you.
Both at once make a superstar. Failing to realize that was my
> downfall and my ultimate salvation.
Wow.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > OSA Int occupies the 10th and 12th floors of the Hollywood
Guaranty
> > > > > Building, on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Ivar; the 12th
> > > > > floor being the top. On the 12th floor is a combined conference
room
> > > > > and CIC. CIC stands for Command Information Center or Control
> > > > > Information Center, and it's where all the important information
> > > > > (other than "eyes only" ) is posted or summarized.
> > > >
> > > > Ahh... yes. Kathy O'Gorman's territory. She said to Mike on the
phone,
> > > back
> > > > in 1999, that she was OSA CIC IC.
> > >
> > > KO was my senior from 1992 through 1994.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Ick. Make that Double Ick.
> >
> > So, what was that like having KO as a senior - can you share any
> experiences
> > about that?
>
> Believe it or not, I considered her my best and most intelligent senior
the
> whole time I was in the SO.
Even though you are now an ex-scientologist, you really do not see through
Kathy O'Gorman?
I find that hard to believe, and I hope you do not take offense by this but
I saw through her in one phone call.
I know others have had *very* unpleasant
> experiences with her. Part of it was that, in her eyes, I could do no
wrong.
> I would never have wanted to be on her bad side.
Really? Well I must say that if Mike and I are *on her bad side*, I can't
say that she has been successful at what you are implying being on her *bad
side* would mean.
You know, OSA Black Ops...etc. etc all have a goal. If nothing else... to
try and silence the person.
We are not silenced.
We understood each other
> very well. We had both been on staff or in the SO forever, we were both
> officers, we both agreed on what was wrong and what it would take to get
> things truly On Source.
She was very good at the pretense of being a *good scientologist* wasn't
she? I gathered that in that one phone conversation. Unfortunately, when it
came down to it she wasn't much of a Scientologist as to applying KSW - at
all.
>And we're both very short!
Do you both like stuffed animals?
:-)
>
> She used to call me "Garcia," in reference to the Elbert Hubbard essay, "A
> Message to Garcia" (http://www.birdsnest.com/garcia.htm), which Hubbard
read
> in full into an early lecture, claiming Elbert was his uncle. It's about
the
> characteristics of the perfect subordinate or employee, and is or was well
> known in higher corporate circles.
I'll have to read that, I am not familiar with it.
KO actually meant I was "Rowan," not
> "Garcia." She recognized that her part as the boss was to know what was
> going on and to not issue stupid, pointless, or impossible orders. So we
got
> along great. It was like we were in an unofficial club -- she would be the
> same way, when she was the junior to somebody else. Club members would
> recognize each other instantly, like shining beacons across the dark gulf
of
> incompetence and carelessness.
>
> This monolithic top-down approach is really how the entire Scientology
> network is supposed to run, and the essay's influence is clear in policies
> like the definition of "backflash" and the injunctions against requiring
> orders to do your job.
>It would work if people really were suited to being
> part of a machine
I believe one of the basic premises you are referring to (correct me if I'm
wrong) is that orders only occur where responsibility fails.
If someone doesn't need orders because they can see all levels of play and
make correct decisions because their responsibility is high, that doesn't
equal that they are then part of a *machine* the way I think you may be
characterizing a machine. Presumed to be somewhat derogatory, correct?
> and if Scientology really was capable of curing
> incompetence and stupidity, but they're not and it's not.
The person who is incompetent or stupid, would be rather instrumental in
recognizing and handling where they wish to see they are incompetent or
"stupid".
> So stupid juniors
> and stupid seniors in Scientology orgs and management prevent the
effective
> ones from getting much done.
Perhaps you are also referring to the "broken straws" idea?
>The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> ones,
>and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
> we can all be grateful for.
Which rules (HCOPL's)?
>
> KO was utterly devoted to the principle of Keeping Scientology Working and
> the infallibility of LRH.
In my experience with KO, that is a lie as to KO's devotion to KSW.
KO failed to apply KSW in regards the six-month check issue - and the
obvious larger situation that would be back of such sabotaging of the Upper
Bridge. As I recall she seemed to be more interested in getting us to LA,
for...well you can imagine.
Her assistance by ommission of action in regards the sabotage of the Upper
Bridge (out-KSW) is partly what Mike refers to in that post I relayed from
him to KO, where he says basically she should "look under her chair".
Also, per Mike, LRH had a specific handling for the scene in Clearwater
(when KO was AG I think) based on the Mafia connection existing at the time.
KO did NOT do what LRH suggested, one could wonder why, if there's such
devotion as you say - to the infallibility of LRH.
What was done instead of what LRH said, caused a whole lot of trouble - from
what I understand.
>If anything wasn't ideal, LRH policy was not being
> followed, and intelligent selection and enforcement of the right policy
(or
> Flag Order, etc.) would fix it.
Side note: Flag Order's do not supercede HCOPL's/HCOB's, as far as I recall,
nor do "advices" ED's, etc. etc.
Within limits, and with a lot of, um,
> constructive reasoning,
I observed this with the current OSA personnel that Mike and I dealt with.
But I wouldn't call it constructive reasoning (I know you were not serious
with that), I would call it maybe....MisApplication to solve an earlier
Misapplication to solve an earlier Misapplication? And so on and so on.
this is a viable approach, because Hubbard can be
> found to have said, at one time or another, almost anything about almost
> anything. Freud was brilliant and good. Freud was crazy and evil. Science
is
> our only hope. Science is destroying the world. You get the picture.
Sure, and an interesting one it is.
So a
> "Garcia" recognizes what needs to be done, picks out the right policy to
> justify it, and forges ahead -- and, usually, trips over idiots or is shot
> by them, till he or she learns to quit trying.
I think there is something wrong with the sequence above as you present it.
As a different view, what if "Garcia" (haven't read that yet so please
excuse me if my context is wrong)..reasons properly and makes the right
decision without having to have a policy written for him?
This would also be responsibility and not needing orders I would presume.
>
> This uncompromising KSW orientation is behind the ruthlessness you
encounter
> in otherwise good people in Scientology. "We'd rather have you dead than
> incapable." "We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't
> cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized
> future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own
> destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here
> and now with and in Scientology."
I don't think that's what's behind some of these guys "ruthlessness".
But the whole push here on KSW, reminds me of the "Unindoctrination of
Indoctrination" posts.
Did you have anything to do with those?
I am still a Scientologist, is it your premise that I need to "free my mind
from the cult"?
Good talking to you again Dan.
Virginia
>
> Dan
>
>
Deomorto
> Perhaps it's the same one, as I had heard he went into OSA or
> somewhere back at oh...early 80's?
>
different Andy Milnes - the one who was in external comm ended up in CLO
Canada. The 'other' Andy Milne was originally from the Uk ( he's
scottish) and OSA there.
Dan Garvin
"Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3fca...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:3fb8f...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3fb82...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > Yep. And Tony D'Urso. And wasn't Tony Searing in there too?
>
> Re: Tony Searing? Not that I know of, and Tony D'urso was in Folo Wus I
> believe.
Tony D'urso must have come to Flag Ext Comm later then. He was there.
> > > Remember Andy? What a cranky old fart he was, he even called himself
> that.
> >
> > Yes, but my memory gets a little mixed up, because there was a different
> > Andrew Milne I worked with for years in OSA after that.
>
> Perhaps it's the same one, as I had heard he went into OSA or somewhere
back
> at oh...early 80's?
No, Ext Comm Andy went to Canada Ext Comm. I ran into him there on a mission
once. Two different guys.
<snip>
> > > OH yea! I remember now! Mimeo. You were a pretty funny guy sometimes
as
> I
> > > recall.
> >
> > Still am :-)
>
> You weren't in mimeo very much as I recall, (if you're the guy I'm
thinking
> of), didn't you get sent on missions a lot of the time?
Not really. I was on a couple missions but mostly stayed home.
<snip>
> Rising
> > high in that world requires either extraordinary cruelty or consummate
BS
> > skills.
>
> I think that's a rather overly sweeping statement. Not that there weren't
> those with the above qualities *risen high* mind you.
Perhaps. I couldn't think of anyone who rose truly high without a good
measure of one or the other.
> > <snip>
> > > So, what was that like having KO as a senior - can you share any
> > experiences
> > > about that?
> >
> > Believe it or not, I considered her my best and most intelligent senior
> the
> > whole time I was in the SO.
>
> Even though you are now an ex-scientologist, you really do not see through
> Kathy O'Gorman?
That's a rather loaded question. Anyway I knew her very well when she was my
boss, and I am certain that, right or wrong, she was sincere about what she
did. Note that I did not say "harmless" or "well-intentioned toward all";
but she sincerely believed she was doing what Hubbard said, the way he
intended it to be done.
> I find that hard to believe, and I hope you do not take offense by this
but
> I saw through her in one phone call.
I have no idea what you mean by that so nothing really to be offended about.
> I know others have had *very* unpleasant
> > experiences with her. Part of it was that, in her eyes, I could do no
> wrong.
> > I would never have wanted to be on her bad side.
>
> Really? Well I must say that if Mike and I are *on her bad side*, I can't
> say that she has been successful at what you are implying being on her
*bad
> side* would mean.
>
> You know, OSA Black Ops...etc. etc all have a goal. If nothing else... to
> try and silence the person.
>
> We are not silenced.
That last is pretty clear. But realize that my perspective of her was from
within the SO. I meant on her bad side as another staff or SO member. I have
no idea what your experiences with her were, but if she was dealing with you
as a potential SP or "squirrel" threat, then I'm sure you saw a side of her
that I
never did.
> We understood each other
> > very well. We had both been on staff or in the SO forever, we were both
> > officers, we both agreed on what was wrong and what it would take to get
> > things truly On Source.
>
> She was very good at the pretense of being a *good scientologist* wasn't
> she? I gathered that in that one phone conversation. Unfortunately, when
it
> came down to it she wasn't much of a Scientologist as to applying KSW - at
> all.
(More on the above below when it comes up again .... )
<snip>
> > This monolithic top-down approach is really how the entire Scientology
> > network is supposed to run, and the essay's influence is clear in
policies
> > like the definition of "backflash" and the injunctions against requiring
> > orders to do your job.
>
> >It would work if people really were suited to being
> > part of a machine
>
> I believe one of the basic premises you are referring to (correct me if
I'm
> wrong) is that orders only occur where responsibility fails.
That is the LRH claim, yes.
> If someone doesn't need orders because they can see all levels of play and
> make correct decisions because their responsibility is high, that doesn't
> equal that they are then part of a *machine* the way I think you may be
> characterizing a machine. Presumed to be somewhat derogatory, correct?
Not really the way I meant it it. The "machineness" is in the fact that
everything and everyone has a precisely defined position and function that
is entirely predetermined by policy as modified by programs etc. That sounds
good when you say it -- maximized efficiency and a perfectly duplicated
pattern and all, and actual machines really do work quite efficiently -- but
when you try to fit humans into the same type of pattern it doesn't work out
so well, so you find that the most successful wog corporations seem to have,
by comparison, a greater degree of autonomy and flexibility at all levels --
and they are growing, whereas the COS network has been level or shrinking
for many years.
> > and if Scientology really was capable of curing
> > incompetence and stupidity, but they're not and it's not.
>
> The person who is incompetent or stupid, would be rather instrumental in
> recognizing and handling where they wish to see they are incompetent or
> "stupid".
I really cannot figure out what this means.
> > So stupid juniors
> > and stupid seniors in Scientology orgs and management prevent the
> effective
> > ones from getting much done.
>
> Perhaps you are also referring to the "broken straws" idea?
Maybe. But I think the policy as written also invites -- no, demands --
stupid application. It is only the rare genius who can actually make a silk
purse out of the sow's ear of LRH Policy. That is why there are almost no SH
sized orgs, and the ones they do make don't stay that way.
> >The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> > ones,
> >and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
> > we can all be grateful for.
>
> Which rules (HCOPL's)?
1. Can't be removed from post or transferred or dismissed without a comm ev
(a *criminal*, not an administrative, action)
2. Nobody wants to get rid of anybody anyway because they're so hard to
replace and everybody's already overworked.
3. Can't hire somebody without a contract for between 2.5 and 1,000,000,000
years.
4. Can't trust anybody else, can't use temps or any outsiders.
5. Can't use non-SO in SO orgs.
6. Yet pay and conditions are so pitiful it takes enormous effort to get
anyone to join, and the easiest targets are the ones who have little
knowledge or life experience.
7. Since staff and SO don't have to be paid, or don't have to be paid much,
there is every incentive to hang onto anyone who is willing to be exploited
as long as they're not too destructive.
> > KO was utterly devoted to the principle of Keeping Scientology Working
and
> > the infallibility of LRH.
>
> In my experience with KO, that is a lie as to KO's devotion to KSW.
Why on earth would I lie? What possible motive could I have for
misrepresenting the facts about an indoctrinated low level OSA Sea Org
member who used to be my senior? If you think I'm wrong, that's one thing.
You seem to be accusing me of intentional deceit, and I don't understand
that. Is that what you meant to say?
> KO failed to apply KSW in regards the six-month check issue - and the
> obvious larger situation that would be back of such sabotaging of the
Upper
> Bridge. As I recall she seemed to be more interested in getting us to LA,
> for...well you can imagine.
Virginia, two issues here. First, I interacted closely with KO as an SO
member in a particular environment, over a couple years. This is what I
observed. You experienced something different, which to you is out-KSW. I'm
not convinced that either side is right, but I believe that KO in dealing
with you and Mike would have pushed what she honestly understood to be
in-tech and KSW -- even if, as you seem to believe, she was wrong in her
understanding. Whereas I couldn't care less, any more than I care whether
the Shi'ites or the Sunnis are right about the succession from Muhammad, or
whether Christians believe the King James Version or the NIV is the more
accurate Word of God.
Second issue: All that aside, KSW is perhaps the worst, the most evil, the
most harmful and dangerous principle in all of Scientology. It is not just
about tech or how you think the upper bridge should be. It is about
everything that L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote, said, sang, or filmed. If you say
"KSW" like it's a good thing, then you are saying that Fair Game and
harassment by litigation and involuntary imprisonment of deranged
individuals like Lisa M. are good things and that people like me and even
you yourself should be "ruin[ed] utterly." I needn't beat that one to death,
though I could. I you want to be a cafeteria Scientologist, picking out the
non-malevolent portions of Scientology, I have no problem with that. If you
support (as Hubbard insists you must) the totality of Keeping Scientology
Working as Hubbard has stated it, you might as well be in the COS and
supporting OSA.
> Her assistance by ommission of action in regards the sabotage of the Upper
> Bridge (out-KSW) is partly what Mike refers to in that post I relayed from
> him to KO, where he says basically she should "look under her chair".
>
> Also, per Mike, LRH had a specific handling for the scene in Clearwater
> (when KO was AG I think) based on the Mafia connection existing at the
time.
>
> KO did NOT do what LRH suggested, one could wonder why, if there's such
> devotion as you say - to the infallibility of LRH.
>
> What was done instead of what LRH said, caused a whole lot of trouble -
from
> what I understand.
I'll have to take your word for it. I have no idea about any of this.
> >If anything wasn't ideal, LRH policy was not being
> > followed, and intelligent selection and enforcement of the right policy
> (or
> > Flag Order, etc.) would fix it.
>
> Side note: Flag Order's do not supercede HCOPL's/HCOB's, as far as I
recall,
> nor do "advices" ED's, etc. etc.
No, but neither are FOs junior to PLs or HCOBs. They are of equivalent
authority, but only apply to the SO.
> Within limits, and with a lot of, um,
> > constructive reasoning,
>
> I observed this with the current OSA personnel that Mike and I dealt with.
>
> But I wouldn't call it constructive reasoning (I know you were not serious
> with that), I would call it maybe....MisApplication to solve an earlier
> Misapplication to solve an earlier Misapplication? And so on and so on.
I consider it's the policy itself that's often lame, contradictory, and
counterproductive and sometimes downright evil. Which is part of why
Scientology never went anywhere in the world. Not that it needed to, in
order to keep Hubbard literally rolling in money.
<snip>
> So a
> > "Garcia" recognizes what needs to be done, picks out the right policy to
> > justify it, and forges ahead -- and, usually, trips over idiots or is
shot
> > by them, till he or she learns to quit trying.
>
> I think there is something wrong with the sequence above as you present
it.
>
> As a different view, what if "Garcia" (haven't read that yet so please
> excuse me if my context is wrong)..reasons properly and makes the right
> decision without having to have a policy written for him?
Then he'd still get arrested by the Waffen K*SS*W because his actions are
not "per policy."
> This would also be responsibility and not needing orders I would presume.
Different kettle of fish. The "good" kind of "not needing orders" is "not
needing orders to follow policy."
> > This uncompromising KSW orientation is behind the ruthlessness you
> encounter
> > in otherwise good people in Scientology. "We'd rather have you dead than
> > incapable." "We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't
> > cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized
> > future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own
> > destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do
here
> > and now with and in Scientology."
>
> I don't think that's what's behind some of these guys "ruthlessness".
I did say in *otherwise good* people. Some people are just plain bad,
regardless, and it's way too easy for people like that to find a position in
Scientology from which to satisfy their desire to screw or oppress people.
> But the whole push here on KSW, reminds me of the "Unindoctrination of
> Indoctrination" posts.
>
> Did you have anything to do with those?
Never heard of them.
<snip>
> > That was her solution to the cognitive dissonance experienced by anyone
> who
> > tries to believe in all of Scientology and everything Hubbard ever wrote
> or
> > said. We all had our solutions, or we left. It may be too late for her,
> but
> > if she ever managed to free her mind from the cult, she would be a
> wonderful
> > person.
>
> I am still a Scientologist, is it your premise that I need to "free my
mind
> from the cult"?
No. I don't consider that anyone properly needs to do much of anything,
other than refrain from interfering with the rights of others. But you are
not in the cult. Adherence to a belief system, no matter how wrong (as I
believe most of Scientology is) or even evil (as some of Scientology is) is
not all there is to a cult. Here is an excellent definition of "cult" from
an AFF conference, quoted in Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, by Tobias and
Lalich:
"Cult: a group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical
manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g.,
isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special
methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group
pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical
judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving
it), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or
possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."
Many people leave the cult of COS and still believe in or pratice some form
of Scientology. That's their business, as long as they're not harming,
tricking, or coercing people. If they're not organizing to do the things in
the previous paragraph, they're not a cult.
> Good talking to you again Dan.
Likewise.
Dan
Grundoon
> news:3fca...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3fb8f...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> >
> > So a
> > > "Garcia" recognizes what needs to be done, picks out the right policy to
> > > justify it, and forges ahead -- and, usually, trips over idiots or is
> shot
> > > by them, till he or she learns to quit trying.
> >
> > I think there is something wrong with the sequence above as you present
> it.
> >
> > As a different view, what if "Garcia" (haven't read that yet so please
> > excuse me if my context is wrong)..reasons properly and makes the right
> > decision without having to have a policy written for him?
>
> Then he'd still get arrested by the Waffen K*SS*W because his actions are
> not "per policy."
>
> > This would also be responsibility and not needing orders I would presume.
>
> Different kettle of fish. The "good" kind of "not needing orders" is "not
> needing orders to follow policy."
Anything that is not mandatory is forbidden.
--
Grundoon
Read about Scientology at http://www.xenu.net
Virginia
> Virginia, I did not find this either on Google, so here's a repost:
>
> "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> news:3fca...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >
> > "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3fb8f...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > >
> > > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3fb82...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Yep. And Tony D'Urso. And wasn't Tony Searing in there too?
> >
> > Re: Tony Searing? Not that I know of, and Tony D'urso was in Folo Wus I
> > believe.
>
> Tony D'urso must have come to Flag Ext Comm later then. He was there.
Must have been after early 1983 then.
>
> > > > Remember Andy? What a cranky old fart he was, he even called himself
> > that.
> > >
> > > Yes, but my memory gets a little mixed up, because there was a
different
> > > Andrew Milne I worked with for years in OSA after that.
> >
> > Perhaps it's the same one, as I had heard he went into OSA or somewhere
> back
> > at oh...early 80's?
>
> No, Ext Comm Andy went to Canada Ext Comm. I ran into him there on a
mission
> once. Two different guys.
Ok.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > OH yea! I remember now! Mimeo. You were a pretty funny guy sometimes
> as
> > I
> > > > recall.
> > >
> > > Still am :-)
> >
> > You weren't in mimeo very much as I recall, (if you're the guy I'm
> thinking
> > of), didn't you get sent on missions a lot of the time?
>
> Not really. I was on a couple missions but mostly stayed home.
Ah.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Rising
> > > high in that world requires either extraordinary cruelty or consummate
> BS
> > > skills.
> >
> > I think that's a rather overly sweeping statement. Not that there
weren't
> > those with the above qualities *risen high* mind you.
>
> Perhaps. I couldn't think of anyone who rose truly high without a good
> measure of one or the other.
Fair enough.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > So, what was that like having KO as a senior - can you share any
> > > experiences
> > > > about that?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, I considered her my best and most intelligent
senior
> > the
> > > whole time I was in the SO.
> >
> > Even though you are now an ex-scientologist, you really do not see
through
> > Kathy O'Gorman?
>
> That's a rather loaded question. Anyway I knew her very well when she was
my
> boss, and I am certain that, right or wrong, she was sincere about what
she
> did.
I beg to differ, she is not actually sincere.
> Note that I did not say "harmless" or "well-intentioned toward all";
Yes, I understand.
> but she sincerely believed she was doing what Hubbard said, the way he
> intended it to be done.
Again, I beg to differ. IMO, K.O. is not what she appears.
Per Mike, after K.O. was A.G Flag and before the disbanding of the GO, (as
he recalls - this is the relevant time period), K.O. wasn't allowed to take
another post until she handled her inability to think.
I would think, that this may have something to do with her *handling* of the
Clearwater scene. IE: Per Mike, the Mafia wanted the Fort Harrison building
at a low price to turn it into one of their gambling casino's. So the Mafia
was trying to degrade downtown Clearwater in order to lower real estate
prices so that they could buy the Fort Harrison at a cheaper price. So LRH's
handling was, clean up and beautify downtown Clearwater. Go in there and
make it nice, real estate prices go up, then the mafia would be less likely
to want it anymore. In other words, undermine the Mafia's plan to degrade
downtown Clearwater and thereby drive down the real estate prices. What Mike
heard, is that LRH's plan as above, was never really carried out, and
obviously someone else had a *better* idea of how to *handle* this.
Per Mike, K.O. was the AG then, and Mary Sue was physically there at the
time.
>
> > I find that hard to believe, and I hope you do not take offense by this
> but
> > I saw through her in one phone call.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by that so nothing really to be offended
about.
Ah.
>
> > I know others have had *very* unpleasant
> > > experiences with her. Part of it was that, in her eyes, I could do no
> > wrong.
> > > I would never have wanted to be on her bad side.
> >
> > Really? Well I must say that if Mike and I are *on her bad side*, I
can't
> > say that she has been successful at what you are implying being on her
> *bad
> > side* would mean.
> >
> > You know, OSA Black Ops...etc. etc all have a goal. If nothing else...
to
> > try and silence the person.
> >
> > We are not silenced.
>
> That last is pretty clear. But realize that my perspective of her was from
> within the SO. I meant on her bad side as another staff or SO member. I
have
> no idea what your experiences with her were, but if she was dealing with
you
> as a potential SP or "squirrel" threat, then I'm sure you saw a side of
her
> that I
> never did.
Maybe..but that seems conflicting data to me. You have already indicated
that you have some idea of her *bad side*, which logically that would
ostensibly be applied to *whatever* she considers to BE *on her bad side*.
>
> > We understood each other
> > > very well. We had both been on staff or in the SO forever, we were
both
> > > officers, we both agreed on what was wrong and what it would take to
get
> > > things truly On Source.
> >
> > She was very good at the pretense of being a *good scientologist* wasn't
> > she? I gathered that in that one phone conversation. Unfortunately, when
> it
> > came down to it she wasn't much of a Scientologist as to applying KSW -
at
> > all.
>
> (More on the above below when it comes up again .... )
Ok.
But I'm going to put this back in, as actually I was only partially kidding
in my question, in case you missed that.
You:
>And we're both very short!
Me:
Do you both like stuffed animals?
:-)
===========
So...DO you both like stuffed animals?
>
> <snip>
>
> > > This monolithic top-down approach is really how the entire Scientology
> > > network is supposed to run, and the essay's influence is clear in
> policies
> > > like the definition of "backflash" and the injunctions against
requiring
> > > orders to do your job.
> >
> > >It would work if people really were suited to being
> > > part of a machine
> >
> > I believe one of the basic premises you are referring to (correct me if
> I'm
> > wrong) is that orders only occur where responsibility fails.
>
> That is the LRH claim, yes.
Are you certain that this concept has never been covered in any way by
anyone else?
I don't understand your point of confusion as to what I wrote. Can you be
more specific?
>
> > > So stupid juniors
> > > and stupid seniors in Scientology orgs and management prevent the
> > effective
> > > ones from getting much done.
> >
> > Perhaps you are also referring to the "broken straws" idea?
>
> Maybe. But I think the policy as written also invites -- no, demands --
> stupid application.
What specific parts, of what specific HCOPL "demands - stupid application"?
>It is only the rare genius who can actually make a silk
> purse out of the sow's ear of LRH Policy.
That premise seems quite self-serving. Starting as it does, from the premise
that LRH Policy *is* a "sow's ear" to begin with.
Do you also think that in order to apply Scientology itself correctly, only
a "genius" can do so?
That is why there are almost no SH
> sized orgs, and the ones they do make don't stay that way.
>
> > >The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> > > ones,
> > >and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
> > > we can all be grateful for.
> >
> > Which rules (HCOPL's)?
>
> 1. Can't be removed from post or transferred or dismissed without a comm
ev
> (a *criminal*, not an administrative, action)
Is this a direct quote?
I had asked for basically which HCOPL's, but perhaps that was not worded
clearly enough. So, could you please put which HCOPL's (names) you may be
excerpting from or are referring to?
> 2. Nobody wants to get rid of anybody anyway because they're so hard to
> replace and everybody's already overworked.
OK, that's your idea there I presume.
> 3. Can't hire somebody without a contract for between 2.5 and
1,000,000,000
> years.
What??
> 4. Can't trust anybody else, can't use temps or any outsiders.
Again, what HCOPL are you referring to, or is this your idea?
> 5. Can't use non-SO in SO orgs.
OK.
But again, what reference (HCOPL) are you looking at here.
> 6. Yet pay and conditions are so pitiful it takes enormous effort to get
> anyone to join, and the easiest targets are the ones who have little
> knowledge or life experience.
Ok, that's your idea, not a rule as such from an HCOPL.
> 7. Since staff and SO don't have to be paid, or don't have to be paid
much,
> there is every incentive to hang onto anyone who is willing to be
exploited
> as long as they're not too destructive.
Again, that's not a rule as such from an HCOPL.
OK, so what you said originally was:
The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> > > ones,
> > >and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
> > > we can all be grateful for.
> >
And I responded:
> > Which rules (HCOPL's)?
Your point of "the rules don't allow getting rid of the bad ones", has not
been substantiated really by what is the most senior form of Administrative
references - HCOPL's -as yet.
>
> > > KO was utterly devoted to the principle of Keeping Scientology Working
> and
> > > the infallibility of LRH.
> >
> > In my experience with KO, that is a lie as to KO's devotion to KSW.
>
> Why on earth would I lie? What possible motive could I have for
> misrepresenting the facts about an indoctrinated low level OSA Sea Org
> member who used to be my senior? If you think I'm wrong, that's one thing.
> You seem to be accusing me of intentional deceit, and I don't understand
> that. Is that what you meant to say?
I said: In my experience with KO, that (referring to your statement of "KO
was utterly devoted to the principle of Keeping Scientology Working and the
infallibility of LRH." is a lie as to KO's devotion to KSW." and I stand by
that.
If you still hold that your statement of that "KO was utterly devoted to the
principle of Keeping Scientology Working and the infallibility of LRH." is
the truth - then it would tend to follow that you have a possible point of
view that Mike and I are deviating from the truth as to that she failed to
apply KSW in regards to the six month check. Since your version of the truth
of your experience as to K.O., and our experience with her do not jive.
Perhaps you are orienting to a *time* discrepancy point here as to how the
statements could be actually not in direct opposition with each other in a
truth/lie kind of way?
Your time period of being with K.O. ended per you, prior to my experience
with her, correct?
So then, let's present the theory that between then, and summer or so 1999,
that K.O. strayed out of her pretense of being a *good* scientologist.
It was certainly evident that she was not one when push came to shove on the
six month check cycle, back in 1999.
Do you think that this is that our strength of position as actual
Scientologists caused her to inadvertently reveal her false one?
But then, the theory of K.O. *changing* after your experience with her, does
not really pan out, because if K.O. was such a devoted etc. etc.
Scientologist, then why, in the 70's, did she not ensure that LRH's plan
concerning Clearwater was carried out?
>
> > KO failed to apply KSW in regards the six-month check issue - and the
> > obvious larger situation that would be back of such sabotaging of the
> Upper
> > Bridge. As I recall she seemed to be more interested in getting us to
LA,
> > for...well you can imagine.
>
> Virginia, two issues here. First, I interacted closely with KO as an SO
> member in a particular environment, over a couple years. This is what I
> observed. You experienced something different, which to you is out-KSW.
No Dan, it is not "to me" out-KSW. It is not a *perspective* thing. It was
out-KSW to be sec-checking Pre-OT's on a interfere every six months basis,
and she did not and has not (to my knowledge) applied KSW to that out-tech
and out-KSW situation.
> I'm
> not convinced that either side is right, but I believe that KO in dealing
> with you and Mike would have pushed what she honestly understood to be
> in-tech and KSW -- even if, as you seem to believe, she was wrong in her
> understanding.
I'm sorry, but you believe wrong. There IS no "understanding" of KSW that
allows K.O. to be directly or indirectly party to the sabotaging of the
technology of Scientology. Period.
>Whereas I couldn't care less, any more than I care whether
> the Shi'ites or the Sunnis are right about the succession from Muhammad,
or
> whether Christians believe the King James Version or the NIV is the more
> accurate Word of God.
I don't believe you couldn't care less about what we are talking about here
as to Scientology itself, etc.
>
> Second issue: All that aside, KSW is perhaps the worst, the most evil, the
> most harmful and dangerous principle in all of Scientology.
That is false Dan.
It is not just
> about tech or how you think the upper bridge should be. It is about
> everything that L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote, said, sang, or filmed. If you
say
> "KSW" like it's a good thing, then you are saying that Fair Game and
> harassment by litigation and involuntary imprisonment of deranged
> individuals like Lisa M. are good things and that people like me and even
> you yourself should be "ruin[ed] utterly."
That is also false Dan.
Fair Game, is practiced by most critics, and quite a few "freezoner's", is
point number 1.
As far as the critics, there are those who do state lies on more than one
occasion (primarily in their zeal to try and *bring down* Scientology),
there are those who run their little "ops" for a "good cause" on things,
there are those that run "campaigns" against a person, etc. etc. etc.
>involuntary imprisonment of deranged
> individuals like Lisa M.
So what you are saying then, is that a Psych Hospital Ward involuntary or
voluntary imprisonment of a deranged individual is much better, because I
assume of the assumption that if they were NOT under the *care* of some
terminals in the Church - Lisa McPherson *might* still be alive?
I do not know that I would agree with that necessarily.
> I needn't beat that one to death,
> though I could.
I can't speak for you as to why you feel you needn't do anything, but I can
ask why would it need to be beaten to death??
I mean, in other words - why would you want to?
> I you want to be a cafeteria Scientologist, picking out the
> non-malevolent portions of Scientology, I have no problem with that. If
you
> support (as Hubbard insists you must) the totality of Keeping Scientology
> Working as Hubbard has stated it, you might as well be in the COS and
> supporting OSA.
Humorously speaking, That's my choices? Box A, Cafeteria Scientologist; or
Box B, COS/OSA Scientologist? Wow.
In all seriousness, your choices are just that. Boxes. But Boxes offered
from an outside of the boxes view, interestingly enough. A fact that escapes
most people who are presented with such types of "you can *choose* between
this or this, or that" etc..
I choose Scientology itself, which is - as is a Full OT - *outside* of all
the boxes.
Even those nice spacious ones that surround the smaller ones.
>
> > Her assistance by ommission of action in regards the sabotage of the
Upper
> > Bridge (out-KSW) is partly what Mike refers to in that post I relayed
from
> > him to KO, where he says basically she should "look under her chair".
> >
> > Also, per Mike, LRH had a specific handling for the scene in Clearwater
> > (when KO was AG I think) based on the Mafia connection existing at the
> time.
> >
> > KO did NOT do what LRH suggested, one could wonder why, if there's such
> > devotion as you say - to the infallibility of LRH.
> >
> > What was done instead of what LRH said, caused a whole lot of trouble -
> from
> > what I understand.
>
> I'll have to take your word for it. I have no idea about any of this.
You will now.
>
> > >If anything wasn't ideal, LRH policy was not being
> > > followed, and intelligent selection and enforcement of the right
policy
> > (or
> > > Flag Order, etc.) would fix it.
> >
> > Side note: Flag Order's do not supercede HCOPL's/HCOB's, as far as I
> recall,
> > nor do "advices" ED's, etc. etc.
>
> No, but neither are FOs junior to PLs or HCOBs. They are of equivalent
> authority, but only apply to the SO.
What's your reference on that Dan? Because what you are meaning, IE; any
kind of positioning F.O.'s as equal in superiority - anywhere - to
HCOPL's/HCOB's - is not what I recall as being the case from when I was in
the SO.
>
> > Within limits, and with a lot of, um,
> > > constructive reasoning,
> >
> > I observed this with the current OSA personnel that Mike and I dealt
with.
> >
> > But I wouldn't call it constructive reasoning (I know you were not
serious
> > with that), I would call it maybe....MisApplication to solve an earlier
> > Misapplication to solve an earlier Misapplication? And so on and so on.
>
> I consider it's the policy itself that's often lame, contradictory, and
> counterproductive and sometimes downright evil. Which is part of why
> Scientology never went anywhere in the world. Not that it needed to, in
> order to keep Hubbard literally rolling in money.
I see.
>
> <snip>
>
> > So a
> > > "Garcia" recognizes what needs to be done, picks out the right policy
to
> > > justify it, and forges ahead -- and, usually, trips over idiots or is
> shot
> > > by them, till he or she learns to quit trying.
> >
> > I think there is something wrong with the sequence above as you present
> it.
> >
> > As a different view, what if "Garcia" (haven't read that yet so please
> > excuse me if my context is wrong)..reasons properly and makes the right
> > decision without having to have a policy written for him?
>
> Then he'd still get arrested by the Waffen K*SS*W because his actions are
> not "per policy."
No, he would not get arrested for full responsibility and true demonstration
of proper reasoning and correct decision making - by any true Scientologist.
But I do understand your point as to that there are those *Scientologists*
who would definitely attempt to do such.
>
> > This would also be responsibility and not needing orders I would
presume.
>
> Different kettle of fish. The "good" kind of "not needing orders" is "not
> needing orders to follow policy."
I feel that to define the good kind of not needing orders as exclusively as
you did, is untrue.
>
> > > This uncompromising KSW orientation is behind the ruthlessness you
> > encounter
> > > in otherwise good people in Scientology. "We'd rather have you dead
than
> > > incapable." "We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It
isn't
> > > cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole
agonized
> > > future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own
> > > destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do
> here
> > > and now with and in Scientology."
> >
> > I don't think that's what's behind some of these guys "ruthlessness".
>
> I did say in *otherwise good* people. Some people are just plain bad,
> regardless, and it's way too easy for people like that to find a position
in
> Scientology from which to satisfy their desire to screw or oppress people.
>
> > But the whole push here on KSW, reminds me of the "Unindoctrination of
> > Indoctrination" posts.
> >
> > Did you have anything to do with those?
>
> Never heard of them.
Ok, but to give the devil his due so to speak, if you HAD written what was
in the posts I refer to, it is a fact that you could say that you haven't
"heard" of what you had already written. And that would be techincally true,
since that is after the fact so to speak. Not too get too complex, but it
would also be true that if someone else posted what you had written, and you
did not see that post, well then you *could* say that you had not heard
of...the posts I refer to.
So let me re-write the question so that it's very, very specific here, and
please, humor me with a yes or no answer.
Did you write what was in "KSW TRAP OR BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO
UNINDOCTRINATION"?
Such as....:
Excerpt:
"Unindoctrination Hat Part I
As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent.
By this I mean that we become less than adequately critical of Scientology
and of LRH."
Thanks.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > That was her solution to the cognitive dissonance experienced by
anyone
> > who
> > > tries to believe in all of Scientology and everything Hubbard ever
wrote
> > or
> > > said. We all had our solutions, or we left. It may be too late for
her,
> > but
> > > if she ever managed to free her mind from the cult, she would be a
> > wonderful
> > > person.
> >
> > I am still a Scientologist, is it your premise that I need to "free my
> mind
> > from the cult"?
>
> No. I don't consider that anyone properly needs to do much of anything,
> other than refrain from interfering with the rights of others.
Question. Which rights in particular do you refer to?
>But you are
> not in the cult. Adherence to a belief system, no matter how wrong (as I
> believe most of Scientology is) or even evil (as some of Scientology is)
is
> not all there is to a cult. Here is an excellent definition of "cult" from
> an AFF conference, quoted in Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, by Tobias and
> Lalich:
First, who defines, or sits in judgement on what *excessive* devotion or
dedication is?
The AFF..The APA...The AMA...The WFMH....the CIA/FBI....the United States
Supreme Court....Who?
Second, who defines what is unethical, manipulative, or coercive?
This whole definition just disintinctly sounds to me as very, very, similar
to the AMA, or basically allopathic medicine, sitting in judgement on all
possible competitors of allopathic medicine. With their original
"anti-quackery" campaign which self-servingly *defined* of course what was
targeted as, or called "quackery" from that point forward. It was about
money amongst other things.
Strikes me as incredibly self-serving.
Third, I wonder if it can be ascertained exactly who came up with this
definition of "cult" that is in use? Someone in The AFF?
Do you know who?
>
> "Cult: a group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
> dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical
> manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g.,
> isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special
> methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group
> pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical
> judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving
> it), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual
or
> possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."
>
> Many people leave the cult of COS and still believe in or pratice some
form
> of Scientology. That's their business, as long as they're not harming,
> tricking, or coercing people. If they're not organizing to do the things
in
> the previous paragraph, they're not a cult.
You're probably not going to like my humor on this, but I think it is a good
illustration of the self-servingness of the above definition, AND the
missing x factor of WHO sits in judgement of or has the *authority* to
decide perhaps legally even, what IS a cult, and what ISN"T, and then *act
acoordingly* perhaps.
OK, I'm going to use the example of a pretty average family.
> "Cult: a group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
> dedication to some person, idea, or thing,
A family with small children, is a group. Parent's have been known to
demonstrate great devotion and dedication to their children, and as a group,
they are pretty dedicated, each and every one, to the idea of surviving, and
have been known to exhibit this dedication in front of outside parties from
time to time. So, even with the briefest possible comparison, this meets
the first criteria listed above.
I wonder, if even displays of family solidarity will someday be referred to
as cult-like behaviour, by some outside *authority*.
>and employing unethical
> manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g.,
> isolation from former friends and family,
Most parents, have done what is called, sending the child to their room, or
making them take a "time out". There is a certain amount of control, and
even physical contact necessary by the parent to carry this out on some
occasions - usually due to the childs desire to try and continue whatever
destructive behaviour they are currently doing for whatever reason.
This could EASILY be characterized by an outside terminal (and in fact has
been known to have been in some books I have read) as manipulative, and
coercive measures towards a child. Also, if a child is sent to their room,
it could also just as easily be characterized by someone so disposed, as
"isolation".
This definition of cult, and it's obvious but unsaid relationship to that
there would most assuredly have to be some OUTSIDE supposedly VALIDLY
EXERTED decision point of what *is* a cult, or what *is* cult-like
behaviour, I think begins to show just how this could be used to target
whomever is *wanted* to be "no longer a strong group".
debilitation, use of special
> methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group
> pressures, information management,
>suspension of individuality or critical
> judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving
> it), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual
or
> possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."
Getting humorous here when compared to the family example. Most parents
control what the child reads, or watches to at least SOME degree - which by
an outside source could then be stretched by wording to be called
"information management", as in it's a bad thing. Again, it's being decided
by SOMEONE else, outside the people involved.
So, I think that it's quite clear just how self-serving and capable of being
used to *control*, manipulate and coerce someone else ITSELF - that recent
definition of cult -really is.
Pot calling the kettle black, I mean who needs to invent such a definition
other than to define an *enemy* that now can be targetted thusly with the
*cult* classification.
The scary part, is as I just showed, is that someone has to define, or
target someone or group AS a cult. And.....WHO (however well hidden)
usually defines the targets makes the so-called classified *cults* look like
innocent babes by comparison.
And I mean that both figuratively and literally.
Virginia
Dan Garvin
"Grundoon" <grundoon@localhost> wrote in message
news:M35W8ZL43796...@anonymous.poster...
I used to think so, too, but then I found out there is a Catch-22 for that,
as well. Anything *you* want to do that is not mandatory is forbidden.
Anything *we* want you to do that is not forbidden, is mandatory.
Specifically, I once questioned a new order that all staff were required to
do weekly O/W write-ups (unless an individual was getting auditing or
otherwise ordered by the C/S not to). I said "what policy or HCOB?" The MAA
said "what policy or HCOB forbids it being ordered?"
--
Dan Garvin
Sea Org member for 25 years
Free for 2 years!
"Wasn't the S.O. much gentler than a wog prison system where you would be
exposed to large quantities of insanity and suppression, and
butt-fucking?" -- Phil Chitester, Church of Scientology defender
Virginia
Where I said this:
So what you are saying then, is that a Psych Hospital Ward involuntary or
voluntary imprisonment of a deranged individual is much better, because I
assume of the assumption that if they were NOT under the *care* of some
terminals in the Church - Lisa McPherson *might* still be alive?
I do not know that I would agree with that necessarily.
Should say this:
So what you are saying then, is that a Psych Hospital Ward involuntary or
voluntary imprisonment of a deranged individual is much better? And that (I
assume this is your view) that if she were NOT under the *care* of some
terminals in the Church - Lisa McPherson *might* still be alive?
I do not know that I would agree with that necessarily.
===========
Virginia
Dan Garvin
>
> "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> news:3fd68...@news.athenanews.com...
> > Virginia, I did not find this either on Google, so here's a repost:
> >
> > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > news:3fca...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > >
> > > "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3fb8f...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3fb82...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3fb9...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Dan Garvin" <dang...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:587e24f4.03111...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Even though you are now an ex-scientologist, you really do not see
> through
> > > Kathy O'Gorman?
> >
> > That's a rather loaded question. Anyway I knew her very well when she
was
> my
> > boss, and I am certain that, right or wrong, she was sincere about what
> she
> > did.
>
> I beg to differ, she is not actually sincere.
You're welcome to differ. No begging required.
> > Note that I did not say "harmless" or "well-intentioned toward all";
>
> Yes, I understand.
>
> > but she sincerely believed she was doing what Hubbard said, the way he
> > intended it to be done.
>
> Again, I beg to differ. IMO, K.O. is not what she appears.
>
> Per Mike, after K.O. was A.G Flag and before the disbanding of the GO, (as
> he recalls - this is the relevant time period), K.O. wasn't allowed to
take
> another post until she handled her inability to think.
Well, perhaps she really did "handle" her inability to think, in some
sense. I barely knew her when she was A/G Flag. This was years later. People
do change, both in and out of Scientology. And obviously she had been
allowed to take another post.
> I would think, that this may have something to do with her *handling* of
the
> Clearwater scene. IE: Per Mike, the Mafia wanted the Fort Harrison
building
> at a low price to turn it into one of their gambling casino's. So the
Mafia
> was trying to degrade downtown Clearwater in order to lower real estate
> prices so that they could buy the Fort Harrison at a cheaper price. So
LRH's
> handling was, clean up and beautify downtown Clearwater. Go in there and
> make it nice, real estate prices go up, then the mafia would be less
likely
> to want it anymore. In other words, undermine the Mafia's plan to degrade
> downtown Clearwater and thereby drive down the real estate prices. What
Mike
> heard, is that LRH's plan as above, was never really carried out, and
> obviously someone else had a *better* idea of how to *handle* this.
>
> Per Mike, K.O. was the AG then, and Mary Sue was physically there at the
> time.
OK, Virginia. I think I get the picture now. You could be entirely correct
that KO was crossing up or at least failing to execute a good plan. I
certainly remember being *told* that the Mafia wanted the FH and we had
stepped on their toes by coming in and making everything nice. This was
promoted as the reason we were attacked in CW -- the Mafia was trying to get
us driven out.
It may actually have had some truth to it, but I would strongly doubt it
without corroborating (i.e., non-COS) evidence. This has all the earmarks of
a classic LRH conspiracy fantasy. It just fits *too* perfectly the kind of
thing he constantly dreamt up. And Mary Sue, wearing her Manuela Saenz hat,
would of course make sure that whatever he believed in turned out to be
true, and reality be damned.
Maybe the inability to see LRH's and MSH's "reality" was the trouble KO was
having with her "thinking." Just my conjecture.
<snip>
> > > We are not silenced.
> >
> > That last is pretty clear. But realize that my perspective of her was
from
> > within the SO. I meant on her bad side as another staff or SO member. I
> have
> > no idea what your experiences with her were, but if she was dealing with
> you
> > as a potential SP or "squirrel" threat, then I'm sure you saw a side of
> her
> > that I
> > never did.
>
> Maybe..but that seems conflicting data to me. You have already indicated
> that you have some idea of her *bad side*, which logically that would
> ostensibly be applied to *whatever* she considers to BE *on her bad side*.
Not at all. An executive dealing with incompetent juniors would be behaving
in one fashion. That same person, dealing with public who were suspected or
known squirrels or SPs (in COS' view) would behave in an entirely different
fashion. I saw only the former, never the latter, with KO.
<snip>
> But I'm going to put this back in, as actually I was only partially
kidding
> in my question, in case you missed that.
>
> You:
>
> >And we're both very short!
>
> Me:
>
> Do you both like stuffed animals?
>
> :-)
>
> ===========
>
> So...DO you both like stuffed animals?
LOL ... Ok. The answer is, not that I know of. I don't remember her ever
having any around or mentioning any fondness for them. Myself, I think
Starbucks Bearistas are intolerably cute, and every so often I'll run into
some other stuffed animal I like, but what I mostly like them for is the
effect they have on women when I give them away. :-)
Why was this such an important question, if I may ask?
<snip>
> > > I believe one of the basic premises you are referring to (correct me
if
> > I'm
> > > wrong) is that orders only occur where responsibility fails.
> >
> > That is the LRH claim, yes.
>
> Are you certain that this concept has never been covered in any way by
> anyone else?
No, but I'm certain that I don't much care.
<snip>
I said:
> > > > and if Scientology really was capable of curing
> > > > incompetence and stupidity, but they're not and it's not.
> > >
You replied:
> > > The person who is incompetent or stupid, would be rather instrumental
in
> > > recognizing and handling where they wish to see they are incompetent
or
> > > "stupid".
> >
> > I really cannot figure out what this means.
>
> I don't understand your point of confusion as to what I wrote. Can you be
> more specific?
That paragraph. I have no idea at all what you mean to say there, so I can't
get more specific than that. Pretend I'm a three-year-old and try explaining
it over. Or don't.
> > > > So stupid juniors
> > > > and stupid seniors in Scientology orgs and management prevent the
> > > effective
> > > > ones from getting much done.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you are also referring to the "broken straws" idea?
> >
> > Maybe. But I think the policy as written also invites -- no, demands --
> > stupid application.
>
> What specific parts, of what specific HCOPL "demands - stupid
application"?
I don't have the policy volumes, though I've studied damn near all of them,
and the important ones multiple times, so I can't give you quotes, or dates
and titles, but here is one of the bigger ones:
You have to have your stats up each and every week. If you don't, it's
out-ethics. Buying excuses for not having stats up each and every week is
suppressive reasonableness.
Yet there are many policies, and the Birthday Game, that demand long-range
planning.
You worked in External Comm. You know the insane franticness of Thursday
Afternoon, the Scientology Sabbath (it ain't no day of rest). They are so
wound up in weekly stats and three to four week trends that it is almost
impossible for an exec to focus on long-range growth. The moment his weekly
stats sag, management sticks a red-hot poker up his ass, and in order to get
immediate stats up over last week's (or month's) drop, he is forced to cut
back or abandon the actions that would have made the org steadily grow in
size, productivity, efficiency, and income. And blame it on SPs and
out-ethics and external influences. This is all supported in LRH policy.
Well, maybe not the poker, but close enough.
For that matter, management itself is a hoax. They demand high percentages
of the org's income and produce mostly negative results. Yet the entire
structure (and finance system) was designed by Hubbard and exists in policy.
Let me give you an example. The mission network used to be run very loosely.
Mission Holders had a lot of freedom to run things the way they felt would
be best for their own missions. It was dangerously similar to free
enterprise capitalism -- you sink or swim based on how well your paying
customers think you're doing, not on how well management thinks you're
doing. And, by all accounts (other than COS/RTC), the mission network was
remarkably successful, fairly benign, and AFAIK not much involved in GO-type
activities. Therefore, RTC demolished it. Nowadays, missions are run almost
as rigidly as orgs, using strict management control in the pattern
established by Hubbard for orgs. And they're pathetic. Most missions might
as well not exist; there are only a handful that produce any stats worth
counting. Whether LRH meant missions to be run that way is beside the point.
His mgmt "tech" ruined them. If it's not good for missions, how could it be
good for orgs? It always *has* been ruining orgs and holding them back.
And pricing. Orgs can't control their prices. They have to, by LRH policy,
charge what amounts to more than the public thinks the product is worth, so
they have to use high pressure, ethics, and mind control to get them to pay,
and they still don't earn enough in most orgs to do more than scrape by.
Contrast this with a regular business. There is competition, so they have to
price their products as low as possible while still making a profit, and the
only way they can make more profit is by becoming more efficient -- offering
the same quality as the competition at a lower price, or offering higher
quality, better service, etc. at a comparable price. LRH "knew best" that
competition and autonomy are no good, so he outlawed them. His bumbling,
bungling, horribly inefficient, paranoid org network is the result.
This may sound strange, coming from one who would rather *not* see
Scientology expanding, but I have absolutely no fear that COS will take
advice from an SP like me and start succeeding. Also, I think if they did
loosen up and start behaving sanely, a lot of the abuses we talk about here
would cease.
> >It is only the rare genius who can actually make a silk
> > purse out of the sow's ear of LRH Policy.
>
> That premise seems quite self-serving. Starting as it does, from the
premise
> that LRH Policy *is* a "sow's ear" to begin with.
Far as I'm concerned it is. You need not agree.
> Do you also think that in order to apply Scientology itself correctly,
only
> a "genius" can do so?
I assume you mean the Red on White "tech" as opposed to the Green on White
policy? I don't think there is a "correct" way to apply a non-scientific
non-technology, which is how I see Scientology. There may or may not be
something valuable in there that is not available elsewhere, but until it's
scientifically validated, we won't know. If there is anything, I don't think
it's important enough for me to spend any time looking for it or trying to
get it validated.
I think the main result of Scientology is to make people feel good and think
they've realized something important or overcome some inability. Sometimes
this might be true, and other times the change in attitude (i.e. power of
auto-suggestion) is enough to make it true. I also think this process is
strictly limited. People reach a limit of what can be overcome just by
thinking differently, and the rest is imaginary. At that point I think
Scientology becomes useless, if not harmful. I have never witnessed any
verifiable "OT phenomena," and the few people I know who claim to have done
so never follow up when I ask for evidence. Consequently, I have a high
degree of confidence that it's bullshit. But I'm willing to be shown.
That said, no, I don't think it requires a genius to apply the red on white
tech in a manner that gets the characteristic results.
> That is why there are almost no SH
> > sized orgs, and the ones they do make don't stay that way.
> >
> > > >The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> > > > ones,
> > > >and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
> > > > we can all be grateful for.
> > >
> > > Which rules (HCOPL's)?
> >
> > 1. Can't be removed from post or transferred or dismissed without a comm
> ev
> > (a *criminal*, not an administrative, action)
>
> Is this a direct quote?
Of course not. But it is exactly true.
> I had asked for basically which HCOPL's, but perhaps that was not worded
> clearly enough. So, could you please put which HCOPL's (names) you may be
> excerpting from or are referring to?
No, I can't. I don't have the volumes, and I'm not about to buy them. I
proofread most of them, in Flag Mimeo, three times over for LRH issues, so
I'm quite familiar with them. The above is from basic staff status policy.
You did Staff Status 2, so you would have read at some point the PL I'm
referring to.
> > 2. Nobody wants to get rid of anybody anyway because they're so hard to
> > replace and everybody's already overworked.
>
> OK, that's your idea there I presume.
Yes. Or my observation.
> > 3. Can't hire somebody without a contract for between 2.5 and
> 1,000,000,000
> > years.
>
> What??
Contract. To work in an org or in the SO you have to sign a contract. There
are 2.5 year contracts, 5 year contracts, and billion year contracts.
> > 4. Can't trust anybody else, can't use temps or any outsiders.
>
> Again, what HCOPL are you referring to, or is this your idea?
Actually strictly speaking that only applies to SO and is in an FO. In
practice it's universal but in policy it's only SO.
> > 5. Can't use non-SO in SO orgs.
>
> OK.
>
> But again, what reference (HCOPL) are you looking at here.
>
> > 6. Yet pay and conditions are so pitiful it takes enormous effort to get
> > anyone to join, and the easiest targets are the ones who have little
> > knowledge or life experience.
>
> Ok, that's your idea, not a rule as such from an HCOPL.
>
> > 7. Since staff and SO don't have to be paid, or don't have to be paid
> much,
> > there is every incentive to hang onto anyone who is willing to be
> exploited
> > as long as they're not too destructive.
>
> Again, that's not a rule as such from an HCOPL.
>
> OK, so what you said originally was:
>
> The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> > > > ones,
> > > >and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's something
> > > > we can all be grateful for.
> > >
>
> And I responded:
>
> > > Which rules (HCOPL's)?
>
> Your point of "the rules don't allow getting rid of the bad ones", has not
> been substantiated really by what is the most senior form of
Administrative
> references - HCOPL's -as yet.
OK, I identified the PLs and FOs by what's in them. That's the best I can do
without having them. You're welcome to look them up in your OEC volumes or
Flag Order packs if you have them, and if you think it's that important. Or,
if you think I'm mistaken, to provide a counter-example to any of my
assertions.
No, I don't think you're deviating from the truth. I think the KO I knew
would have meant to apply KSW. Whether she would have succeeded, I can't
say. I could be wrong about her intentions, too. I think I'm not. You could
be mistaken about what you think was going on inside her head when you
talked to her on the phone. I didn't lie, and I'm not accusing you of lying.
I perceived one thing, you perceived another, both about the same person.
That's all that happened. How about we give it a rest?
> Perhaps you are orienting to a *time* discrepancy point here as to how the
> statements could be actually not in direct opposition with each other in a
> truth/lie kind of way?
>
> Your time period of being with K.O. ended per you, prior to my experience
> with her, correct?
>
> So then, let's present the theory that between then, and summer or so
1999,
> that K.O. strayed out of her pretense of being a *good* scientologist.
>
> It was certainly evident that she was not one when push came to shove on
the
> six month check cycle, back in 1999.
>
> Do you think that this is that our strength of position as actual
> Scientologists caused her to inadvertently reveal her false one?
>
> But then, the theory of K.O. *changing* after your experience with her,
does
> not really pan out, because if K.O. was such a devoted etc. etc.
> Scientologist, then why, in the 70's, did she not ensure that LRH's plan
> concerning Clearwater was carried out?
I've really said all I care to say on all of this. And then some.
> > > KO failed to apply KSW in regards the six-month check issue - and the
> > > obvious larger situation that would be back of such sabotaging of the
> > Upper
> > > Bridge. As I recall she seemed to be more interested in getting us to
> LA,
> > > for...well you can imagine.
> >
> > Virginia, two issues here. First, I interacted closely with KO as an SO
> > member in a particular environment, over a couple years. This is what I
> > observed. You experienced something different, which to you is out-KSW.
>
> No Dan, it is not "to me" out-KSW. It is not a *perspective* thing. It was
> out-KSW to be sec-checking Pre-OT's on a interfere every six months basis,
> and she did not and has not (to my knowledge) applied KSW to that out-tech
> and out-KSW situation.
I don't care. I don't care if it's Out-KSW or Outback Steakhouse. I don't
care if she sticks pins in the voodoo doll's ass or its elbow. I don't care.
I'm not a Scientologist.
> > I'm
> > not convinced that either side is right, but I believe that KO in
dealing
> > with you and Mike would have pushed what she honestly understood to be
> > in-tech and KSW -- even if, as you seem to believe, she was wrong in her
> > understanding.
>
> I'm sorry, but you believe wrong. There IS no "understanding" of KSW that
> allows K.O. to be directly or indirectly party to the sabotaging of the
> technology of Scientology. Period.
OK, then I believe wrong. She stuck the pin in the wrong buttock.
> >Whereas I couldn't care less, any more than I care whether
> > the Shi'ites or the Sunnis are right about the succession from Muhammad,
> or
> > whether Christians believe the King James Version or the NIV is the more
> > accurate Word of God.
>
> I don't believe you couldn't care less about what we are talking about
here
> as to Scientology itself, etc.
That's because you believe in it and I don't. When I believed in it, I also
couldn't believe how anyone could know about it yet not believe, not care.
Now I understand. To me, Scientology is mostly bullshit and the rest is
either unoriginal or unverified, and there are no OTs, period. I am
perfectly comfortable with a reality that includes no Scientology, or other
supernatural phenomena, whatsoever. You still believe it's valid. That may
never change, and it's really none of my business.
> > Second issue: All that aside, KSW is perhaps the worst, the most evil,
the
> > most harmful and dangerous principle in all of Scientology.
>
> That is false Dan.
>
> It is not just
> > about tech or how you think the upper bridge should be. It is about
> > everything that L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote, said, sang, or filmed. If you
> say
> > "KSW" like it's a good thing, then you are saying that Fair Game and
> > harassment by litigation and involuntary imprisonment of deranged
> > individuals like Lisa M. are good things and that people like me and
even
> > you yourself should be "ruin[ed] utterly."
>
>
> That is also false Dan.
>
> Fair Game, is practiced by most critics, and quite a few "freezoner's", is
> point number 1.
No. Critics are human, and people get under each other's skin, and some of
them react badly, and the first ones react to the reactions, and some of
them keep on reacting badly, even though they're all pretty much on the same
side. This happens everywhere. It is not a phenomenon unique to Scientology,
ex-Scientologists, or critics. It has been going since before humans started
walking upright. And it is not Fair Game.
> As far as the critics, there are those who do state lies on more than one
> occasion (primarily in their zeal to try and *bring down* Scientology),
> there are those who run their little "ops" for a "good cause" on things,
> there are those that run "campaigns" against a person, etc. etc. etc.
What critics do cannot be compared in any way to what COS does, even though
that comparison frequently is attempted. Scientology is a huge, overfunded,
multinational corporate conglomerate that uses its vast resources to squash
people who cannot defend themselves. Critics aren't *able* to do that, even
if you believe some of them would like to.
> >involuntary imprisonment of deranged
> > individuals like Lisa M.
>
> So what you are saying then, is that a Psych Hospital Ward involuntary or
> voluntary imprisonment of a deranged individual is much better, because I
> assume of the assumption that if they were NOT under the *care* of some
> terminals in the Church - Lisa McPherson *might* still be alive?
I wouldn't call it both "voluntary" and "imprisonment," but yes, I think
that if Lisa had stayed in the hospital where she was, instead of going back
to the Church, she would almost certainly be both alive and long since fully
recovered from her psychotic episode.
> I do not know that I would agree with that necessarily.
>
>
> > I needn't beat that one to death,
> > though I could.
>
> I can't speak for you as to why you feel you needn't do anything, but I
can
> ask why would it need to be beaten to death??
>
> I mean, in other words - why would you want to?
I wouldn't. That's why I didn't. :-)
> > I you want to be a cafeteria Scientologist, picking out the
> > non-malevolent portions of Scientology, I have no problem with that. If
> you
> > support (as Hubbard insists you must) the totality of Keeping
Scientology
> > Working as Hubbard has stated it, you might as well be in the COS and
> > supporting OSA.
>
> Humorously speaking, That's my choices? Box A, Cafeteria Scientologist;
or
> Box B, COS/OSA Scientologist? Wow.
>
> In all seriousness, your choices are just that. Boxes. But Boxes offered
> from an outside of the boxes view, interestingly enough. A fact that
escapes
> most people who are presented with such types of "you can *choose* between
> this or this, or that" etc..
>
> I choose Scientology itself, which is - as is a Full OT - *outside* of
all
> the boxes.
>
> Even those nice spacious ones that surround the smaller ones.
Yes, you're quite right. And outside the boxes of "logic" and "objective
reality," as well, which LRH also said are wrong or worthless.
Not all boxes are bad. IMO.
<snip>
> > > Side note: Flag Order's do not supercede HCOPL's/HCOB's, as far as I
> > recall,
> > > nor do "advices" ED's, etc. etc.
> >
> > No, but neither are FOs junior to PLs or HCOBs. They are of equivalent
> > authority, but only apply to the SO.
>
> What's your reference on that Dan? Because what you are meaning, IE; any
> kind of positioning F.O.'s as equal in superiority - anywhere - to
> HCOPL's/HCOB's - is not what I recall as being the case from when I was in
> the SO.
HCO PL Issues, Types of. Recently posted, at least in part, by Warrior.
<snip>
> > > As a different view, what if "Garcia" (haven't read that yet so please
> > > excuse me if my context is wrong)..reasons properly and makes the
right
> > > decision without having to have a policy written for him?
> >
> > Then he'd still get arrested by the Waffen K*SS*W because his actions
are
> > not "per policy."
>
> No, he would not get arrested for full responsibility and true
demonstration
> of proper reasoning and correct decision making - by any true
Scientologist.
> But I do understand your point as to that there are those *Scientologists*
> who would definitely attempt to do such.
OK. Again, to me this is like an argument between Catholics and Protestants
as to what the "true faith" is. But if your version doesn't include Fair
Game and other abuses, then you have my tolerance, if not my belief.
> > > This would also be responsibility and not needing orders I would
> presume.
> >
> > Different kettle of fish. The "good" kind of "not needing orders" is
"not
> > needing orders to follow policy."
>
> I feel that to define the good kind of not needing orders as exclusively
as
> you did, is untrue.
OK. Let's both keep our own feelings about it, then.
Too late! :-)
but it
> would also be true that if someone else posted what you had written, and
you
> did not see that post, well then you *could* say that you had not heard
> of...the posts I refer to.
>
> So let me re-write the question so that it's very, very specific here, and
> please, humor me with a yes or no answer.
>
> Did you write what was in "KSW TRAP OR BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO
> UNINDOCTRINATION"?
No. Didn't write it, haven't read it, don't know who wrote it, didn't have
it ghostwritten for me, didn't dictate it, didn't type it, didn't ... well,
I think you get the picture. But if you think of some other ways I could
have been responsible for it, I deny those, too. And if there are any other
posts, writings, or other forms, editions, versions, issues, or anything
similar to whatever it is you're referring to, then I didn't have anything
to do with those, either.
> Such as....:
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "Unindoctrination Hat Part I
>
> As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent.
>
> By this I mean that we become less than adequately critical of Scientology
> and of LRH."
>
>
> Thanks.
Nope. News to me.
<snip>
> > > I am still a Scientologist, is it your premise that I need to "free my
> > mind
> > > from the cult"?
> >
> > No. I don't consider that anyone properly needs to do much of anything,
> > other than refrain from interfering with the rights of others.
>
> Question. Which rights in particular do you refer to?
Their rights to pretty much do whatever they want, and not do anything they
don't want, as long as they don't intrude by force or fraud on the rights of
others to do (or not do) the same, and allowing for common sense, such as
the fact that children have to be taken care of and can't always be allowed
to do whatever they want.
> >But you are
> > not in the cult. Adherence to a belief system, no matter how wrong (as I
> > believe most of Scientology is) or even evil (as some of Scientology is)
> is
> > not all there is to a cult. Here is an excellent definition of "cult"
from
> > an AFF conference, quoted in Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, by Tobias
and
> > Lalich:
>
> First, who defines, or sits in judgement on what *excessive* devotion or
> dedication is?
>
> The AFF..The APA...The AMA...The WFMH....the CIA/FBI....the United States
> Supreme Court....Who?
The voices in my head.
> Second, who defines what is unethical, manipulative, or coercive?
Teh definition does. They give examples in the definition. And that really
covers your previous question well enough too, IMO. A reasonable person
could look at those examples and apply them to a situation and make a
reasonable decision. It is just a definition, not a law.
> This whole definition just disintinctly sounds to me as very, very,
similar
> to the AMA, or basically allopathic medicine, sitting in judgement on all
> possible competitors of allopathic medicine. With their original
> "anti-quackery" campaign which self-servingly *defined* of course what was
> targeted as, or called "quackery" from that point forward. It was about
> money amongst other things.
This is more LRH conspiracy fantasy, although in this case he has a lot of
company outside of Scientology.
The world is full of junk medicine. It doesn't work at all. Who do you think
does the double-blind tests? AMA stooges who'll lose their jobs if they
report favorably? And who do you think makes profits on conventional drugs?
Not doctors or the AMA. Drug companies do. Regular doctors would love to
have techniques and medicines that work better than what they have now and
are cheaper. They'd be able to make more money.
"Allopathic" medicine doesn't work all the time, but it routinely performs
what would have been miracles a century or less ago, and it continually
advances. People live longer and better lives because of it. Junk medicine
takes advantage of people's need to believe in simple solutions, potions,
and magic spells. At best it rips them off. At worst it kills them by
denying them real medical treatment.
> Strikes me as incredibly self-serving.
Junk medicine is very big business and very self-serving. The problem is not
so much who is self-serving -- I do it myself now and then, at the Chinese
buffet -- but who is fraudulent.
> Third, I wonder if it can be ascertained exactly who came up with this
> definition of "cult" that is in use? Someone in The AFF?
>
> Do you know who?
That AFF conference itself was the author of that definition. It is not the
only possible definition. It's simply one I quoted to illustrate a point.
Not very successfully, it would seem.
> > "Cult: a group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
> > dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical
> > manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control (e.g.,
> > isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special
> > methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group
> > pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or
critical
> > judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving
> > it), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual
> or
> > possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."
>
>
> >
> > Many people leave the cult of COS and still believe in or pratice some
> form
> > of Scientology. That's their business, as long as they're not harming,
> > tricking, or coercing people. If they're not organizing to do the things
> in
> > the previous paragraph, they're not a cult.
>
> You're probably not going to like my humor on this, but I think it is a
good
> illustration of the self-servingness of the above definition, AND the
> missing x factor of WHO sits in judgement of or has the *authority* to
> decide perhaps legally even, what IS a cult, and what ISN"T, and then *act
> acoordingly* perhaps.
I read what you had to say below and will comment on it here. I didn't think
it succeeded in being humorous, but I don't have a problem with your saying
it. What you're saying here is very close to the OSA party line we were all
(in and out of OSA, staff and public) indoctrinated with in COS. The COS is
trying to protect its racket by saying there's no way to define a cult, and
there's really no such thing as a cult, and therefore we couldn't be a cult.
They do a tremendous disservice to society with this stance. Even if COS
were harmless as bunnies (and they're not), there are other cults out there
that are as bad and worse. The Peoples Temple is an obvious example. Same
with Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Aum Shinrikyo. The techniques they use
to control people's minds are the same ones used by COS. It isn't the
auditing, as some critics believe, that brainwashes people. It's the
essential cultic nature of COS.
I think the AFF definition of a cult is useful. The child comparison is a
straw man. Cult members are not children (usually), and adults should not be
guided, controlled, restricted, and punished the way children are. That a
practice is not a valid way of dealing with adults does not imply it is not
a valid way of dealing with children. I completely disagree with Hubbard's
assertion that children are just thetans with small bodies and insufficient
knowledge, but otherwise identical to adults.
I have a reading assignment for you. Your mission, should you choose to
accept it, is to get a copy of Seductive Poison, by Deborah Layton, and read
it. My library didn't have it, but was able to pull it in from another
library in the state. Layton was a top lieutenant of Jim Jones in the
Peoples Temple. She was involved in his version of OSA. In fact, he copied
the GO, and when they were busted in 1977, that was what made him decide to
move everything to Guyana. Layton escaped from Jonestown a few months before
the mass suicide. If you can read that book without repeatedly blurting out,
"My *God*! That is just like what happened in the Sea Org!" and, "My *God*!
That is just like what LRH did [if you knew, or if you've read Bare-Faced
Messiah]," then my hat is off to you. If you can then also say the People's
Temple was not a cult, or that there's no legitimate definition of a cult,
I'll *eat* that hat.
I don't mean to imply Scn will become another Jonestown. But they do have
all those assault rifles and snipers at the Gold base, at least according to
Andre Tabayoyan, whom I find credible.
Take care,
Dan
tannman1
--
"Virginia" <vm...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3fd8...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Wait here is a point you missed: SHE was being kept by a deranged person
and yes she would have been better of anywhere but under the care <spit> of
such a deranged group......Shame on all of you, the facts are there and
still you feel you must justify murder....yes murder. YOu know and I know
it. A religion my ass...
>
What a long strange trip it's been
-The Grateful Dead
And getting stranger
SP5 self declared granted but at least it was free thought
It's all to clear were on our own...ashes to ashes all fall dow.
Virginia
TruthSeeker recently said something similar about begging, as you, so I'll
respond similarly.
Formally, I beg to differ, she is not actually sincere.
>
> > > Note that I did not say "harmless" or "well-intentioned toward all";
> >
> > Yes, I understand.
> >
> > > but she sincerely believed she was doing what Hubbard said, the way he
> > > intended it to be done.
> >
> > Again, I beg to differ. IMO, K.O. is not what she appears.
> >
> > Per Mike, after K.O. was A.G Flag and before the disbanding of the GO,
(as
> > he recalls - this is the relevant time period), K.O. wasn't allowed to
> take
> > another post until she handled her inability to think.
>
> Well, perhaps she really did "handle" her inability to think, in some
> sense.
From my experience with her, I would say the truth is closer to... perhaps
not.
>I barely knew her when she was A/G Flag. This was years later. People
> do change, both in and out of Scientology. And obviously she had been
> allowed to take another post.
Yea, that's obvious, but look who with?
:-/
Evidence that is truly evidence, is... evidence, is it not?
> This has all the earmarks of
> a classic LRH conspiracy fantasy.
Ok.
Do you think that there are/were no conspiracies against Scientology?
>It just fits *too* perfectly the kind of
> thing he constantly dreamt up.
Such as....what conspiracies do you refer to, that you state that LRH dreamt
up?
>And Mary Sue, wearing her Manuela Saenz hat,
> would of course make sure that whatever he believed in turned out to be
> true, and reality be damned.
I would say that your statement is not factual as such. LRH's plan re
Clearwater was not followed exactly, Mary Sue was there at the time, so was
a junior of hers, K.O. AG Flag, but yet the plan was not ensured that it was
fully complied to?
If Mary Sue was "wearing her Manuela Saenz hat" as you say, and "would of
course make sure..." etc., then here is at least one example that is in
direct opposition to your representation of Mary Sue.
>
> Maybe the inability to see LRH's and MSH's "reality" was the trouble KO
was
> having with her "thinking." Just my conjecture.
Dan, Mike says: "Nope."
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > We are not silenced.
> > >
> > > That last is pretty clear. But realize that my perspective of her was
> from
> > > within the SO. I meant on her bad side as another staff or SO member.
I
> > have
> > > no idea what your experiences with her were, but if she was dealing
with
> > you
> > > as a potential SP or "squirrel" threat, then I'm sure you saw a side
of
> > her
> > > that I
> > > never did.
> >
> > Maybe..but that seems conflicting data to me. You have already indicated
> > that you have some idea of her *bad side*, which logically that would
> > ostensibly be applied to *whatever* she considers to BE *on her bad
side*.
>
> Not at all.
Yes, it would, it cannot be otherwise. Regardless of who it is with, the
actions all come from the same basic starting point you presented...ie: *her
bad side*.
>An executive dealing with incompetent juniors would be behaving
> in one fashion. That same person, dealing with public who were suspected
or
> known squirrels or SPs (in COS' view) would behave in an entirely
different
> fashion. I saw only the former, never the latter, with KO.
Question: How could you work with K.O. in OSA and never see that?
That doesn't seem possible.
Per Mike, K.O. is not ignorant of B1 Intel Ops, so ostensibly you would have
at least on one occasion observed her *bad side* in evidence in regards
actual dealing with, or ideas about dealing with, directly or indirectly,
persons on her *bad side* that were other than staff or SO.
>
> <snip>
>
> > But I'm going to put this back in, as actually I was only partially
> kidding
> > in my question, in case you missed that.
> >
> > You:
> >
> > >And we're both very short!
> >
> > Me:
> >
> > Do you both like stuffed animals?
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > So...DO you both like stuffed animals?
>
> LOL ... Ok. The answer is, not that I know of. I don't remember her ever
> having any around or mentioning any fondness for them.
>Myself, I think
> Starbucks Bearistas are intolerably cute, and every so often I'll run into
> some other stuffed animal I like, but what I mostly like them for is the
> effect they have on women when I give them away. :-)
Thanks for answering Dan.
>
> Why was this such an important question, if I may ask?
You may....
We were in a humorous discussion of similarities between you and K.O., which
you started. I played along, with another possible actual similarity that I
thought was humorous. (K.O. and her stuffed animals).
You snipped it out, without acknowledgement of any kind.
I did actually want to know if you had *this* humorous similarity as well as
the one on being *short*, so I asked you again.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > I believe one of the basic premises you are referring to (correct me
> if
> > > I'm
> > > > wrong) is that orders only occur where responsibility fails.
> > >
> > > That is the LRH claim, yes.
> >
> > Are you certain that this concept has never been covered in any way by
> > anyone else?
>
> No, but I'm certain that I don't much care.
I see.
>
> <snip>
>
> I said:
>
> > > > > and if Scientology really was capable of curing
> > > > > incompetence and stupidity, but they're not and it's not.
> > > >
>
> You replied:
>
> > > > The person who is incompetent or stupid, would be rather
instrumental
> in
> > > > recognizing and handling where they wish to see they are incompetent
> or
> > > > "stupid".
> > >
> > > I really cannot figure out what this means.
> >
> > I don't understand your point of confusion as to what I wrote. Can you
be
> > more specific?
>
> That paragraph. I have no idea at all what you mean to say there, so I
can't
> get more specific than that. Pretend I'm a three-year-old and try
explaining
> it over. Or don't.
Ok..three-year-old-ese. Hmmm.
Well, first, let's give this tried and true concept a try.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Apply that to the paragraph about handling or helping "stupid or incompetent
people".
Better now?
>
> > > > > So stupid juniors
> > > > > and stupid seniors in Scientology orgs and management prevent the
> > > > effective
> > > > > ones from getting much done.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you are also referring to the "broken straws" idea?
> > >
> > > Maybe. But I think the policy as written also invites -- no,
demands --
> > > stupid application.
> >
> > What specific parts, of what specific HCOPL "demands - stupid
> application"?
>
> I don't have the policy volumes, though I've studied damn near all of
them,
> and the important ones multiple times, so I can't give you quotes, or
dates
> and titles,
Ok, so that means to me that you won't be addressing full specifics as such.
>but here is one of the bigger ones:
>
> You have to have your stats up each and every week. If you don't, it's
> out-ethics.
That's quite over-simplified Dan, actually it's VERY over-simplified. And
that's not just a *one* policy subject either.
> Buying excuses for not having stats up each and every week is
> suppressive reasonableness.
That's not the definition of suppressive reasonableness. You're mixing
things.
>
> Yet there are many policies, and the Birthday Game, that demand long-range
> planning.
The Birthday Game was never a policy to my knowledge. I was there when the
Birthday Game first came into play.
Come to think of it more closely now, wasn't that actually originated from
the Data Series Evaluator's section locally?
I seem to remember processing telexes along those lines.
>
> You worked in External Comm. You know the insane franticness of Thursday
> Afternoon, the Scientology Sabbath (it ain't no day of rest).
Yea, I hear you. External Comm was probably THE busiest place of all, on
Thursday's.
That's where I learned the true meaning of "speed of particle flow", both
homorously and seriously speaking.
Makes ANY other *high randomity* position I've ever been around in the
non-SO world look like a total walk in the part.
So, it was valuable that way, actually.
> They are so
> wound up in weekly stats and three to four week trends that it is almost
> impossible for an exec to focus on long-range growth.
I made a similar point in my response to ED Int Bill Franks New Post Non-ex.
But there were *some* SO members who managed to focus on long range trends.
>The moment his weekly
> stats sag, management sticks a red-hot poker up his ass, and in order to
get
> immediate stats up over last week's (or month's) drop, he is forced to cut
> back or abandon the actions that would have made the org steadily grow in
> size, productivity, efficiency, and income.
I never had that experience of being "forced to cut back..." etc. etc. I
still have my graphs from my post stats - actually. Wasn't hard at all to
keep increasing my production, efficiency, etc.
>And blame it on SPs and
> out-ethics and external influences. This is all supported in LRH policy.
*Blaming* it on SPs etc is not supported in LRH policy Dan. In fact
*external influences* the "Why is God" type "explanations" are definitely
not supported.
> Well, maybe not the poker, but close enough.
LOL, very funny! Well there *were* those that loved their pokers, that's for
sure, but it only really worked on those who allowed it to work, or be
present - to my observation of a lot of SO staff anyway.
What I'm saying, is hot pokers didn't work with me, and a few other SO
members that I observed.
Ethics Policies on protection, etc. etc. was part of it. Well, I made it
part of it where some *exec* demonstrated an inability to "think".
>
> For that matter, management itself is a hoax. They demand high percentages
> of the org's income and produce mostly negative results. Yet the entire
> structure (and finance system) was designed by Hubbard and exists in
policy.
> Let me give you an example. The mission network used to be run very
loosely.
> Mission Holders had a lot of freedom to run things the way they felt would
> be best for their own missions. It was dangerously similar to free
> enterprise capitalism -- you sink or swim based on how well your paying
> customers think you're doing, not on how well management thinks you're
> doing. And, by all accounts (other than COS/RTC), the mission network was
> remarkably successful, fairly benign, and AFAIK not much involved in
GO-type
> activities. Therefore, RTC demolished it. Nowadays, missions are run
almost
> as rigidly as orgs, using strict management control in the pattern
> established by Hubbard for orgs. And they're pathetic. Most missions might
> as well not exist; there are only a handful that produce any stats worth
> counting. Whether LRH meant missions to be run that way is beside the
point.
> His mgmt "tech" ruined them.
BS. *It* (Scientology Administrative Technology as per LRH) did not *ruin*
them. The persons who took over the Church, in cooperation with others (yes,
that means the Mission Holders themselves in some cases) *Ruined* them.
>If it's not good for missions, how could it be
> good for orgs? It always *has* been ruining orgs and holding them back.
The *it* premise is false.
That *it*, is not what is ruining orgs and holding them back.
People are.
>
> And pricing. Orgs can't control their prices. They have to, by LRH policy,
> charge what amounts to more than the public thinks the product is worth,
so
> they have to use high pressure, ethics, and mind control to get them to
pay,
> and they still don't earn enough in most orgs to do more than scrape by.
> Contrast this with a regular business. There is competition, so they have
to
> price their products as low as possible while still making a profit, and
the
> only way they can make more profit is by becoming more efficient --
offering
> the same quality as the competition at a lower price, or offering higher
> quality, better service, etc. at a comparable price. LRH "knew best" that
> competition and autonomy are no good, so he outlawed them. His bumbling,
> bungling, horribly inefficient, paranoid org network is the result.
LRH did not *outlaw* competition and autonomy.
That is false.
>
> This may sound strange, coming from one who would rather *not* see
> Scientology expanding, but I have absolutely no fear that COS will take
> advice from an SP like me and start succeeding.
The COS will not truly expand with who's currently back of it yanking the
strings of *power*, that much is certain.
But then, that's the point.
They don't want it to.
> Also, I think if they did
> loosen up and start behaving sanely, a lot of the abuses we talk about
here
> would cease.
I wonder about that.
>
> > >It is only the rare genius who can actually make a silk
> > > purse out of the sow's ear of LRH Policy.
> >
> > That premise seems quite self-serving. Starting as it does, from the
> premise
> > that LRH Policy *is* a "sow's ear" to begin with.
>
> Far as I'm concerned it is. You need not agree.
It either is, or it isn't - it can't be both factually.
>
> > Do you also think that in order to apply Scientology itself correctly,
> only
> > a "genius" can do so?
>
> I assume you mean the Red on White "tech" as opposed to the Green on White
> policy?
I don't understand, why would you assume that?
> I don't think there is a "correct" way to apply a non-scientific
> non-technology, which is how I see Scientology.
The definition of Scientology states that it is the science of knowing how
to know.
Do you state that Scientology cannot be the science of knowing how to know?
And for that matter, how can you have a valid opinion concerning
Scientology, if you see no reason to truly apply it correctly in the first
place?
> There may or may not be
> something valuable in there that is not available elsewhere, but until
it's
> scientifically validated, we won't know.
This is exactly along the lines of "scientifically validated", allopathic
medicine towards all non-allopathic methods of healing.
> If there is anything, I don't think
> it's important enough for me to spend any time looking for it or trying to
> get it validated.
Scientology has long been considered important, but I agree, I believe you
don't want to spend time to have it validated.
> I think the main result of Scientology is to make people feel good and
think
> they've realized something important or overcome some inability. Sometimes
> this might be true, and other times the change in attitude (i.e. power of
> auto-suggestion) is enough to make it true.
Interesting. Self-serving, but interesting nonetheless.
> I also think this process is
> strictly limited. People reach a limit of what can be overcome just by
> thinking differently, and the rest is imaginary. At that point I think
> Scientology becomes useless, if not harmful.
I understand exactly what you are portraying here.
>I have never witnessed any
> verifiable "OT phenomena," and the few people I know who claim to have
done
> so never follow up when I ask for evidence.
I have, and Mike has. Do we have photos, videos, etc. of this?
No.
Does that actually mean that we did not experience proof of such things?
NO.
Here we go again as with Michael Tilse, with the *outside* factor being
necessary for it to BE *evidence* or *scientific proof*. In other words, it
*didn't happen* or is not *Factual* unless....well you get the idea and I'm
sure you read the exchanges between Michael Tilse and I. I see no need at
this time to reiterate all that here.
>Consequently, I have a high
> degree of confidence that it's bullshit. But I'm willing to be shown.
I'm not so sure about that Dan. Based on what you have said about all this,
I would think you would be highly likely to decide you had autosuggested
yourself, as an explanation to get a handle on the fear you would most
likely experience should you ever really see firsthand, a demonstration of a
full OT ability.
I imagine you explain things that go on around you, or in your universe even
now, with that it is autosuggestion, or like explanations.
>
> That said, no, I don't think it requires a genius to apply the red on
white
> tech in a manner that gets the characteristic results.
Excellently delivered answer, except that's not what I asked actually.
Scroll up and see.
>
> > That is why there are almost no SH
> > > sized orgs, and the ones they do make don't stay that way.
> > >
> > > > >The rules don't allow getting rid of the bad
> > > > > ones,
> > > > >and they make it almost impossible to get good ones. That's
something
> > > > > we can all be grateful for.
> > > >
> > > > Which rules (HCOPL's)?
> > >
> > > 1. Can't be removed from post or transferred or dismissed without a
comm
> > ev
> > > (a *criminal*, not an administrative, action)
> >
> > Is this a direct quote?
>
> Of course not. But it is exactly true.
No, actually your point 1, and all that is written in full above by you on
it, is not exactly true.
Point of fact, there is no designation that a commev is only a *criminal*,
not an administrative action - as you put it.
Also, there is more to what a commev can do, and when/why it can be asked
for, as opposed to *ordered* etc. etc.
>
> > I had asked for basically which HCOPL's, but perhaps that was not worded
> > clearly enough. So, could you please put which HCOPL's (names) you may
be
> > excerpting from or are referring to?
>
> No, I can't. I don't have the volumes, and I'm not about to buy them.
OK, then as I basically said before, you will not be discussing full
specifics then.
> I > proofread most of them, in Flag Mimeo, three times over for LRH
issues, so
> I'm quite familiar with them.
Aren't most of the references you are mentioning ALREADY issued prior to
your working in Mimeo? So what's to proofread then, if it's been done and
proofread already?
You presumably would also be aware, as am I, that oftentimes in this time
period, what was called new LRH issues, was not handwritten by LRH, and in
fact was in Mayo's or someone else's writing oftentimes, or even was simply
some typed relayed by Telex or Despatch document that had no way to be
verifiable as being actually written by LRH, other than the routing
*someone* put on the document.
I used to poke around mimeo from time to time you see, and I even helped
Donna out from time to time on a thing or two here and there. Plus, I saw
some telexes come down with *issues* in them RUSH RUSH...you know the drill.
Didn't the Birthday Game, for example, go *up* for approval by telex and
supporting documents mail/freight, but came down to be *sent out* to all
orgs etc., through telex lines first?
>The above is from basic staff status policy.
> You did Staff Status 2, so you would have read at some point the PL I'm
> referring to.
I'm sure I would have.
>
> > > 2. Nobody wants to get rid of anybody anyway because they're so hard
to
> > > replace and everybody's already overworked.
> >
> > OK, that's your idea there I presume.
>
> Yes. Or my observation.
Whatever, it's not a rule.
>
> > > 3. Can't hire somebody without a contract for between 2.5 and
> > 1,000,000,000
> > > years.
> >
> > What??
>
> Contract. To work in an org or in the SO you have to sign a contract.
There
> are 2.5 year contracts, 5 year contracts, and billion year contracts.
Actually, that went around and around, when it came to orgs, and even the
Sea Org, at one point.
I remember all the telexes going up and down and sideways, and then *issues*
coming out along those lines at that time.
>
> > > 4. Can't trust anybody else, can't use temps or any outsiders.
> >
> > Again, what HCOPL are you referring to, or is this your idea?
>
> Actually strictly speaking that only applies to SO and is in an FO. In
> practice it's universal but in policy it's only SO.
I thought that was an OODS item that someone turned into an FO, is that
incorrect?
That's unfair Dan. You obviously felt that it is *important* enough for you
to make the statements you did, and to call things rules, or policies when
they aren't really - but then when asked, you shove the work on providing
full specifics, to me. Which I think this is more because you know you can't
provide full specifics as being *policies* stating some of the rules you
present.
If these things are actually specifically factual that you state are rules
as such, I would think you would *want* to back them up in the expose of
"abuses" and such.
> Or,
> if you think I'm mistaken, to provide a counter-example to any of my
> assertions.
See above.
Good, because I'm not.
> I think the KO I knew
> would have meant to apply KSW. Whether she would have succeeded, I can't
> say. I could be wrong about her intentions, too. I think I'm not. You
could
> be mistaken about what you think was going on inside her head when you
> talked to her on the phone. I didn't lie, and I'm not accusing you of
lying.
> I perceived one thing, you perceived another, both about the same person.
> That's all that happened. How about we give it a rest?
It was not simply just *perception*. K.O. lied in that phone call. She lied
about *how* the report we sent got to Ben Shaw at OSA Flag.
She didn't know when she lied that I could prove, by receipts, that who sent
it was greatly narrowed down to her, basically.
And when I showed her I could prove this by process of elimination,
she...had to go now.
:-/
I am willing to let this rest - for now.
But I want you to look at something, and there is no answer desired, or
necessary at this time, unless of course you want to take it up right now.
There is an outpoint that is continually evident on this whole discussion
re: K.O., that I will begin pulling the string on one way or another at some
point.
Why, would an ex-scientologist, anti-OSA basically person, in almost every
answer on the subject of K.O. (OSA and former GO staff member), exhibit some
form of defense of her?
There is some situation back of this. I'm not saying it's necessarily *bad*,
but there is definitely something going on back of your continued defense,
or maybe even more specifically *lack* of offensive moves like you do in
regards re: LRH, Scientology, etc. etc.
>
> > Perhaps you are orienting to a *time* discrepancy point here as to how
the
> > statements could be actually not in direct opposition with each other in
a
> > truth/lie kind of way?
> >
> > Your time period of being with K.O. ended per you, prior to my
experience
> > with her, correct?
> >
> > So then, let's present the theory that between then, and summer or so
> 1999,
> > that K.O. strayed out of her pretense of being a *good* scientologist.
> >
> > It was certainly evident that she was not one when push came to shove on
> the
> > six month check cycle, back in 1999.
> >
> > Do you think that this is that our strength of position as actual
> > Scientologists caused her to inadvertently reveal her false one?
> >
> > But then, the theory of K.O. *changing* after your experience with her,
> does
> > not really pan out, because if K.O. was such a devoted etc. etc.
> > Scientologist, then why, in the 70's, did she not ensure that LRH's
plan
> > concerning Clearwater was carried out?
>
> I've really said all I care to say on all of this. And then some.
As I said, I am willing to let it rest - for now.
I hope you're not personally offended Dan. And...you brought up the point of
KSW in relationship to K.O. in the first place, correct?
And hey, I like the Outback Steakhouse.
The coconut shrimp, yum!
But *I* do care, and I don't like, Out-KSW.
>
> > > I'm
> > > not convinced that either side is right, but I believe that KO in
> dealing
> > > with you and Mike would have pushed what she honestly understood to be
> > > in-tech and KSW -- even if, as you seem to believe, she was wrong in
her
> > > understanding.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you believe wrong. There IS no "understanding" of KSW
that
> > allows K.O. to be directly or indirectly party to the sabotaging of the
> > technology of Scientology. Period.
>
> OK, then I believe wrong.
OK.
>She stuck the pin in the wrong buttock.
I wonder why she did that. But then that's the point, why didn't she put the
"pin in the...*right* buttock".
I like taking a brief turn into talking about this now in *voodoo* terms
BTW, it's amusing.
>
> > >Whereas I couldn't care less, any more than I care whether
> > > the Shi'ites or the Sunnis are right about the succession from
Muhammad,
> > or
> > > whether Christians believe the King James Version or the NIV is the
more
> > > accurate Word of God.
> >
> > I don't believe you couldn't care less about what we are talking about
> here
> > as to Scientology itself, etc.
>
> That's because you believe in it and I don't. When I believed in it, I
also
> couldn't believe how anyone could know about it yet not believe, not care.
You care enough to *attack* it, so you do yourself a disservice by trying to
present that you don't care, when it's obvious you do. For WHATEVER reason.
> Now I understand. To me, Scientology is mostly bullshit and the rest is
> either unoriginal or unverified, and there are no OTs, period.
You have no proof that there "are no OTs, period."
You have no exclusion to your statement on that, whereas I do in mine.
I say, there are no FULL OTs here on earth, yet.
BIG difference.
>I am
> perfectly comfortable with a reality that includes no Scientology, or
other
> supernatural phenomena, whatsoever.
I bet!
> You still believe it's valid. That may
> never change, and it's really none of my business.
No, I don't *believe* it's valid.
I know it is.
How can you state that it's none of your business? Obviously, you *make* it
your business when you try and have it, and people associated with it,
viewed falsely.
>
> > > Second issue: All that aside, KSW is perhaps the worst, the most evil,
> the
> > > most harmful and dangerous principle in all of Scientology.
> >
> > That is false Dan.
> >
> > It is not just
> > > about tech or how you think the upper bridge should be. It is about
> > > everything that L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote, said, sang, or filmed. If
you
> > say
> > > "KSW" like it's a good thing, then you are saying that Fair Game and
> > > harassment by litigation and involuntary imprisonment of deranged
> > > individuals like Lisa M. are good things and that people like me and
> even
> > > you yourself should be "ruin[ed] utterly."
> >
> >
> > That is also false Dan.
> >
> > Fair Game, is practiced by most critics, and quite a few "freezoner's",
is
> > point number 1.
>
> No. Critics are human,
What does that have to do with anything?
Nothing.
and people get under each other's skin, and some of
> them react badly, and the first ones react to the reactions, and some of
> them keep on reacting badly, even though they're all pretty much on the
same
> side. This happens everywhere. It is not a phenomenon unique to
Scientology,
> ex-Scientologists, or critics. It has been going since before humans
started
> walking upright. And it is not Fair Game.
Your attempted *lowering* down of what I was referring to, to a "it's just
human nature" kind of premise, is really beyond the pale.
It is Fair Game.
Other intelligent, and even famous writers understand this longstanding,
(although greatly misused) concept, quite well.
"All's fair in love and war" - is but one example of understanding of such.
>
> > As far as the critics, there are those who do state lies on more than
one
> > occasion (primarily in their zeal to try and *bring down* Scientology),
> > there are those who run their little "ops" for a "good cause" on things,
> > there are those that run "campaigns" against a person, etc. etc. etc.
>
> What critics do cannot be compared in any way to what COS does, even
though
> that comparison frequently is attempted.
Yes, it can.
> Scientology is a huge, overfunded,
> multinational corporate conglomerate that uses its vast resources to
squash
> people who cannot defend themselves. Critics aren't *able* to do that,
even
> if you believe some of them would like to.
That doesn't hold water. Especially considering what and who *some* of these
people truly are working with.
Be that as it may, anyone, is *able* to practice Fair Game. They do not
*need* a "huge, overfunded..." whatever in order to do so.
As proven by those that manage to do exactly that - Practice Fair game.
>
> > >involuntary imprisonment of deranged
> > > individuals like Lisa M.
> >
> > So what you are saying then, is that a Psych Hospital Ward involuntary
or
> > voluntary imprisonment of a deranged individual is much better, because
I
> > assume of the assumption that if they were NOT under the *care* of some
> > terminals in the Church - Lisa McPherson *might* still be alive?
>
> I wouldn't call it both "voluntary" and "imprisonment," but yes, I think
> that if Lisa had stayed in the hospital where she was, instead of going
back
> to the Church, she would almost certainly be both alive and long since
fully
> recovered from her psychotic episode.
Formally, I beg to differ on what the more basic premises of what you said,
are founded on.
However, I do understand what you are looking at.
>
> > I do not know that I would agree with that necessarily.
> >
> >
> > > I needn't beat that one to death,
> > > though I could.
> >
> > I can't speak for you as to why you feel you needn't do anything, but I
> can
> > ask why would it need to be beaten to death??
> >
> > I mean, in other words - why would you want to?
>
> I wouldn't. That's why I didn't. :-)
LOL.
>
> > > I you want to be a cafeteria Scientologist, picking out the
> > > non-malevolent portions of Scientology, I have no problem with that.
If
> > you
> > > support (as Hubbard insists you must) the totality of Keeping
> Scientology
> > > Working as Hubbard has stated it, you might as well be in the COS and
> > > supporting OSA.
> >
> > Humorously speaking, That's my choices? Box A, Cafeteria Scientologist;
> or
> > Box B, COS/OSA Scientologist? Wow.
> >
> > In all seriousness, your choices are just that. Boxes. But Boxes offered
> > from an outside of the boxes view, interestingly enough. A fact that
> escapes
> > most people who are presented with such types of "you can *choose*
between
> > this or this, or that" etc..
> >
> > I choose Scientology itself, which is - as is a Full OT - *outside* of
> all
> > the boxes.
> >
> > Even those nice spacious ones that surround the smaller ones.
>
> Yes, you're quite right.
>And outside the boxes of "logic" and "objective
> reality," as well, which LRH also said are wrong or worthless.
No, I don't believe that's what he said, as you put it.
>
> Not all boxes are bad. IMO.
No, they're not. Especially when you can change in and out of them at will.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Side note: Flag Order's do not supercede HCOPL's/HCOB's, as far as I
> > > recall,
> > > > nor do "advices" ED's, etc. etc.
> > >
> > > No, but neither are FOs junior to PLs or HCOBs. They are of equivalent
> > > authority, but only apply to the SO.
> >
> > What's your reference on that Dan? Because what you are meaning, IE; any
> > kind of positioning F.O.'s as equal in superiority - anywhere - to
> > HCOPL's/HCOB's - is not what I recall as being the case from when I was
in
> > the SO.
>
> HCO PL Issues, Types of. Recently posted, at least in part, by Warrior.
I'll check that out in a new unit of time. Thanks.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > As a different view, what if "Garcia" (haven't read that yet so
please
> > > > excuse me if my context is wrong)..reasons properly and makes the
> right
> > > > decision without having to have a policy written for him?
> > >
> > > Then he'd still get arrested by the Waffen K*SS*W because his actions
> are
> > > not "per policy."
> >
> > No, he would not get arrested for full responsibility and true
> demonstration
> > of proper reasoning and correct decision making - by any true
> Scientologist.
> > But I do understand your point as to that there are those
*Scientologists*
> > who would definitely attempt to do such.
>
> OK. Again, to me this is like an argument between Catholics and
Protestants
> as to what the "true faith" is. But if your version doesn't include Fair
> Game and other abuses, then you have my tolerance, if not my belief.
I don't have a *version*, first of all. Second of all, we already covered
that point with the whole "cafeteria scientologist box" idea you presented.
You, nor I, would ever throw aside the basic true meaning of Fair Game, were
you in a situation that truly called, correctly, for such drastic action.
Or, are you never willing to fight back where truly warranted?
That can't be true.
If there is such a person that would be that way by their own decision, (and
there are, I'm sad to say), then that person is literally an implanter's, or
mind-controller's, dream poster child for the *right* way to be.
All hail!
:-/
>
> > > > This would also be responsibility and not needing orders I would
> > presume.
> > >
> > > Different kettle of fish. The "good" kind of "not needing orders" is
> "not
> > > needing orders to follow policy."
> >
> > I feel that to define the good kind of not needing orders as exclusively
> as
> > you did, is untrue.
>
> OK. Let's both keep our own feelings about it, then.
:-/
Ok, Dan. We'll let that one rest for now, as well.
Oh well.
:-)
>
> but it
> > would also be true that if someone else posted what you had written, and
> you
> > did not see that post, well then you *could* say that you had not heard
> > of...the posts I refer to.
> >
> > So let me re-write the question so that it's very, very specific here,
and
> > please, humor me with a yes or no answer.
> >
> > Did you write what was in "KSW TRAP OR BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO
> > UNINDOCTRINATION"?
>
> No. Didn't write it, haven't read it, don't know who wrote it, didn't have
> it ghostwritten for me, didn't dictate it, didn't type it, didn't ...
well,
> I think you get the picture.
> But if you think of some other ways I could
> have been responsible for it, I deny those, too. And if there are any
other
> posts, writings, or other forms, editions, versions, issues, or anything
> similar to whatever it is you're referring to, then I didn't have anything
> to do with those, either.
I like your answer Dan, thank you for humoring me, in all senses of the
word - truly.
Your answer, while good, is not really very specific.
So, the above is what you meant by "the rights of others"?
In other words, You didn't have truly specific rights, in mind?
>
> > >But you are
> > > not in the cult. Adherence to a belief system, no matter how wrong (as
I
> > > believe most of Scientology is) or even evil (as some of Scientology
is)
> > is
> > > not all there is to a cult. Here is an excellent definition of "cult"
> from
> > > an AFF conference, quoted in Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, by Tobias
> and
> > > Lalich:
> >
> > First, who defines, or sits in judgement on what *excessive* devotion or
> > dedication is?
> >
> > The AFF..The APA...The AMA...The WFMH....the CIA/FBI....the United
States
> > Supreme Court....Who?
>
> The voices in my head.
While humorous, I see you get my point, clearly.
>
> > Second, who defines what is unethical, manipulative, or coercive?
>
> Teh definition does. They give examples in the definition. And that really
> covers your previous question well enough too, IMO.
No, it doesn't define WHO defines or decides, what is unethical,
manipulative, or coercive.
An *outside* of a "cult" person, is pretty much the norm.
For example, did you define Scientology as a cult while you were *in*?
> could look at those examples and apply them to a situation and make a
> reasonable decision. It is just a definition, not a law.
Ah, but it has been *used* to support some group being called a "cult", in
legal cases, has it not?
>
> > This whole definition just disintinctly sounds to me as very, very,
> similar
> > to the AMA, or basically allopathic medicine, sitting in judgement on
all
> > possible competitors of allopathic medicine. With their original
> > "anti-quackery" campaign which self-servingly *defined* of course what
was
> > targeted as, or called "quackery" from that point forward. It was about
> > money amongst other things.
>
> This is more LRH conspiracy fantasy,
That is a lie Dan. It is a fully documented, factual, conspiracy by the very
meaning of the word.
> although in this case he has a lot of
> company outside of Scientology.
IMO, you are now evidencing forms of it's *crazy* on this point re: the AMA.
That's not much of an argument.
I also understand why you are doing it though. You don't have a very
defensible point on this subject.
>
> The world is full of junk medicine. It doesn't work at all. Who do you
think
> does the double-blind tests? AMA stooges who'll lose their jobs if they
> report favorably? And who do you think makes profits on conventional
drugs?
> Not doctors or the AMA. Drug companies do. Regular doctors would love to
> have techniques and medicines that work better than what they have now and
> are cheaper. They'd be able to make more money.
These arguments are well used. I understand, and am quite familiar with
them.
>
> "Allopathic" medicine doesn't work all the time, but it routinely performs
> what would have been miracles a century or less ago, and it continually
> advances. People live longer and better lives because of it. Junk medicine
> takes advantage of people's need to believe in simple solutions, potions,
> and magic spells. At best it rips them off. At worst it kills them by
> denying them real medical treatment.
I never said there wasn't *any* 'junk medicine", and..neither did Joe Lisa
for that matter. In fact, he made that quite clear as I recall.
But that's part of the intelligence of that campaign, the fact that there
*are* "junk medicines", so..."let's use that to expand this, and sit in
judgement on what *is* junk medicine", and take out some things we don't
want to have around...that do, or *could* work" and affect some of those
profit lines you speak of.
There's a tight connection between the AMA, and the Drug Companies, do you
contend differently?
>
> > Strikes me as incredibly self-serving.
>
> Junk medicine is very big business and very self-serving.
Allopathic medicine is MUCH MUCH bigger, business-wise, and there is no
disputing that as fact.
I should add that, Now, they are bigger. But then...that's what was desired
at the time.
Which could be stated as "eliminate the actual, true, competition".
There was no *real* desire to promote physical wellbeing, or else why was
there no desire evident to work WITH them to truly improve physical health,
as someone who truly had physical wellbeing in mind - would do?
What evidenced itself, and still does today, is to still "Eliminate" as
*quackery (while mixing in some true "junk medicine" targets for good
measure) any real threat to allopathic medicine that works better and
cheaper.
> The problem is not
> so much who is self-serving -- I do it myself now and then, at the Chinese
> buffet -- but who is fraudulent.
How very droll.
>
> > Third, I wonder if it can be ascertained exactly who came up with this
> > definition of "cult" that is in use? Someone in The AFF?
> >
> > Do you know who?
>
> That AFF conference itself was the author of that definition.
Ok, do you know where there is a list of who was at the conference then?
> It is not the
> only possible definition.
Yes, that's a fact.
> It's simply one I quoted to illustrate a point.
> Not very successfully, it would seem.
Au Contraire.... I think you illustrated that point very well.
That's not where their disservice is, on THAT point. The disservice is in
fact, quite a different point.
> Even if COS
> were harmless as bunnies (and they're not), there are other cults out
there
> that are as bad and worse. The Peoples Temple is an obvious example. Same
> with Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Aum Shinrikyo. The techniques they
use
> to control people's minds are the same ones used by COS.
That is False, and quite a generality there.
> It isn't the
> auditing, as some critics believe, that brainwashes people. It's the
> essential cultic nature of COS.
There is no such thing, as the *essential cultic nature of COS*.
Such a statement only becomes possible when, first, you DEFINE it with the
self-serving of the anti-cult network's definition, or some other vested
interest's definition.
BTW, there are already words, some of which you are using above, to cover
what you are speaking of.
Such as, mind-control, is a great term that covers things perfectly well.
Brainwashing, etc. etc.
The invention of the definition of which you quote, is MORE manipulative
mind-control tactics, by the very people most likely, or at least one, who
actually do the real thing, and want to run around calling everyone else
"cult's".
Now, with that said, I do NOT disagree that there are NOT currently
mind-control personnel AND tactics in use in the running of the current
Church of Scientology.
But this is NOT, *due* to Scientology itself, nor is it *due* to LRH.
>
> I think the AFF definition of a cult is useful.
To me, the only thing it's useful for, is that it show just how self-serving
these mind-control types who come up with this - are.
> The child comparison is a
> straw man.
The child comparison was true, and effective, and I know you know that.
>Cult members are not children (usually), and adults should not be
> guided, controlled, restricted, and punished the way children are.
That a
> practice is not a valid way of dealing with adults does not imply it is
not
> a valid way of dealing with children.
Any practice that is a valid way of dealing with children, also is not
necessarily *always* NOT valid to be applied to an adult.
>I completely disagree with Hubbard's
> assertion that children are just thetans with small bodies and
insufficient
> knowledge, but otherwise identical to adults.
Well, *what* are they to you?
>
> I have a reading assignment for you. Your mission, should you choose to
> accept it, is to get a copy of Seductive Poison, by Deborah Layton, and
read
> it.
GREAT title. Very catchy. I'll see if I can obtain it.
>My library didn't have it, but was able to pull it in from another
> library in the state. Layton was a top lieutenant of Jim Jones in the
> Peoples Temple. She was involved in his version of OSA.
OSA and GO, are not *really* the same these days - if they ever truly were,
for that matter.
>In fact, he copied
> the GO, and when they were busted in 1977,
Ah..copied the GO......I think K.O.'s actions enter into this concept here
somewhere. Do you know what I'm talking about?
>that was what made him decide to
> move everything to Guyana. Layton escaped from Jonestown a few months
before
> the mass suicide. If you can read that book without repeatedly blurting
out,
> "My *God*! That is just like what happened in the Sea Org!" and, "My
*God*!
> That is just like what LRH did [if you knew, or if you've read Bare-Faced
> Messiah]," then my hat is off to you.
Ok, I read Bare-Faced Messiah (well...some of it anyway), and I did not do
what you are talking about.
So, I should apprise you that I am no novice to these subjects, really. I
have read a LOT, from a lot of sources, and I can tell you that that
particular reaction that is desired is not going to happen.
But I can say this, I will enjoy reading the book you mention.
> If you can then also say the People's
> Temple was not a cult, or that there's no legitimate definition of a cult,
> I'll *eat* that hat.
There is no "legitimate" definition NEEDED, as far as I'm concerned. Other
words, and terms do well enough to describe activities such as true
mind-control tactics.
And you don't have to eat your hat. Well, unless you want to that is.
Far be it from me to interfere between a man and his dinner.
:-)
>
> I don't mean to imply Scn will become another Jonestown. But they do have
> all those assault rifles and snipers at the Gold base, at least according
to
> Andre Tabayoyan, whom I find credible.
Yes, I know what you're looking at. But then...those weapons didn't get
there by theirselves now did they.
Also, to reprise:
"The scary part, is as I just showed, is that someone has to define, or
target someone or group AS a cult. And.....WHO (however well hidden)
usually defines the targets makes the so-called classified *cults* look
like innocent babes by comparison.
And I mean that both figuratively and literally."
>
> Take care,
You too Dan.
Virginia
Warrior
>> out-ethics.
In article <3fd9...@news2.lightlink.com>, Virginia says...
>
>That's quite over-simplified Dan, actually it's VERY over-simplified.
It may be simple, but I think what Dan said is true. "Stats" are down
because somebody held them down, according to Hubbard. And down
"stats" are considered an indicator of "out ethics".
Ed
Virginia wrote:
>
> "Dan Garvin" <NOdangS...@skyenet.net> wrote in message
>.
> [snip to this part]
>
> Again, I beg to differ. IMO, K.O. is not what she appears.
>
> Per Mike, after K.O. was A.G Flag and before the disbanding of the GO, (as
> he recalls - this is the relevant time period), K.O. wasn't allowed to take
> another post until she handled her inability to think.
>
> I would think, that this may have something to do with her *handling* of the
> Clearwater scene. IE: Per Mike, the Mafia wanted the Fort Harrison building
> at a low price to turn it into one of their gambling casino's. So the Mafia
> was trying to degrade downtown Clearwater in order to lower real estate
> prices so that they could buy the Fort Harrison at a cheaper price.
Huh? I would assume that once the C of S owns the FH they are
not going to sell it and it is never going to be anyone's casino. I
could see the Mafia wanting to drive down real estate values in CW if
they had some other downtown site in mind for a casino. I guess you
are suggesting that the Mafia figured if they drove down the values in
downtown CW the FH would decline in value and C of S would want to go
elsewhere.
Atlantic City opened up in 1975 as I recall and almost immediately
many eastern states wanted to legalize casinos to save some of the
money their citizens were taking away to blow in Atlantic City.
Florida had a referendum in 1976, the first other state to do so,
because the kind of interests who wanted casinos saw a goldmine and
they believed the referendum would pass. But the people of Florida
turned down casinos by a near 2-1 margin that was so sweeping that it
chilled the casino gambling cause in all the other states for at least
15 years. I would figure that there was a period of a year or so when
there would have been a spectacular land rush by the Mafia and other
creeps to gobble up appropriate sites for casinos, and indeed the FH
would have been a prime site. I may be wrong, but I think C of S got
the FH before the land rush began.
This is all interesting, and I'm not arguing. I think the analysis
Mike offered was correct.
So LRH's
> handling was, clean up and beautify downtown Clearwater. Go in there and
> make it nice, real estate prices go up, then the mafia would be less likely
> to want it anymore. In other words, undermine the Mafia's plan to degrade
> downtown Clearwater and thereby drive down the real estate prices. What Mike
> heard, is that LRH's plan as above, was never really carried out, and
> obviously someone else had a *better* idea of how to *handle* this.
>
[snip the rest of long post]
Virginia
I understand, but it's still very over-simplified.
Virginia
OT III
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Virginia:
Hey sexy lady! You are OT with me! (SMILE)
INCOMM is one of the best stories I have read recently regarding
"good hearted kook Scientologists" protecting their software infrastructure"
A Security leak is a security leak, that is all. It is not like the whole WORLD
was affected! (SMILE)
OT III.