shills
Starshadow
In article <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says...
> And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that
they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them
being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is
the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is
the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing,
and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much
rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in
communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and
indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions,
I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't
like it.
>
> jana
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
mor...@gte.net
And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
jana
Claire Swazey
> > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
>
> they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them
> being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
>
> I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is
> the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is
> the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing,
> and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
>
> The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much
> rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in
> communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and
> indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions,
> I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't
> like it.
>
> >
> >
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
> Bright Blessings,
>
> Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Thanks.
John S.
Ron Newman
> And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
What guess? The Swazeys strike me as sincere, even if misguided and
somewhat unaware of the true nature of the organization they are defending.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Starshadow
> In article <MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
> stars...@mindless.com says...
> >
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that
> >they are lying. Just my guess.
> >
> >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> >support.
>
> There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
> regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
> the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
>
> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
> honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
> member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
> to spot BS.
>
> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
>
> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much of
> the BS.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
>
But still, Warrior, what does their phone number have to do with this,
if true?
Starshadow
> Starshadow wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says...
> > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> > > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
> >
> > being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
> >
> > I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is
> > the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is
> > the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing,
> > and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
> >
> > willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> > rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in
> > communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and
> > indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions,
> > I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't
> > like it.
> >
> > >
> > > jana
> > >
> > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> > >
> >
> > Bright Blessings,
> >
> > Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
>
>
> John S.
>
You're welcome. I don't think this is the moral high ground here. To me
this phone number thing isn't a lot different than the bigot leaflets
that show up in neighborhoods.
Warrior
rne...@thecia.net says...
>
>In article <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net wrote:
>
>> And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
>> the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
>> perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
>> are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
>> between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
>> BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
>> dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
>> Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
>
>somewhat unaware of the true nature of the organization they are defending.
One of the Swazeys (John, I believe) had mischaracterized my questions
as being "concerned with their posting to ars". I replied that I was
not concerned, and that if I was concerned, I would have already contacted
the DSA Seattle. But I really do support freedom of speech, and I am
not into turning Scienos in to Scientology's OSA or "ethics section"
because they post here. I'll leave the "ratting" and "handling" duties
to the little tattletales (Scienos).
Jana used the word "guess" (in quotes) because I did not *guess* where
the Swazeys are "on lines". There was no "guessing" involved -- just
*real* "OT abilities". <nyuk nyuk nyuk...> ;-)
Comprende?
Warrior
stars...@mindless.com says...
>
>In article <6nsfu7$t...@drn.newsguy.com>, wasr...@entheta.net says...
>> In article <MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
>> stars...@mindless.com says...
>> >
>> >they are lying. Just my guess.
>> >
>> >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
>> >support.
>>
>> There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
>> regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
>> the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
>>
>> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
>> honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
>> member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
>> to spot BS.
>>
>> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
>> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
>> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
>>
>> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much of
>> the BS.
>>
>> Warrior
>> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
>>
> But still, Warrior, what does their phone number have to do with this,
>if true?
Nothing. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Some individuals had speculated that the Swazeys were trolls. If
someone wanted to, he/she could easily call the Swazeys. Their phone
number is public information, but even still, I never posted it.
Warrior
See http://www.factnet.org
Warrior
stars...@mindless.com says...
>
>I don't think this is the moral high ground here. To me this phone
>number thing isn't a lot different than the bigot leaflets that
>show up in neighborhoods.
Calling someone up to chat in person is very much different
from anonymously smearing someone's reputation through
the spreading of lies, half-truths and innuendo. One is
simple communication; the other is harrassment.
Besides, no one posted the Swazeys' phone number.
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
Tilman Hausherr
>The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years.
>There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
>regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
>the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
>
>With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
>honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
>member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
>to spot BS.
Relax. Yes, some of what they said has no connection to the actual
reality. It is wishful thinking, double-think, "lying into your own
pocket", etc. But consider yourself while you were a member - you would
have defended scientology the same way, i.e. making up explanations
(like Claire about disconnection) in the hope of proving that a
disgusting policy is actually not disgusting.
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Warrior
>
>In <6nsfu7$t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Warrior <wasr...@entheta.net> wrote:
>
>>The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years.
>>There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
>>regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
>>the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
>>
>>With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
>>honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
>>member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
>>to spot BS.
>
>Relax. Yes, some of what they said has no connection to the actual
>reality. It is wishful thinking, double-think, "lying into your own
>pocket", etc. But consider yourself while you were a member - you would
>have defended scientology the same way, i.e. making up explanations
>(like Claire about disconnection) in the hope of proving that a
>disgusting policy is actually not disgusting.
I did accept the lie that disconnection was necessary for "my own good".
But I have never been the sort of person who would have actually
misrepresented Scientology policy regarding disconnection, not
even to "wogs" who wouldn't have known better if I had chosen to
misrepresent (lie about) LRH policy and/or practices of Scientology
and Scientologists regarding disconnection.
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
mor...@gte.net
stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
>
> In article <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says...
> > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
>
> being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
>
You are entitled to believe what you like. Claire has said that she was a
staff member, and that she has been associated with several orgs. It is NOT
Possible that she has not experienced the pervasiveness of disconnection.
> I mean, they've already admitted that they are in Seattle. So what is
> the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is
> the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing,
> and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
I must have missed their message in which they admitted that they are in
Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that they
are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little.
You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a daughter
who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of child
abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of
parents who have lost children to the cult are legion. Until you are among
their number, then back off. Had I wanted people to call them, I would have
posted the telephone number. I might post it yet, if I feel like it. Your
pleasure is totally immaterial to me. I will point out that Claire gets her
stats up for causing so called critics to flame each other. Perhaps you like
that?
jana
>
> The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
Martin Hunt
>You are entitled to believe what you like. Claire has said that she was a
>staff member, and that she has been associated with several orgs. It is NOT
>Possible that she has not experienced the pervasiveness of disconnection.
I agree. Even at the mission or Class V org level, disconnection
is commonplace. I lost count of the number of staff that told me
they were disconnected from someone or other, and I was instructed
to disconnect from family members myself. Disconnection is probably
more common that going "clear" in the cult. It should be on the
bridge, just above the purif and before the grades: the level, the
exalted state of disconnection.
For those that don't know, disconnection is Scientology's policy to
sever ties with family members in an attempt to keep the mark under
close wraps and free of influences that might make them wake up
to the crap they are being sold. Scientology swore off this practice
in the 1960s, but, of course, it's still going on. Read the post
from anonymous about his 15-year-old daughter being recruited into
the SO. He fears disconnection, as many do. It is the single
biggest stick to keep people silenced who would otherwise be
talking about the cult in a less than positive manner. Disconnection
is held over their heads as a threat; pity the people who have
family, friends, and loved-ones in the cult. If they would only
all stand up at once, demand access, refute disconnection, speak
out, and go en-mass and picket the damn cult, it would cave in.
But individually, they are cowed by the blackmail: "speak out,
and you'll never talk to your (child, parent, sister, brother,
friend, relative) again!"
>I must have missed their message in which they admitted that they are in
>Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that they
>are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little.
>You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a daughter
>who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of child
>abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of
>parents who have lost children to the cult are legion.
Hundreds of thousands would be my guess. Hundreds of thousands of
people living under the whip and fear of the psychological terrorizing
of disconnection. It is a heinous practice, even worse than fair
game in the impact it has on such a large number of people.
>Until you are among
>their number, then back off. Had I wanted people to call them, I would have
>posted the telephone number. I might post it yet, if I feel like it. Your
>pleasure is totally immaterial to me. I will point out that Claire gets her
>stats up for causing so called critics to flame each other. Perhaps you like
>that?
<shrug> I think you might be resorting to the same tactics as Scn
might use, but you're simply, in that case, one wrong individual.
Scientology is a wrong and evil corporate entity with lawyers and
PIs and intelligence officers to go to war for it, and that will
always be my focus. Even people like Godeka don't give me pause for
a second or make me think such Scn lies as "critics are no better
than the cult". First of all, *which* critics? We're all individuals.
Very few of us take the same approach; there seems almost as many
tactics as there are critics of the cult. Some of us don't even
like the term "critics", preferring to be called activists, free
thinkers, skeptics, observers, etc. There isn't a group to name.
>> I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions,
>> I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't
>> like it.
I don't like it, either. And that's probably the only thing Starshadow
and I share in common. :-)
Jana is a good person who has, IMHO, made a bad choice - or is about
to. Didn't she merely talk about posting the phone number? In any case,
there's no need to post it; almost all phone number are on the internet
already, including, no doubt, the people in question. After all,
phone numbers are not private information - not unless they're
unlisted. The thing is put into a book, if you can believe this,
and sent out to hundreds of thousands of houses all over the place,
and put into libraries, on the internet, and on CD ROM. No, I couldn't
call a phone number a private piece of information. Still, there's
something wrong about posting a Scientologist's number to ars,
something ineffable. I think it's more about politeness than
privacy of information. I tell you what; apply the golden rule.
I'd frankly dislike to see my phone number, 1-250-380-2025, posted
on Scientology's list. I'm sure the Scientologists in question
would consider such actions to be reverse fair gaming. It would
only be a negative thing. I can get their number if I want it, as
can anyone else. Posting it here would be off-topic, rude, and only
drive the poor deluded cult members deeper in with their us vs them
attitude. They'd only raise the drawbridge on you.
ttyl,
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"The message is that in combatting entheta articles and
books, legal should be aggressive, fast, persistent and
untiring." - Jane Kember, Guardian World Wide.
Starshadow
> In article <MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says...
> > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> > > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
> >
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that
> > they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them
> > being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
> >
>
> staff member, and that she has been associated with several orgs. It is NOT
> Possible that she has not experienced the pervasiveness of disconnection.
>
> > the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is
> > the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing,
> > and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
>
> Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that they
> are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little.
> You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a daughter
> who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of child
> abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of
> their number, then back off. Had I wanted people to call them, I would have
> posted the telephone number. I might post it yet, if I feel like it. Your
> pleasure is totally immaterial to me. I will point out that Claire gets her
> stats up for causing so called critics to flame each other. Perhaps you like
> that?
You know, you are the one flaming here. If you are so angry you are
willing to strike out at anyone who disagrees with you, no matter their
purpose, then we really have no possible way of communicating on this
matter. you have your mind made up, and that is obviously that.
But I'm not going to back off on this one. I stated that I don't like
outing, or threatened outing, when Scns do it, and I don't like it when
critics do it. No difference.
You apparently want to shut up any possible way of dialogue with any
'fessed Scn member, and that is your problem. You aren't being very
discriminating in your targets.
But this is Usenet, do carry on. As will I.
>
> jana
> >
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> > willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> > support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much
> > rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in
> > communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and
> > indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions,
> > I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't
> > like it.
> >
> > >
Starshadow
says...
actually.
My feeling about the Swazeys is they are defending what they can,
which most of us here believe is indefensible. And notice I did say that
I wasn't arguing about asking them the hard questions.
Really, Jana, you are lashing out at the wrong target here.
Peace, sister. :)
Warrior
>
>Well, we have been Scientologists for years. And it really is rare.
>
>Your friend,
>Claire
I know. Most individuals leave the cult shortly after becoming
involved.
Warrior
>>
>> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
>> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
>> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
In article <35A42D86...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>Actually, I have not. I haven't been sent by anybody. Anyway, which is
>it, first you want to say that I must be here against CofS wishes, then
>you alternate this absurd claim with the even more absurd claim that
>maybe I am working out a liability formula and now it's a PR game. What
>this tells me is that you don't know what I'm doing here, but you are
>going to try and press different buttons til something goes beep.
Ah, but it is a PR game. What I said was that Scientologists are not
supposed to post here unless they have approval. I also stated that
posting here is a violation of an issue written by Ron Chester of OSA
-- an issue in which he quoted some policies by L Ron Hubbard concerning
being connected to "SP" persons and groups and how they apply to Scienos
posting to ars. I never said you were "sent by anybody". But I did say
you are playing a PR game. And by speculating that maybe you are doing
a liability formula, it in no way excludes the others as possibilities.
In other words, all may be simultaneously true, just as it is true
that you are indeed a slimy Q&A artist!
Call it pressing buttons if you wish. But you are either in violation of
policy by posting here (without permission or approval) or you do have
permission or approval to post here.
Which is it?
Warrior
See http://www.factnet.org
Warrior
>obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
>outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
>fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
>posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
>willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
>amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
You are most irrational my poor little rondroid. There is no
uncomfortableness nor is there any unwillingness on my part
to accept how you feel. I just take exception to your
misrepresentations of Scientology's policy and practices
regarding disconnection. You speak with a forked tongue.
See my posting earlier today entitled "Disconnection". I
quoted from Hubbard's policy (on "Suppressive Persons"
and "Suppressive Acts") as it relates to disconnection.
Will you deny the words of your Scientology cult's dead founder,
L Ron Hubbard?
Go ahead and tell another lie.
And tell us how "rare" disconnection is for the hundreds of
individuals listed on Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992, which
is a list of persons and groups declared "SP" by Scientology.
Warrior
>
>So we are not in agreement. And your experiences with Scn have
>obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
>outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
>fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
>posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
>willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
>amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
And tell us how "rare" disconnection is for the hundreds of
individuals listed on Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992, which
is a list of persons and groups declared "SP" by Scientology.
The list of individuals declared "SP" is over 50 pages, with 42
names per page. So there are over 2100 "SPs" listed. (The rest
of the issue contains a listing of "SP groups".)
No Scientologist in good standing is permitted to communicate with
persons listed in this ED per HCO PL 23 December 1965RB, "SUPPRESSIVE
ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS".
This is the *same* policy letter I quoted from earlier, Claire.
It is mandated by this policy that Scientologists must disconnect
from persons declared "SP".
You, Claire, are a slimy Q&A artist, playing a PR game for your cult.
Here's a snippet from the ED, which has been posted to ars before
numerous times.
Warrior
*******
FLAG ED 283ORB
25 July 1992
TO: ALL E/Os ALL ORGS AND MISSIONS
SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS AND SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS LIST
This issue is the list of declared suppressive persons and suppressive
groups. It is for your use to safeguard the lines of your Org or Mission
and to ensure that these individuals or members of these groups are not
connected to or on lines at your Org or Mission in any way. Reference:
HCO[TM] PL 23 December 1965RB, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY
AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.
Warrior
>personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which
>may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do
>not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held,
>any more than I need to let you know my bra size.
You really try hard to divert my attention away from getting a few
simple questions answered. It won't work, Claire.
Whether intentionally or through blissful ignorance, you still lied
about disconnection. Deo spotted it. Dennis spotted it. Jana spotted
your lies. And so did I.
I assert that if you have been in the Scientology cult for a number
of years (as you have said), then there is NO way you could not be
aware of Hubbard's policies on disconnection. Are you ashamed to
admit whether you have done the "PTS/SP Course"?
Now, you can try to deflect the question and divert attention by talking
about drug dealers, your bra size and so forth, but these have NOTHING to
do with the questions DeoMorto and I have asked on Scientology's policies
on disconnection.
Do I need to point out which policies on communication and answering
people's questions you are in violation of?
Come on and answer the questions I asked, you slimy little Q&A artist.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net
Claire Swazey
>
> In article <MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
> stars...@mindless.com (Starshadow) wrote:
> >
> > In article <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mor...@gte.net says...
> > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> > > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
> >
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that
> > they are lying. Just my guess. But what does that have to do with them
> > being in the phone book? What difference does that make?
> >
>
> staff member, and that she has been associated with several orgs. It is NOT
> Possible that she has not experienced the pervasiveness of disconnection.
>
> > the big deal here, trying to get people to call them up or what? What is
> > the purpose here? I don't like it when the Scns do this kind of thing,
> > and I also don't like it when the critics do it.
>
> Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that they
> are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little.
> You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a daughter
> who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of child
> abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of
> their number, then back off. Had I wanted people to call them, I would have
> posted the telephone number. I might post it yet, if I feel like it. Your
> pleasure is totally immaterial to me. I will point out that Claire gets her
> stats up for causing so called critics to flame each other. Perhaps you like
> that?
I am a public person. I don't have stats to "get up". My purposes in
posting the emails were to put my own two cents in. If you disagree
with me and say so, as you have, that's fine. I know that not
everyone's experiences are the same as mine, for reasons I have covered
in previous posts and will probably feel free to discuss again. I have
no problem with that, nor should I have a problem with that. But
obviously the feeling is not mutual. I am sorry for that, but I know the
thing about usenet, and this newsgroup in particular is that we are not
all going to agree on these issues. Not even all the anti-Scn people
agree with all the other anti-Scn people, so of course if I craved
agreement I would be doomed to disappointment. I like to put my two
cents in on issues that I have an interest in, and I do tell the truth
as I know it to be. I am truly sorry if this distresses or "tweaks" you
in any way. I do not feel particularly distressed or tweaked.
Regards,
Claire
>
> jana
> >
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> > willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> > support. I disagree with their support of the "church", but would much
> > rather address those aspects which I am in disagreement with, when in
> > communication with someone willing to show respect to me as a poster, and
> > indeed to most critics. I'm not saying don't ask them the hard questions,
> > I'm asking what relevance their phone number has to this. I just don't
> > like it.
> >
> > >
> > > jana
> > >
> > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Bright Blessings,
> >
> > Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
> >
>
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>,
> stars...@mindless.com says...
> >
> > My belief is that they haven't experienced its pervasiveness, not that
> >they are lying. Just my guess.
> >
> > The Swazeys have been pretty straightforward, insofar as they are
> >willing to endure questions about their beliefs and the org those beliefs
> >support.
>
> The Swazeys have claimed that they have been Scientologists for years.
> There is no way that they could not be aware of Scientology policies
> regarding disconnection, "SPs" and "PTSes". So for them to be making
> the statements about disconnection being rare, etc. is bullshit.
Well, we have been Scientologists for years. And it really is rare.
But rare does not mean never. And that does not mean abuses do not
occur. It's always sad when LRH policy isn't applied standardly, huh
Warrior? :-) But seriously, I'm not making this stuff up. I cover it
again in my post today responding to Jour's Questions for Claire
posting, I imagine you may find that interesting...
>
> With all due respect, Starshadow, the Swazeys have NOT been completely
> honest in their postings. From what I have gathered, you were never a
> member of Scientology, so I don't expect you to have the same ability
> to spot BS.
I have been honest. Although I admit that I refuse to divulge private
personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which
may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do
not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held,
any more than I need to let you know my bra size.
>
> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
Actually, I have not. I haven't been sent by anybody. Anyway, which is
it, first you want to say that I must be here against CofS wishes, then
you alternate this absurd claim with the even more absurd claim that
maybe I am working out a liability formula and now it's a PR game. What
this tells me is that you don't know what I'm doing here, but you are
going to try and press different buttons til something goes beep.
>
> Of course, even those who never were members can and do spot much of
> the BS.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
So we are not in agreement. And your experiences with Scn have
obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
This should not bother you, Warrior. You knew there were still
Scientologists around,right? I mean, of course you didn't know about my
unique singular qualities, but still, you need (IMNSHO) to get
accustomed to the fact that someone could have a totally different
outlook from you and actually not be lying.
If you were to think I was incorrect,which you do, fine. But I'm just
amazed at your inability to add 2 and 2 together and get anything other
than a held-down 7.
Your friend,
Claire
Steve A
> And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
Please do not get any ideas about posting phone numbers.
--
Practicing medicine without a licence? You decide:
"Step Four - Cures for Illness
You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses
of the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing
them off. "Cures for Illness" will then cease to read.
[NOTS 34, Fair Use excerpt]
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12.
<SARCASM>I am a Scientologist</SARCASM>
mor...@gte.net
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 02:46:12 GMT, mor...@gte.net wrote:
>
> > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
>
> Please do not get any ideas about posting phone numbers.
I never had any idea of posting phone numbers in the first place. If I had
that idea, I would long ago posted the private numbers for Travolta, Cruise,
Alley, Mary Sue, and others which I have in my voluminous collection.
jana
>
> --
> Practicing medicine without a licence? You decide:
> "Step Four - Cures for Illness
> You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses
> of the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing
> them off. "Cures for Illness" will then cease to read.
> [NOTS 34, Fair Use excerpt]
>
> Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12.
> <SARCASM>I am a Scientologist</SARCASM>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Claire Swazey
> >
> >Claire
>
> I know. Most individuals leave the cult shortly after becoming
> involved.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Yeah.Sure. That's why I see so few blown public these days and know so
many long-time Scientologists.
Claire Swazey
right with you...
Warrior wrote:
>
> In article <35A42D86...@home.com>, Claire says...
> >
> >I have been honest. Although I admit that I refuse to divulge private
> >personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which
> >may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do
> >not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held,
> >any more than I need to let you know my bra size.
>
Claire Swazey
> >obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
> >outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
> >fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
> >posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
> >willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
> >amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
>
> individuals listed on Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992, which
> is a list of persons and groups declared "SP" by Scientology.
>
> The list of individuals declared "SP" is over 50 pages, with 42
> names per page. So there are over 2100 "SPs" listed. (The rest
> of the issue contains a listing of "SP groups".)
>
> No Scientologist in good standing is permitted to communicate with
> persons listed in this ED per HCO PL 23 December 1965RB, "SUPPRESSIVE
> ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS".
>
> This is the *same* policy letter I quoted from earlier, Claire.
> It is mandated by this policy that Scientologists must disconnect
> from persons declared "SP".
>
> You, Claire, are a slimy Q&A artist, playing a PR game for your cult.
Oh, you're so beautiful when you're angry...
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> >Warrior wrote:
> >>
> >> It is so damned obvious to me that they have been playing a PR game
> >> here on the NG. But you would probably have to have been a member
> >> to be able to spot _all_ the bullshit Scientologists post here.
>
> In article <35A42D86...@home.com>, Claire says...
> >
> >Actually, I have not. I haven't been sent by anybody. Anyway, which is
> >it, first you want to say that I must be here against CofS wishes, then
> >you alternate this absurd claim with the even more absurd claim that
> >maybe I am working out a liability formula and now it's a PR game. What
> >this tells me is that you don't know what I'm doing here, but you are
> >going to try and press different buttons til something goes beep.
>
> Ah, but it is a PR game. What I said was that Scientologists are not
> supposed to post here unless they have approval. I also stated that
> posting here is a violation of an issue written by Ron Chester
Ron Chester? OSA? I have only seen such an article on this ng and as
you know, this ng is not source of policies Scientological. Nay, other
blessings of an entirely different sort flow from this ng...
So I am not going to take this ng's data as to what a Scientologist
should or shouldn't do as anything that can be seen here would be
apocryphal,at best.
> of OSA
> -- an issue in which he quoted some policies by L Ron Hubbard concerning
> being connected to "SP" persons and groups and how they apply to Scienos
> posting to ars. I never said you were "sent by anybody". But I did say
> you are playing a PR game.
No,I'm just putting my two cents in,same as you are doing.
> And by speculating that maybe you are doing
> a liability formula, it in no way excludes the others as >possibilities.
> In other words, all may be simultaneously true, just as it is true
> that you are indeed a slimy Q&A artist!
Sticks'n'stones,muh man, sticks'n'stones.
>
> Call it pressing buttons if you wish. But you are either in violation of
> policy by posting here (without permission or approval)
As I have stated before, several orgs know that I am posting here, and
have said they do not care if I do. That would, I believe, constitute
approval and implied permission.
> or you do have
> permission or approval to post here.
>
> Which is it?
See above.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.factnet.org
Yours,
Claire
Warrior
>> In article <35A42D86...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>> >
>> >Well, we have been Scientologists for years. And it really is rare.
>> >
>> >Your friend,
>> >Claire
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> I know. Most individuals leave the cult shortly after becoming
>> involved.
In article <35A4EAB0...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>
>Yeah.Sure. That's why I see so few blown public these days and know so
>many long-time Scientologists.
Well, there are certain to be fewer to blow if fewer are joining to
begin with. And if one remains in Scientology for a number of years
as you have done, then it stands to reason that you know so many
long-time Scientologists.
My observation has been that most people who get involved don't stay
very long. That goes for staff *and* for public. From various posts
I held in the Sea Org, I was able to observe the actual facts of the
matter.
As Treasury Secretary and FP Chairman, it was my responsibility to
check the list of staff names on the payroll. Staff were "fitness
boarded", "beached", blew or were declared "SP" as fast as the new recruits
joined. This was true over an 8 year time period I was in the Sea Org.
The "crew list" always remained right around 100 names. This is what
Scientology calls "expansion".
As Address Officer and Computer I/C, I was in charge of maintaining
the mailing list, so again I was in a position to observe facts.
I entered literally thousands of names of individuals who were either
declared "SP", "DF" (deadfiled for entheta), "X" (dropped the body),
"ASK" (asked off the mailing list), "L" (legal threats made to Scn),
"PTS" and "UNK" (unknown address).
It's because of my positions inside Scientology, using their own data,
that I was able to *know* that the claim of "8 million members" is
an ABSOLUTE and FABRICATED LIE.
Warrior
See http:www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> In article <35A42D86...@home.com>, Claire says...
> >
> >So we are not in agreement. And your experiences with Scn have
> >obviously been different than mine and so you don't have the same
> >outlook as I have.Well,it would be odd if you did.I can deal with the
> >fact that you feel as you do, yet it seems to me from things you have
> >posted in the past four days or so, that you are not comfortable with or
> >willing to accept the fact that I could have been in Scn for a goodly
> >amount of time with a variety of experiences, and still feel as I do.
>
> You are most irrational my poor little rondroid.
Ooh,Warrior feels sorry for me. Oh boy.
> There is no
> uncomfortableness nor is there any unwillingness on my part
> to accept how you feel.
Well,that is obviously not true.
> I just take exception to your
> misrepresentations of Scientology's policy and practices
> regarding disconnection. You speak with a forked tongue.
Nah.
>
> See my posting earlier today entitled "Disconnection". I
> quoted from Hubbard's policy (on "Suppressive Persons"
> and "Suppressive Acts") as it relates to disconnection.
>
> Will you deny the words of your Scientology cult's dead founder,
> L Ron Hubbard?
Nah.
>
> Go ahead and tell another lie.
Haven't told any so far.
>
> And tell us how "rare" disconnection is for the hundreds of
> individuals listed on Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992, which
> is a list of persons and groups declared "SP" by Scientology.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
I am telling you that it is rare. But rare does not mean never. One of
the reasons I wrote the original Disconnection post was that I had been
seeing posts on the ng regarding events (that may or may not have even
been true,but for sake of argument I've been going with the assumption
that they were true) wherein Scn'ologists were disconnecting,
willy-nilly, from young school-aged children, from family members who
just happened not to be Scientologists,etc. Where disconnection was
(alleged to be) used like a sword, hurting people and families. I wrote
a post wherein I said that this is not what disconnection is about.
That one is encouraged to work things out with said family members,using
my own very non-Scientological family as a case in point, and using this
guy that I know- his marriage- as a case in point. However, neither my
folks nor this guy's wife have ever been declared. The number of people
on the planet that are declared SP is a very small number in relation to
how many people there are, within the Church, and outside the
Church,too. I had also said in this post that if someone were to pull
this crap where they used disconnection as some kind of moral blackmail
against a family member who was a non-Scientologist (and remember, such
a family member would NOT have an expell/declare status) that this would
be wrong, and that it would be an abuse, and that such a person was
probably a dickhead before he got into Scientology. I stand by this.
But I never said that people don't get expelled and declared and that
they would then be free to hang out with anyone they pleased. But I
look at it this way (and I don't think you will have the same
viewpoint,but that can't be helped) that if someone was really a
sociopath then such an expell/declare order would be valid and I would
not be anxious to hang out with such a person. Like I said to Jour, my
husband's dad was disconnected from by his whole family (and only one of
those family members-John- is a Scientologist) 'cause the guy is just
plain toxic. It is this type of disconnection that the Church would be
in favor of. If someone is a real dyed-in-the-wool SP,
sociopath,anti-social personality,major dickhead, whatever you want to
call it, then one would be well advised to stay the hell away from such
a person. If the person who is expelled and declared does not deserve
it or has changed since the expell/declare order, then that
expell/declare can be either lifted or reversed. I know whereof I speak
as John and I have had this happen,ourselves.An erroneous/incorrect
expell/declare was issued and then reversed in our case.
So, yes, Warrior there are people who have this status and the policies
state what they state about them. That is true. It is also true that in
Hubbard's writings a person is called upon to do what *he* thinks is
right. When I was expelled, most of my Scientology friends still hung
out with me. The ones who didn't want to had not been particularly good
or consistent friends even before the expell/declare was issued.
Really, a number of Scientologists reached out to me, (before I got the
reversal done) and gave me advice on what,per policy, and in their
opinions, I might do to resolve such a situation. I felt fortunate and
surrounded by some pretty great people.
Once again, my original post was regarding the commonality of the use of
disconnection to bust up families, and my own take on it. And, I have
been on-lines at a number of Orgs and Missions, and I am telling you
that disconnections were uncommon. But not unheard of. But then again
most families where a person becomes a Scientologist and gets a little
flack from the sibs and parental units, are (other than the
Scientologist) non-Scn families wherein one could not find an
expell/declare status amoung the individuals.
I deplore the action of anyone who uses this line of thinking:"You won't
join my religion? Well, I'm going to disconnect from you.That will show
you." Some of the postings I had seen on that subject were, if they did
happen (and they sure could have, as there can be abuses, Scientology
does not confer sainthood) sad. But Hubbard even has a policy wherein
he deplores that sort of manipulative crappy behavior.
I am truly sorry that you mistook my motives, and meanings.
Claire
>
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> In article <35A42D86...@home.com>, Claire says...
> >
> >I have been honest. Although I admit that I refuse to divulge private
> >personal information about myself that you do not need to know, which
> >may constitute a bit of an evasion, still I have not been lying. I do
> >not need to tell you about what services and posts I've taken and held,
> >any more than I need to let you know my bra size.
>
> You really try hard to divert my attention away from getting a few
> simple questions answered. It won't work, Claire.
Aw c'mon, not even a little? :-) But seriously, my training and case
level are truly none of your business.
>
> Whether intentionally or through blissful ignorance, you still lied
> about disconnection. Deo spotted it. Dennis spotted it. Jana spotted
> your lies. And so did I.
I have not been lying. And what Dennis spotted were some inherent
philosophical differences between his point of view and my point of view
vis a vis the Church of Scn. And Jana's comments were stuff about me
living someplace (true) and having stats to get up (untrue as I'm
public)
As for you,you are confusing my having a different opinion and different
observations from your own with lying. One can have a completely
different way of looking at things and not be lying. I have never lied
to you. But I admit that I have been reluctant to share my personal
history with you.
>
> I assert that if you have been in the Scientology cult for a number
> of years (as you have said), then there is NO way you could not be
> aware of Hubbard's policies on disconnection. Are you ashamed to
> admit whether you have done the "PTS/SP Course"?
I'm not ashamed.It's a good course,I've done it.
>
> Now, you can try to deflect the question and divert attention by talking
> about drug dealers, your bra size and so forth, but these have NOTHING to
> do with the questions DeoMorto and I have asked on Scientology's policies
> on disconnection.
>
> Do I need to point out which policies on communication and answering
> people's questions you are in violation of?
>
> Come on and answer the questions I asked, you slimy little Q&A artist.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net
How come you call me names and I don't call you any? Jeez. Seriously,
I don't give a crap what you call me as long as maybe you might be open
to entertaining the possibility that I could be telling the truth as I
see it. That doesn't mean you have to think I'm right or whatever, it
just means that you need to see that we can have totally different takes
on the same situation, yet neither one of us are actually lying.
Claire
Claire Swazey
>
> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
> : Dearest man:
>
> : Warrior wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Awesome. Warrior has his own clam. Keith Henson
Nah, it's more like I have my own a.r.s'er.
C
Claire Swazey
> : observations from your own with lying. One can have a completely
> : different way of looking at things and not be lying.
>
> one's complacence.
>
> Beck
Are you including yourself in this category?
C
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
DeoMorto
the use of
disconnection to bust up families, and my own take on it. And, I have
been on-lines at a number of Orgs and Missions, and I am telling you
that disconnections were uncommon. But not unheard of. But then again
most families where a person becomes a Scientologist and gets a little
flack from the sibs and parental units, are (other than the
Scientologist) non-Scn families wherein one could not find an
expell/declare status amoung the individuals.>>
Now - seeing as this argument seems to be you and bernie on one side and
Warrior and I on the other - I wanted to chime in because it seems to me that
we are arguing two separate cases here.
1) Let me state for the record in this argument that I agree with what you have
written above - I have never in my career in scientology ever seen
disconnection used to bust up a family or even as a handling for antagonism
except in two extreme circumstances.
As an ethics officer and a missionaire who has handled a fair amount of this
stuff I never made a recommendation to do such a thing.
this is covered in the same policies that deal with disconnection.
2) OK now that I have established that point - let me move on to the other
point that both Warrior and I have made and which - at least as far as I have
seen - you have not countered as yet.
HCOPL Leaving and Leaves states that someone blowing from staff and refusing
to return is to be declared.
Is that correct?
Presumably you agree with this policy and this labelling - you may not and I
am not sure one way or the other. So the rest of this concatenation may not
apply.
You have been at pains to point out - your friends' toxic father example
springs to mind (and yes I agree with what you wrote) - that properly labelled
SPs are truly bad people who should be disconnected from - as required by the
policy.
So a person blows from staff, is declared as per the policy referenced above
and therefore must be of the same type as your toxic father example.
Have I maligned your view in any way? Truly if I have I would like to hear in
which way I have done so.
I truly believe that there are very evil people in existence - but Hubbards
concept of the suppressive person does not fit the bill.
"He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put
it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
Anthony F. Roberts
wrote:
> > I assert that if you have been in the Scientology cult for a number
> > of years (as you have said), then there is NO way you could not be
> > aware of Hubbard's policies on disconnection. Are you ashamed to
> > admit whether you have done the "PTS/SP Course"?
>
> I'm not ashamed.It's a good course,I've done it.
i have recently witnessed someone taking this course... and
although i have no reason to posit a cause/effect relationship
between that course and his behavior, i _have_ seen him
become more irritable, humorless, impatient and short-tempered,
and i have never, not once, made a single negative remark
about him taking the course. in fact, i've tried to be as
patient as possible with his beliefs lately, and basically
left him alone, so how i've been an "sp influence" i don't
know.
further, it is courses like this that, imo, simply step up
the level of paranoia and "everyone's evil" stage that many
scienos go through in a rather fanatical way -- and that some
get stuck in permanently, while none get over it completely
until long after they've left scn.
you are at liberty not to answer the following question, but:
can you tell us, in detail, just what you think is beneficial
about the pts/sp course?
anthony
--
"The Wrong Thing to Do Is Something" - Xenu
"Japanese is a baby-talk." - L. Ron Hubbard
Starshadow
> In article <35a48fe5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 02:46:12 GMT, mor...@gte.net wrote:
> >
> > > And now we have Claire and John and Bernie trying bravely to make nothing of
> > > the huborg policies on the abominable practice of disconnection. This effort,
> > > perhaps, is to influence new readers of the NG to believe that these policies
> > > are just imposed in extreme cases wherein no communication can solve problems
> > > between family members or friends. Their statements in this regard are
> > > BULLSHIT! Disconnection is routine and ruthless. btw, Warrior, you are one OT
> > > dude. I checked out the Seattle phone book and found John J. and Claire M.
> > > Swazey. Looks like your "guess" was good as gold.
> >
> > Please do not get any ideas about posting phone numbers.
>
> I never had any idea of posting phone numbers in the first place. If I had
> that idea, I would long ago posted the private numbers for Travolta, Cruise,
> Alley, Mary Sue, and others which I have in my voluminous collection.
>
> jana
Thanks, jana, this is the warm and lovely person I know. I may have
misread what you were saying.
But for the record, if I didn't misread, I would think it wrong if
anyone was doing it. That's what I'm saying.
Martin Hunt
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>In article <tY/o1Mdlg8...@islandnet.com>,
>Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Jana is a good person who has, IMHO, made a bad choice - or is about
>>to. Didn't she merely talk about posting the phone number?
>
>She didn't say anything about posting a phone number.
Poor Barbara; confused yet again?
***
mor...@gte.net wrote:
> parents who have lost children to the cult are legion. Until you are among
> their number, then back off. Had I wanted people to call them, I would have
> posted the telephone number. I might post it yet, if I feel like it.
***
>She said that a John and Claire Swazey were listed in the Seattle
>telephone book. She was confirming Warrior's guess that they live
>in Seattle.
>
>Maybe we shouldn't even go so far as to identify a region in which
>someone lives unless they've mentioned it themselves. Still, I think
>far too much is being made of this. Ob. ref. mountains and molehills.
I concur; much ado about nothing, as the number wasn't posted.
Even if it was, I'm not convinced it would be teh end of the world.
I, for one, wouldn't join in on the undoubted politically-correct
flagellation that would ensue against my friend Jana. :-)
>Still, there's
>>something wrong about posting a Scientologist's number to ars,
>
>Jana didn't do this. She didn't say she intended to do this.
>She didn't threaten to do this. She didn't suggest it was a
>good idea to do this.
Read the above quote from her again, slowly, and see if you can
understand it this time, dear.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
: >
: > One doesn't look too hard at things, does one? One wouldn't want to shake
: > one's complacence.
: Are you including yourself in this category?
Oh, I imagine there are some areas of life where I am unnecessarily
complacent, but Scientology - the subject of this newsgroup - is not one
of them. Nor can I offhand think of a belief system I stubbornly support
and maintain in spite of overwhelming evidence of charlatanism, bullying
and generally unpleasant behavior.
Your right to embrace any lunacy you choose is guaranteed by our
Constitution - as is my right to criticize it. You may choose to
completely ignore the horror of the Lisa logs. By all means, turn your
head away from the Susan Meisters and Noah Lotticks and claim it doesn't
bother you because you, personally, have benefitted from scientology. Nod
with self-righteous satisfaction as your cult uses its considerable
financial resources (to which you willingly contribute) to crush critics
without the means to defend themselves against such bullying. Go right
ahead and tolerate your cult's practice of launching all-out smear
campaigns to deflect attention from the message to the messenger.
But be prepared to be called on it at every opportunity.
Beck
Claire Swazey
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> Claire writes:>>Once again, my original post was regarding the commonality of
> the use of
> disconnection to bust up families, and my own take on it. And, I have
> been on-lines at a number of Orgs and Missions, and I am telling you
> that disconnections were uncommon. But not unheard of. But then again
> most families where a person becomes a Scientologist and gets a little
> flack from the sibs and parental units, are (other than the
> Scientologist) non-Scn families wherein one could not find an
> expell/declare status amoung the individuals.>>
>
> Now - seeing as this argument seems to be you and bernie on one side and
> Warrior and I on the other - I wanted to chime in because it seems to me that
> we are arguing two separate cases here.
>
> 1) Let me state for the record in this argument that I agree with what you have
> written above - I have never in my career in scientology ever seen
> disconnection used to bust up a family or even as a handling for antagonism
> except in two extreme circumstances.
> As an ethics officer and a missionaire who has handled a fair amount of this
> stuff I never made a recommendation to do such a thing.
> this is covered in the same policies that deal with disconnection.
>
> 2) OK now that I have established that point - let me move on to the other
> point that both Warrior and I have made and which - at least as far as I have
> seen - you have not countered as yet.
> HCOPL Leaving and Leaves states that someone blowing from staff and refusing
> to return is to be declared.
> Is that correct?
It does say that, with the added statement that they should come back
within a "reasonable" length of time, but yes, that is correct.
> Presumably you agree with this policy and this labelling - you may not and I
> am not sure one way or the other. So the rest of this concatenation may not
> apply.
Well, the HCOPL does state that a person wishing to leave the
organization is to let the proper terminals know that they are
leaving.And then get a sec check. This does not seem unreasonable to me
as when one leaves a regular non-Scn job one lets people know that one
is leaving and they have exit interviews,too. And in the military one
cannot break a contract easily and getting permission is a major b**ch
and is often denied. So yes, I agree with that, too. I have left staff
in the past.
> You have been at pains to point out - your friends' toxic father example
> springs to mind (and yes I agree with what you wrote) - that properly labelled
> SPs are truly bad people who should be disconnected from - as required by the
> policy.
> So a person blows from staff, is declared as per the policy referenced above
> and therefore must be of the same type as your toxic father example.
That's an interesting point. They are declared if they don't inform the
people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
be willing to state that they are going. I have run across this same
line of thinking in corporations where I have been employed and as a
manager myself I would say that there is validity to this rationale.
So if they take off and don't tell their terminal, it may turn out that
they have overts against the group. In fact, it would, because
otherwise why not say "yo, I'm leaving, I'm breaking contract" etc. So
they would get declared.
If say, something happened where someone took off and didn't come back
and due to logistics of some sort couldn't call in or didn't know they
were supposed to and then got expelled and declared, I think this could
be un-done later, in a similar manner to which I have had my own
expulsion withdrawn.
I just hate to label people suppressive myself. On the very rare
occasions I have personally felt someone was an sp, I kind of made that
call in my mind (and not blathered it about) and then I found myself
looking for all kinds of reasons that I could have been wrong about the
person. This attitude has sometimes placed me at odds with my fellow
Scientologists.
>
> Have I maligned your view in any way? Truly if I have I would like to hear in
> which way I have done so.
No, I think perhaps we are on the same page now.
>
> I truly believe that there are very evil people in existence - but Hubbards
> concept of the suppressive person does not fit the bill.
> "He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put
> it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
That's also an interesting viewpoint. I think when Hubbard came up with
his stuff on suppressive persons he was defining people that others
would view as being sociopaths. I mean, if someone had many of these
particular traits he discussed, that person would be pretty bad to deal
with.
But of course we can agree to disagree on that.
Regards,
Claire
Claire Swazey
I would think something is very wrong when a person takes a course like
that and becomes paranoid and suspicious. It did not have that effect
on me and did not have that effect on fellow students that I have known
who took the course. But I have seen, in the past, both inside and
outside Scientology, people that take some experience, internalize it in
some bizarre fashion and go off the rails with it. Generally it could
be said, I think, that such a person had some kind of ideas or hangups
to begin with, that in combination with this new experience, made for an
explosive combination.
And I'm not comparing your friend to a murdering nut or anything, so
please don't take offense at my following analogy:
I am very well acquainted with someone who works for the post office.
Well, I asked him about all these shootings they have had. (this person
is in a position to know as he has even had to go to federal court to
testify against a fellow employee who made threats to go in and shoot
everybody) And he told me that in the post office there are quite a few
Vietnam Vets who maybe aren't as tightly wrapped as they could be.
Well, then, the post office has incredibly poor management. They ride
people like you wouldn't believe in those stations and maintenance/bulk
mailing ctrs. Very arbitrary stuff. Which is stupid as it harms
productivity and makes for union grievances in plentitude. Well,
anyway, most people can take some harassment on the job, and maybe also
can deal with being a veteran of a war, but the combination seems to be
somewhat lethal. And plus they have other people that may not be
tightly wrapped to begin with (that aren't veterans) who also react to
this harassment. Like taking two chemicals that do not do much by
themselves and combining them and getting an adverse chemical reaction.
OK, that was very wordy. But I guess I was just trying to say that
combinations of experiences and what a person brings to an experience
can effect how he takes it and acts on it.
Now you want to know what I got out of the course.
I felt I got some surety and knowledge about how the organization is
run.
I felt that I learned a bit about people. I always knew that most
people are just fine but I did know,too, that there are such things as
sociopaths, and I feel that this particular type of trait is well
addressed on this course.
Also covered are such things as sensationalism in the media, which,
again, is something of which I was already aware, but I liked and agreed
with the spin Hubbard puts on it.
For the record, the thing that Hubbard has said about people that I am
most in agreement with is that man is basically good. This was of great
interest to me as I was brought up in a strict Catholic home, and always
had trouble with the concept of original sin. But, not wanting to, at
the time, be a "cafeteria Catholic" I tried to go along with it. I also
had trouble with the fact that one could go to hell or heaven and never
ever change one's mind about whether to be good or bad, that it would be
keeps for all eternity. Boy, I didn't like that at all. I tried to
ignore these feelings, however. Then I came across the Hubbard stuff on
man being basically good and it made sense to me. This would mean even
a psychopath,sociopath,SP, whatever one wants to call it, could (and
does) change, always has the capability for change because we are all
basically good and nothing can change this basic fact.
I like that alot better than the idea of being in a particular spiritual
state for all eternity.
Claire
Claire Swazey
I really don't have any idea if there are 8 million members or not but
am willing to concede the point that there could be significantly less.
However, FLAG, from what I understand is doing a booming business. They
can't be just getting all this GI from just a couple die-hard people.
This says to me that there are no shortage of people going up the line
and taking services at FLAG.
Another thing is that the local org here is booming. They have far more
staff than they used to, they are in a two story building now and I have
been told that they are outgrowing it. This is interesting in view of
the fact that there are missions in the same area that are also doing
fine. This would seem to indicate that stats are up.
But I do not know about the other areas and so cannot comment on them.
Claire
DeoMorto
inform the
people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
be willing to state that they are going. I have run across this same
line of thinking in corporations where I have been employed and as a
manager myself I would say that there is validity to this rationale>>
And they are also declared if they talk to the *wrong* people. I am also a
manager and the fact that someone walks off the job has never been cause, at
least so far, for anyone to voice suspicions about what the person's motives
were for doing so. There has certainly never been any sort of reprisal
mentality involved. I think you are stretching the simile way beyond where it
can possibly be stretched.
I was interested in your comments about "Ive always sort of made my own mind
up" - I think this attitude is actually more prevalent among on-line
scientologists than I soemtimes give them credit for and I was wondering -
given the fact that you personally do not seem to think that the automatic
declare means exactly what it says - how you rationalize that attitude (which I
should emphasize I think is a healthy one) with the hcopl Policy degrades - the
one that emphasized that policy is to be regarded with the same degree of
exactitude as hcobs?
DeoMorto
Claire writes:>>That's an interesting point. They are declared if they don't
inform the
people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
be willing to state that they are going. I have run across this same
line of thinking in corporations where I have been employed and as a
manager myself I would say that there is validity to this rationale>>
And they are also declared if they talk to the *wrong* people. I am also a
manager and the fact that someone walks off the job has never been cause, at
least so far, for anyone to voice suspicions about what the person's motives
were for doing so. There has certainly never been any sort of reprisal
mentality involved. I think you are stretching the simile way beyond where it
can possibly be stretched.
I was interested in your comments about "Ive always sort of made my own mind
up" - I think this attitude is actually more prevalent among on-line
scientologists than I soemtimes give them credit for and I was wondering -
given the fact that you personally do not seem to think that the automatic
declare means exactly what it says - how you rationalize that attitude (which I
should emphasize I think is a healthy one) with the hcopl Policy degrades - the
one that emphasized that policy is to be regarded with the same degree of
exactitude as hcobs?
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Control: cancel <199807102030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <199807102030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Message-ID: <cancel.199807102...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
From: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto)
Approved: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.test
Date: 11 Jul 1998 00:31:13 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Organization: Despams 'R Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.54.101.68
X-Trace: 10 Jul 1998 18:32:32 -0700, 202.54.101.68
Lines: 2
Path: ...!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu
!novia!nntp3.cerf.net!news.inovion.com!despams.ocunix.on.ca
!despam
Despams 'R Us
Claire Swazey
C
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> Claire writes:>>That's an interesting point. They are declared if they don't
> inform the
> people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
> also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
> The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
> reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
> be willing to state that they are going. I have run across this same
> line of thinking in corporations where I have been employed and as a
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote in response to my post:
Beck
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Control: cancel <EZlp1.3237$24.18...@news.itd.umich.edu>
Subject: cmsg cancel <EZlp1.3237$24.18...@news.itd.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <cancel.EZlp1.3237$24.18...@news.itd.umich.edu>
From: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: bec...@umich.edu (Rebecca Jo McLaughlin)
Approved: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.test
Date: 11 Jul 1998 00:36:07 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Organization: Despams 'R Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.54.101.68
X-Trace: 10 Jul 1998 18:37:26 -0700, 202.54.101.68
Lines: 2
Path: ...!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com
!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!inquo!news.inovion.com
!despams.ocunix.on.ca!despam
Despams 'R Us
Martin Hunt
In article <6o3am1$u52$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
***
mor...@gte.net wrote:
***
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Control: cancel <ekdp1Mdl...@islandnet.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <ekdp1Mdl...@islandnet.com>
Message-ID: <cancel.ekdp1...@islandnet.com>
From: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
Approved: cl...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.test
Date: 11 Jul 1998 00:37:14 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Organization: Despams 'R Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.54.101.68
X-Trace: 10 Jul 1998 18:39:02 -0700, 202.54.101.68
Warrior
>>That's an interesting point. They are declared if they don't inform the
>>people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
>>also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
>>The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
>>reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
>>be willing to state that they are going.
L Ron Hubbard wrote:
"People leave because of their own overts and withholds; that is the
factual fact and the hard bound rule."
How do you rationalize your statement with Hubbard's words, Claire?
Do you disagree with Hubbard's "hard bound rule"?
I do.
Bev
> Anthony F. Roberts wrote:
> > you are at liberty not to answer the following question, but:
> > can you tell us, in detail, just what you think is beneficial
> > about the pts/sp course?
> Also covered are such things as sensationalism in the media, which,
> again, is something of which I was already aware, but I liked and agreed
> with the spin Hubbard puts on it.
So, you are saying that you are aware of ~spinning~ in the non-Co$
media.
Are you also as keen in your awareness of the ~spinning~ within the
media of the Co$? (i.e. Freedom Mag, Good News, KSW News etc.)
Or do you claim that while other media spins, the Co$ does NOT spin.
Do you believe that the Co$ is always 100% accurate and truthful
in what they state in all of their publications, or not?
Beverly
Claire Swazey
>
> >Claire writes:
> >>That's an interesting point. They are declared if they don't inform the
> >>people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
> >>also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
> >>The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
> >>reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
> >>be willing to state that they are going.
>
> "People leave because of their own overts and withholds; that is the
> factual fact and the hard bound rule."
>
> How do you rationalize your statement with Hubbard's words, Claire?
I think my statement (which was me, paraphrasing, I'll admit) is in
keeping with Hubbard's words as stated above. Actually what he says in
leaving and leaves is that if they are leaving without saying anything
to anybody, or telling fellow staff members who are not the terminals
that one would be expected to direct this communication to, that they
are leaving, then there is something they are hiding, something that is
wrong. But his policies also say if someone wants to leave they should
leave. I have been in that situation myself.
>
> Do you disagree with Hubbard's "hard bound rule"?
No.
>
> I do.
I understand.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Claire
Claire Swazey
>
> Claire Swazey wrote:
> > Anthony F. Roberts wrote:
>
> > > you are at liberty not to answer the following question, but:
> > > can you tell us, in detail, just what you think is beneficial
> > > about the pts/sp course?
>
> > Also covered are such things as sensationalism in the media, which,
> > again, is something of which I was already aware, but I liked and agreed
> > with the spin Hubbard puts on it.
>
> So, you are saying that you are aware of ~spinning~ in the non-Co$
> media.
>
No. Just using a colloquilism.
> Are you also as keen in your awareness of the ~spinning~ within the
> media of the Co$? (i.e. Freedom Mag, Good News, KSW News etc.)
I have read these publications and am aware of the fact that they
emphasize certain factors that they want to emphasize. Thus making them
absolutely no different from any other publication on the face of this
earth.
>
> Or do you claim that while other media spins, the Co$ does NOT spin.
>
> Do you believe that the Co$ is always 100% accurate and truthful
> in what they state in all of their publications, or not?
Haven't ever tested it out, to be honest. But I do believe that the
hard statistics and facts that they publish that they purport to be
correct are correct.
>
> Beverly
Claire
David Gerard
:Hi, Warrior, my dear!
I'm imagining the photo of '1.1'[*] in 'What Is Scientology?'.
[*] illustration, p73 of the 1993 paperback.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
The above was written by the container formerly known as David Gerard.
See http://www.subgenius.com/ for details. It's too late to pay your $30.
David Gerard
Answering the same post twice, forty minutes apart?
Message-ID: <35A523BF...@home.com>
From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
Organization: @Home Network
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: shills
References: <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>
<6nsfu7$t...@drn.newsguy.com> <35A42D86...@home.com>
<6o1pgk$r...@drn.newsguy.com> <35A51BEE...@home.com>
<hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 5
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:03:33 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: c49312-a.sttls1.wa.home.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:03:33 PDT
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:223997
Keith Henson wrote:
>
> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
> : Dearest man:
>
> : Warrior wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Awesome. Warrior has his own clam. Keith Henson
LOL!
Message-ID: <35A52C8F...@home.com>
From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
Organization: @Home Network
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: shills
References: <6ns25k$27d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<MPG.100b63051...@nntp.lightlink.com>
<6nsfu7$t...@drn.newsguy.com> <35A42D86...@home.com>
<6o1pgk$r...@drn.newsguy.com> <35A51BEE...@home.com>
<hkhensonE...@netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 6
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:41:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: c49312-a.sttls1.wa.home.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:41:09 PDT
Keith Henson wrote:
>
> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
> : Dearest man:
>
> : Warrior wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Awesome. Warrior has his own clam. Keith Henson
Nah, it's more like I have my own a.r.s'er.
C
--
Claire Swazey
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> Claire writes:>>That's an interesting point. They are declared if they don't
> inform the
> people (certain posts) at the organization that they are leaving, and
> also if they leave but do not return in a reasonable length of time.
> The rationale behind this, I gather, is that if they are leaving for
> reasons having nothing to do with harming the organization, they should
> be willing to state that they are going. I have run across this same
> line of thinking in corporations where I have been employed and as a
> manager myself I would say that there is validity to this rationale>>
>
> And they are also declared if they talk to the *wrong* people. I am also a
> manager and the fact that someone walks off the job has never been cause, at
> least so far, for anyone to voice suspicions about what the person's motives
> were for doing so. There has certainly never been any sort of reprisal
> mentality involved. I think you are stretching the simile way beyond where it
> can possibly be stretched.
Well, I didn't mean to stretch the simile. But I have worked at various
corporations in which if someone took off without calling in the first
thing that was done was to check their desks and their various
(computerized) work queues.
In fact, in the corporations I have been employed in the last dozen
years, there have been specific policies that one must take a certain
block of vacation all at one time rather than taking all of it in little
bits. There is a requirement for so many days in a row to be taken each
year. The purpose of this as stated to me by sr management is to see if
any hidden,unethical, illegal things will come to light during this time
frame. And it often has, oddly enough. This would relate to certain
receipts coming due and certain regular activities (illegal,unethical)
if done that would come to light during an absence of more than a couple
days.
And here's another example: my husband once had an offer to be on a 1
year contract with a large internat'l company to go to Saudi Arabia and
work on various equipment. If he had taken them up on this it would
have been very hard indeed for him to break this contract,and they would
have undoubtedly checked him out thoroughly, from what I understand from
others who have been in this company.
So I think in the outside world, as I like to call it, that there is a
parallel (admittedly not exactly the same) to what these org policies
are on leaving and leaves and related policies.
>
> I was interested in your comments about "Ive always sort of made my own mind
> up" - I think this attitude is actually more prevalent among on-line
> scientologists than I soemtimes give them credit for and I was wondering -
> given the fact that you personally do not seem to think that the automatic
> declare means exactly what it says - how you rationalize that attitude (which I
> should emphasize I think is a healthy one) with the hcopl Policy degrades - the
> one that emphasized that policy is to be regarded with the same degree of
> exactitude as hcobs?
You always just throw me these posers. :-) I only hope I can do justice
to them.
Well, I think that anyone can get expelled and declared and that it is
not the end of the world, although it can certainly be seem that way. I
know that Hubbard talks somewhere about taking on the colors of an SP,
which would mean that one may act like one and not actually be an
honest-to-god sociopath. It would be lots easier for such a person, if
they wanted to reestablish relations with CofS to do so than someone who
was an honest-to-god sociopath.
I think,personally, that it is a safe bet, at least for me, to adhere to
the policies with the same attention that I would adhere to tech issues.
I think the policies were carefully written and good. One thing about
them is that even though many propose stern resolutions and actions to
situations, that there are also many that let people apply for redress
if needed, like with the comm-line to Chaplains, policies I've read on
petitioning and on leaving the door open if only a crack,applying ethics
lightly and effectively. So, for me, even though I can be extremely
ornery, I would rather toe the line and go with the policies. The
reason for this is that in my life (and I would say this happens sooner
or later to just about everybody) I have had to make the decision am I a
Scn'ologist or not? No half-way measures, either I am or I'm not.
Having decided that I am, I have decided to go with the whole shebang.
If I did, however, see anything that I thought was not ok being done, I
would go through channels (and with your background you would know what
I am talking about) to correct them.
I guess with me one gets the "party line" , but having reexamined my
values and priorities a number of times in the past, that's what I have
decided to be and do.
I hope I addressed everything properly here. If not, let me know.
Regards,
Claire
>
>
Lurker Zero
wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>Now you want to know what I got out of the course.
>I felt that I learned a bit about people. I always knew that most
>people are just fine but I did know,too, that there are such things as
>sociopaths, and I feel that this particular type of trait is well
>addressed on this course.
[more snip]
> Then I came across the Hubbard stuff on
>man being basically good and it made sense to me. This would mean even
>a psychopath,sociopath,SP, whatever one wants to call it, could (and
>does) change, always has the capability for change because we are all
>basically good and nothing can change this basic fact.
>
>I like that alot better than the idea of being in a particular spiritual
>state for all eternity.
>
>Claire
Quite true. However Hubbard also did say that an SP does not respond
to normal efforts to rehabilitate and stays an SP during a lifetime,
and that it takes a dramatic event to jolt him out of whatever event
he's stuck in.
Not that I'm condoning doing bad things to SP's. I imagine that many
of us have been SP's sometime during the eons of existance. Sometimes
in my sleep I get nightmares of being chased by bunch of people,
running away and running away in terror, and wake up in cold sweat.
After I did the PTS-SP course, I thought about it and figured that if
I was somehow stuck in such an incidence I might very well be a true
SP today.
Claire Swazey
this is something I think about too. I do think that people could flip
out of that particular valence. But I think it isn't easy. A personal
theory of mine (this is just me talking, not LRH) is that a person may
key-out of this at death,sometimes.
Claire
Ron Newman
(Alan Barclay) wrote:
> In article <35A78BB2...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >Haven't ever tested it out, to be honest. But I do believe that the
> >hard statistics and facts that they publish that they purport to be
> >correct are correct.
>
> Does that include the 'fact' that Keith Henson was at Clearwater 97,
> as published in the libelious issue of Freedom? Everyone who _was_
> at Clearwater 97 says he wasn't.
Keith Henson *was* in Clearwater in March 1997 (but not December 1997).
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Alan Barclay
The Goblin Wizard
>
> Warrior wrote:
,snip>
> > L Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > "People leave because of their own overts and withholds; that is the
> > factual fact and the hard bound rule."
> >
> > How do you rationalize your statement with Hubbard's words, Claire?
>
> I think my statement (which was me, paraphrasing, I'll admit) is in
> keeping with Hubbard's words as stated above. Actually what he says in
> leaving and leaves is that if they are leaving without saying anything
> to anybody, or telling fellow staff members who are not the terminals
> that one would be expected to direct this communication to, that they
> are leaving, then there is something they are hiding, something that is
> wrong. But his policies also say if someone wants to leave they should
> leave. I have been in that situation myself.
Hold up a sec. If he was talking about the type of departure you just
mentioned, he would use the word "blow". That is the scientologically
correct word for an unauthorised or irregular departure.
If he says leave, he means leave.
Either (1) LRH made a mistake (impossible) or (2) that quote is being
used a long way out of context or (3) you are ducking the question.
Could someone please post the whole section that quote appears in, to
confirm or deny possibility two? That will give a firm answer, one way
or the other.
> > Do you disagree with Hubbard's "hard bound rule"?
>
> No.
> >
> > I do.
>
> I understand.
I think my stomach's feeling better, I can continue the session. (anyone
else remember TR4?)
cheers,
the wiz
orp...@my-dejanews.com
mor...@gte.net wrote:
>
> I must have missed their message in which they admitted that they are in
> Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that they
> are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little.
> You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a daughter
> who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of child
> abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of
> parents who have lost children to the cult are legion.
"Outrageous upbringing" is YOUR opinion. Anyway, I "disconnected" from you
because I just don't like you or how you live your life. You were a
Scientologist when I "disconnected" and every time you post the lie on the
net that the church is responsible for this "disconnection" I will reply with
the truth.
And you REALLY don't want me to post about my upbringing, do you?
And how can you continue to call it disconnection when I do reply to these
lies you post?
Your daughter,
Hilda
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mor...@gte.net
orp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6num5e$7v8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mor...@gte.net wrote:
>
> >
> > I must have missed their message in which they admitted that they are in
> > Seattle. If they did so, then what is the big deal about my saying that they
> > are in the Seattle phone book? My sole purpose was to tweek them a little.
> > You don't like it? I don't care whether you like it or not. I have a daughter
> > who disconnected from me. I can assure you that she was not a victim of child
> > abuse, nor did she suffer any other outrageous upbringing. The number of
> > parents who have lost children to the cult are legion.
>
> "Outrageous upbringing" is YOUR opinion. Anyway, I "disconnected" from you
> because I just don't like you or how you live your life. You were a
> Scientologist when I "disconnected" and every time you post the lie on the
> net that the church is responsible for this "disconnection" I will reply with
> the truth.
>
> And you REALLY don't want me to post about my upbringing, do you?
>
> And how can you continue to call it disconnection when I do reply to these
> lies you post?
Hi, honey,
I'm happy to see that you are still alive.
Your mother always,
jana