More on that expulsion
Fluffygirl
where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
Friends have called me and related a number of the responses to my
post made earlier today about the expell/declare.
I appreciate the kind words.
I can't pull that thread up yet through Google, so I'm just making
this a separate post.
In answer to the question (posed by, I think, Shark) as to whether I
plan to do my A-E steps. Absolutely not. I have been facing the fact
that this would probably eventually happen and have planned out some
things. One thing is that I am not interested in applying for reentry
to CofS. Were the abuses anomalies, and had they treated me only with
strictness but no contempt- I'd view this differently. But these
elements are just not there. And therein lies the rub. Were they just
strict/fundamentalist type thing, there'd be far less to criticize.
And someone like me would stick around, hoping to change their minds
about things. And there'd actually be some hope. But I've noticed-
even when I was pretty convinced that they were the only game in town,
metaphysically speaking, again and again- that the church makes more
and more demands on its members while at the same time delivering less
and less in return and while treating people in a contemptuous manner.
The latter feeds the former, anyway, doesn't it.
Were it not for the contempt, some of the most highly outspoken
critics who also were once CofS members, would not even be critics.
But the contempt was there and the critics knew this and know that
now. Others who've never been members have seen this, as well.
I have seen it, too. I remember once a long time ago after being told
in a D of P interview that I had no right to ever question anything an
SO member ever did or said to me because they work so hard and
everything, becoming very upset that the only people who had the
information and metaphysical approach that I wanted was CofS. And that
was LONG before I ever started posting here. Members are conditioned
to believe that they can never get this particular metaphysical
approach, body of tech, whatever you want to call it- anywhere else.
This is not true.
And even if it was, I see it that the church is playing the "you'll
lose salvation" card. Well, that's blackmail of a sort. Blackmail and
idealism do not go well together, to put it mildly.
I don't need this blackmail. I don't want it. I do not believe for one
minute that anybody's going to go into a dwindling spiral onward to an
eternity of blackness and pain just because they may lose access or
cut access to this metaphysical approach.
Many of you are skeptics- you think this stuff's for the birds anyway.
Well, as it happens, I do not think all of it is, although I've
observed before and will again that Hubbard inculcated much of his own
fixed ideas, prejudices, paranoia and other unsavory stuff into Scn
and that this was irresponsible of him, to say the least. But even
though I find much use for many of the ideas in Scn, I do not think
for one minute that someone isn't better off being cut off from
emotional blackmail and contempt and people who do not practice what
they preach than to just go off and do something different, and to
live life in a manner in which he chose.
Scn is mystical in origin in some respects. The idea that one can
deteriorate spiritually is very much extant in mysticism and in Scn.
Well, fine, so one can. But it does not always mean that one WILL
deteriorate as soon as he stops doing a particular thing or even if
he, for a time, stops doing anything on the metaphysical/philosophical
front. One can be involved in spiritual activities and be very
irresponsible and harmful to others and oneself. And one can be
involved in mundane, "MEST" centered, every day activities and be
leading a very fine life with no resulting detriment to his or her
soul or spirituality or mental frame of mind or anything else.
I think much of Scn is just fine. I like that path. I pick and choose
as to how I want to walk that path. So be it.
But I tell you now that I'd rather be off that path completely than to
stick around for any emotional blackmail, fair game thingies or
whatnot. (fortunately I don't have to. The ideas I like still exist,
in or out of the church.)
These things, while done under the aegis and auspices of a group that
supposedly fosters spirituality just compromise the ideology that the
group purports to espouse.
Huh!! One would be better off being a janitor during the day, and
doing sports, and barhopping in one's free time- IOW, one can be
involved in some pretty mundane and ordinary stuff and still, as long
as one does not compromise himself, find himself being chipped at day
by day, have his wishes, thoughts and "determinism" overridden all the
time- be much better off than to give his all to a group that wishes
to give little or nothing in return.
Scn centers find more and more excuses to not deliver auditing.
Auditing's supposed to be THEIR deal. Their main thing. One doesn't
get what one came for, then.
I repeat something I said once before: There was once a novel called
"I love the person you were meant to be". Well, that's mawkish but
it's more or less how I feel. I love the vision of Scn that Hubbard
seems to have had, especially earlier on than later. I do not love the
way the church and individual Scn'ists (some of them) treat their
members, their ex members and critics and others with whom they
concern themselves. I do not love the fact that Hubbard fostered these
ideas. Anyone reading the PR series will know what I mean.
Another thought- I thought that I'd ditched all self-censoring maybe
about a year or 10 months ago. I now think that this might have only
been MOSTLY true.
I think I may be, therefore, even more outspoken in the future about
things that the church says and does and what Hubbard did and said,
too.
I will still demur and continue to be a devil's advocate of sorts (is
that an unfortunate choice of words? Probably) if I think I see some
generalizations here about Scn'ists. But then again, a.r.s. wouldn't
be a.r.s. without me coming in every now and again and being
argumentative, now would it.
I'll end this post with another thought: any religion or methodology
which prefers dishonesty, the stifling of candid express of thought
over telling the truth - even when the truth is mighty embarrassing
has some MAJOR housecleaning to do.
And since the thought is father to the deed, then the first thing to
get cleane d up would have to be some ideas that fostered these
embarrassing things they don't want people discussing. This would
include some of Hubbard's policies and of course, directives and
projects put forth by post-LRH management.
Talk to ya later.
Claire Swazey
Ornery Do-It-Yourself Scientologist
thomlove
The only power the SO has over anyone is the use of secondary engrams;
the threat of loss of access to LRH is the sole engine of their power.
Without it, they are neutered.
That is why I and others have as a goal, to ensure that all of LRH is
available to any who want it, and that the CofSers are aware that there
is an alternative source to pure LRH.
The vast majority of CofSers know that the Bridge is not theirs, that
they cannot afford it, but suppress the upset and 'go on hoping', in the
implanted belief that they can somehow, 'make it go right'. They know
they can't and so go on with this underlaying upset.
With access to LRH outside of the CofS, there is no need for this.
Hopefully the CofSers will come to realize this, and then be free to
speak their minds.
Welcome back, fluffy
Thomlove
yduzitmatter
Claire:
I am sorry that this decare and expulsion has happened to you in this
way. I am sure that there will be people and moments that you will
miss. This situation is not an easy one and your path will be
difficult for a while.
On the other hand your hoensty and integrity as an individual will
see you through everything you need to face right now.
I look forward to hearing more from you in the coming days. I know
that you will keep us all on our toes and thinking.
Kim P
Phil Scott
>Hello Ornery Do-It-Yourself Scientologist!
>
>The only power the SO has over anyone is the use of secondary engrams;
>the threat of loss of access to LRH is the sole engine of their power.
>Without it, they are neutered.
errr... you forgot about the cults thugs, PI's, lawyers, hit men and whores.
For thugs take look at the various assaults on Bob Minton.
For PI's see their photo's and testimony on the LMT web site
For Lawyers see www.lermanet.com for photo copies of the court cases
For hit men, read 'The End of the Q' the story of Quinten Hubbards
death and that of his two friends.
For whores read how a male prostituee was run in on Paullette Cooper to gain
her confidence so he could steal her stationary, and finger prints.
For many more examples see www.xenu.net section of affidavits. The Mike
McClaughry affidavit detailing the cults criminal activity.
Phil Scott
Elizabeth Ann Cox
feel. I cannot add to what you have said, and I have experienced this same
frustration. Again, I wish you all the best there is, you so richly deserve
it.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
aka, Bunnyann
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
Fluffygirl <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
Phil Chitester
> I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
> where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
> touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
>
> Friends have called me and related a number of the responses to my post
> made earlier today about the expell/declare.
I did not respond. I was too dumbfounded, and as I am playing stricly the
devout Scientologist, I found it impossible to think of anything to say.
> I appreciate the kind words.
>
> I can't pull that thread up yet through Google, so I'm just making this
> a separate post.
>
> In answer to the question (posed by, I think, Shark) as to whether I
> plan to do my A-E steps. Absolutely not. I have been facing the fact
> that this would probably eventually happen and have planned out some
> things. One thing is that I am not interested in applying for reentry to
> CofS. Were the abuses anomalies, and had they treated me only with
> strictness but no contempt- I'd view this differently. But these
> elements are just not there. And therein lies the rub. Were they just
> strict/fundamentalist type thing, there'd be far less to criticize. And
> someone like me would stick around, hoping to change their minds about
> things. And there'd actually be some hope. But I've noticed- even when I
> was pretty convinced that they were the only game in town,
> metaphysically speaking, again and again- that the church makes more and
> more demands on its members while at the same time delivering less and
> less in return and while treating people in a contemptuous manner. The
> latter feeds the former, anyway, doesn't it.
At least for me, the 'metaphysically the only-game-in-town' type of thing
is so indelibly etched in my psyche, that it will probably never be washed
away with any known solvent, like ketone or acetone, even. They'd have to
kill me and even then, I'll have you note, they already have and even that
didn't work.
> Were it not for the contempt, some of the most highly outspoken critics
> who also were once CofS members, would not even be critics. But the
> contempt was there and the critics knew this and know that now. Others
> who've never been members have seen this, as well.
>
> I have seen it, too. I remember once a long time ago after being told in
> a D of P interview that I had no right to ever question anything an SO
> member ever did or said to me because they work so hard and everything,
> becoming very upset that the only people who had the information and
> metaphysical approach that I wanted was CofS.
That implies that SO members are never PTS in the slightest and never make
mistakes. That is a new concept to me. And certainly it is understandble
why that would upset one. Perhaps they don't say that anymore. I hope
not.
> And that was LONG before I ever started posting here. Members are
> conditioned to believe that they can never get this particular
> metaphysical approach, body of tech, whatever you want to call it-
> anywhere else. This is not true.
It is certainly true for me. Still.
> And even if it was, I see it that the church is playing the "you'll lose
> salvation" card. Well, that's blackmail of a sort. Blackmail and
> idealism do not go well together, to put it mildly.
It truly, if you read the ethics policies, appears to be the only card
they have. Without it, they cannot get in ethics. If there is tech
elsewhere that works, who needs them?
> I don't need this blackmail. I don't want it. I do not believe for one
> minute that anybody's going to go into a dwindling spiral onward to an
> eternity of blackness and pain just because they may lose access or cut
> access to this metaphysical approach.
I do. I am convinced. That is primarily why I couldn't think of anything
to say for so long.
> Many of you are skeptics- you think this stuff's for the birds anyway.
> Well, as it happens, I do not think all of it is, although I've observed
> before and will again that Hubbard inculcated much of his own fixed
> ideas, prejudices, paranoia and other unsavory stuff into Scn and that
> this was irresponsible of him, to say the least.
I do not agree with that in the slightest. I think perhaps it is a
combination of misunderstoods and third-party that lead someone to believe
this.
I think some would say that this phenomenon you describe comes from the OT
case, wherein you are constantly bombarded by the wishes/wills of others.
Some proximate, some not so proximate.
I'm afraid here we are seeing the demise of the original forward thrust of
Scientology, which had the capability of goal attainment. Many people's
thoughts, including mine, are not as important as the other considerations
such as how the Church looks to the public, because that affects many more
lives than just one's own. To say otherwise is to invite disaster.
> And since the thought is father to the deed, then the first thing to get
> cleaned up would have to be some ideas that fostered these embarrassing
> things they don't want people discussing. This would include some of
> Hubbard's policies and of course, directives and projects put forth by
> post-LRH management.
>
> Talk to ya later.
>
> Claire Swazey
> Ornery Do-It-Yourself Scientologist
Your posts have inspired me to report myself to RTC, being as I do not
want any sudden arrivals of OSA-types in my area (strangers), since I have
no protection from such events, being homeless and defenseless, which who
could say would not turn into violent and murderous attacks or public
fights. I am preparing to get some e-mail back as to my standing,
vis-a-vis a.r.s. posting and critical web site looking. I will
undoubtedly be informing people here.
In the event of my sudden disappearance from a.r.s., with no explanatory
note posted that I will be gone, you can assume that something tragic has
befallen me of that type, or that I have simply expired as a result of
health problems.
Phil
Dobe R Mann
I look forward to reading more from you.
What are John's (?? right spouse name?) thoughts about all of this?
Michael
In article <40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com>,
Dobe R Mann
SP4 Tone 1.95
Read www.xenu.net
See www.xenutv.com
_____________________________________________
INCIDENT 4
LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
CHEVROLETS COME OUT
BURN RUBBER
FISHTAIL RIGHT
DO U-TURN
STALL
FLAT TIRE (No motion)
BLOWS HORN
BLOWS MISCAVIGE
CRASH
Magoo
Let's get this post, and my article out to Scientologists far and wide. It
speaks so much truth, and so much .....gosh....what is the word? You've said
it perfectly. There is nothing more I can add, except to please keep
posting,,,and let's get this out for others who are locked into this
totalitarian system to read and wake up with.
Thank you Claire. I am SO happy to hear you have fully made your decision...
So I would like to recommend Claire be an SP status :) Can you all get to
work, let me know IF there is a new status for me,,,as was mentioned, and
one for Claire. She desearves it :)))
LOVE TO ALL~~~~
Tory/Magoo~still dancin~
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
Mark Thorson
> So I would like to recommend Claire be an SP status :) Can you all get to
> work, let me know IF there is a new status for me,,,as was mentioned, and
> one for Claire. She desearves it :)))
As reigning Ms. SP for the last year, it now looks
as though it's time for you to pass the crown to
the new Ms. SP...
There she is, Ms. SP/PTS
There she is, your ideal
The dream of a million thetans in a condition of doubt can come true in
Clearwater
For she may turn out to be the Queen of ARS
There she is, Miss SP/PTS
There she is, your ideal
With so many OTs she took the town by storm
With her Tone 40 face and form
And there she is
Walking on air, she is
At cause over clams, she is
There she is - Miss SP/PTS
mimus
Maybe someone should set up an "ex-OSA-babes" website before the rush.
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
disconnections and other abuse suffered at the hands of $cientology more
then enable someone like myself (who's never been in the cult but was turned
into an "enemy" in unfortunately classic fashion) to appreciate some of the
conflict you're having, and some that you've had. It is necessary I think
to detach any semblance of self-importance ever achieved through Co$
activities, if only to save your self-esteem, and further establish the base
of your personality and character.
Welcome to the Wog World nonetheless. You are welcomed indeed.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
Comedy is the Hub of the Universe
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
Catarina Pamnell
ultra-moronic thing for the CoS to do, here it is.
Brilliant post.
Catarina
Tommy
Claire - I am *so* sorry.
Truly.
I don't know what else to say now.
I thought you had such a public presence here, and represented Scientology
so much better than most, that they would realize you were very useful and
continue to leave you alone.
I was wrong.
Tommy
--
"If people get in your way,
they need to be dealt with one way or another."
Jeff Quiros, Scientology spokesman
"Fluffygirl" <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com...
ptsc
>Brilliant post.
The cult had a little more class, a little less curse, just for having Claire
associated with it. Even her not repudiating it gave them a bit more class.
The fact that they didn't SP Declare her showed, at least for a little while,
that it was possible they were reforming, and it was possible that they now at
least in some areas and orgs, might allow their members to have freedom of
speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association, three basic human
rights.
In one stroke of a pen over the goldenrod, they have shown again that they have
total contempt for their members, total contempt for the human rights of their
members, and for that matter, total contempt for their own reputation.
They also have a total lack of intelligence. Anyone could see that a good and
honest word from a Claire was worth a million posts of paid-for propaganda.
I suppose I should be pissed off at this egregiously stupid and vicious act from
the cult, but I'm depressed.
It is depressing to see such totally pathetic self-destructive stupidity in
action. It is something you would not wish on your worst enemy.
Claire Swazey is a "Suppressive Person?" Get fucking real.
Yesterday, Scientology became a bit more mean, a bit more stupid, and lost one
more irreplacable speck of class they might otherwise have claimed.
What is worse is that they do not even know it.
ptsc
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>Scn centers find more and more excuses to not deliver auditing.
>Auditing's supposed to be THEIR deal. Their main thing. One doesn't
>get what one came for, then.
>
This is what I've been saying for a long time. They are not there for
the auditing, they are not there for the tech either. At these two
Vegas orgs, staff did not bother with auditing, or with the
courseroom.
Brendan Heading
>I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
>where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
>touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
I get the impression you probably have the strength and intelligence to
actually deal with what for many Scientologists has turned out to be a
life-shattering blow. Their loss.
--
"I begin to suspect my own sanity every once in a while. "
(LR Hubbard,"Coordination of Classes of Processes" 1 Nov 1956)
Scientology/Dianetics : tax-exempt child abuse and neglect?
www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
Beverly Rice
> A certain Fluffygirl, of alt.religion.scientology "fame", writes :
> >I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
> >where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
> >touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
> I get the impression you probably have the strength and
> intelligence to actually deal with what for many Scientologists
> has turned out to be a life-shattering blow.
Absolutely.
Look at how Tory has not only recouped, but blossomed in to
a much stronger person.
I know that even with Tory taking a look at what she really
didn't want to see or knew there was to see was somewhat of
a distasteful challenge . . .
but boy did she ~ever~ come through it with eyes wide open.
The thing is, and I know from my own experience too which
was a much shorter time than both Tory and Claire, that it
is hard to see what you didn't want to . . .
it is best done in stages.
Too much at once can be overwhelm emotionally.
Also learning that those "bad" people really aren't "bad",
takes some time as well.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
"Brendan Heading" <TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zfEa33Pr...@ntlworld.com...
> A certain Fluffygirl, of alt.religion.scientology "fame", writes :
> >I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
> >where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
> >touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
>
> I get the impression you probably have the strength and intelligence to
> actually deal with what for many Scientologists has turned out to be a
> life-shattering blow. Their loss.
I get the impression in addition that perhaps deep down she wondered if
something like this was coming sooner or later, as a result of publicly
stating that she disagreed with some policies of the cult. In doing so did
she not make herself a "criminal" in the cult's eyes? In time however -
perhaps as little as a year - Claire as well as John may look back and say,
like others have said on a.r.s., "It seemed like such a blow at the time."
This too, Claire, shall pass.
Kaeli
Hi Bev ...
Glad to see you are back--missed your posts a lot here. :)
Kaeli.
LronsScam
In article ID <40f7d2ce.01092...@posting.google.com>,
On or about 29 Sep 2001 14:23:11 -0700,
In this thy group <alt.religion.scientology> cometh;
Fluffygirl says...
That's what Hubbard called a hidden data line.
>And even if it was, I see it that the church is playing the "you'll
>lose salvation" card. Well, that's blackmail of a sort. Blackmail and
>idealism do not go well together, to put it mildly.
Yes, I believe it's emotional blackmail. Worse yet, spiritual blackmail.
Emotional blackmail is when they claim your family and friends and former
Scn'gy businessmen won't be talking to you anymore or dealing with you
anymore. In greater or lesser degrees they always succeed in this way for
long time members who leave. Your threads of social structure collapses in
many times at the onset of Scn'gy betrayal.
I agree to an extent.
>
>These things, while done under the aegis and auspices of a group that
>supposedly fosters spirituality just compromise the ideology that the
>group purports to espouse.
I concur 100% on this one.
I think a year ago it would have been, but not now. You're leaning towards
the critics side of things, I hate to say for your own sake.
>if I think I see some
>generalizations here about Scn'ists. But then again, a.r.s. wouldn't
>be a.r.s. without me coming in every now and again and being
>argumentative, now would it.
>
>I'll end this post with another thought: any religion or methodology
>which prefers dishonesty, the stifling of candid express of thought
>over telling the truth - even when the truth is mighty embarrassing
>has some MAJOR housecleaning to do.
>
>And since the thought is father to the deed, then the first thing to
>get cleane d up would have to be some ideas that fostered these
>embarrassing things they don't want people discussing. This would
>include some of Hubbard's policies and of course, directives and
>projects put forth by post-LRH management.
>
>Talk to ya later.
>
>Claire Swazey
>Ornery Do-It-Yourself Scientologist
And I agree you are a Scn'gst. You can be whoever you want to be.
Chris Leithiser
>
> I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
> where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
> touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
>
> Friends have called me and related a number of the responses to my
> post made earlier today about the expell/declare.
>
> I appreciate the kind words.
Good luck to you, Claire. I sincerely hope this turns out to be a
_positive_ event in your life.
Jack Craver
> where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
> touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
>
> Friends have called me and related a number of the responses to my
> post made earlier today about the expell/declare.
>
> I appreciate the kind words.
>
> I can't pull that thread up yet through Google, so I'm just making
> this a separate post.
>
> In answer to the question (posed by, I think, Shark) as to whether I
> plan to do my A-E steps. Absolutely not. I have been facing the
fact
> that this would probably eventually happen and have planned out some
> things. One thing is that I am not interested in applying for
reentry
> to CofS.
There's lots of other things to be interested in now.
Were the abuses anomalies, and had they treated me only with
> strictness but no contempt- I'd view this differently. But these
> elements are just not there. And therein lies the rub. Were they
just
> strict/fundamentalist type thing, there'd be far less to criticize.
> And someone like me would stick around, hoping to change their minds
> about things. And there'd actually be some hope. But I've noticed-
> even when I was pretty convinced that they were the only game in
town,
> metaphysically speaking, again and again- that the church makes more
> and more demands on its members while at the same time delivering
less
> and less in return and while treating people in a contemptuous
manner.
> The latter feeds the former, anyway, doesn't it.
>
Its an out-of-whack cost/benifit ratio.
And I'm not talking about just money.
> Were it not for the contempt, some of the most highly outspoken
> critics who also were once CofS members, would not even be critics.
> But the contempt was there and the critics knew this and know that
> now. Others who've never been members have seen this, as well.
>
> I have seen it, too. I remember once a long time ago after being
told
> in a D of P interview that I had no right to ever question anything
an
> SO member ever did or said to me because they work so hard and
> everything, becoming very upset that the only people who had the
> information and metaphysical approach that I wanted was CofS. And
that
> was LONG before I ever started posting here. Members are conditioned
> to believe that they can never get this particular metaphysical
> approach, body of tech, whatever you want to call it- anywhere else.
> This is not true.
>
Whats the difference whether its true or not? How much is your own
personal integrity worth?
> And even if it was, I see it that the church is playing the "you'll
> lose salvation" card. Well, that's blackmail of a sort. Blackmail
and
> idealism do not go well together, to put it mildly.
>
> I don't need this blackmail. I don't want it. I do not believe for
one
> minute that anybody's going to go into a dwindling spiral onward to
an
> eternity of blackness and pain just because they may lose access or
> cut access to this metaphysical approach.
>
The end of this bridge is wherever you get off it.
> Many of you are skeptics- you think this stuff's for the birds
anyway.
> Well, as it happens, I do not think all of it is, although I've
> observed before and will again that Hubbard inculcated much of his
own
> fixed ideas, prejudices, paranoia and other unsavory stuff into Scn
> and that this was irresponsible of him, to say the least. But even
> though I find much use for many of the ideas in Scn, I do not think
> for one minute that someone isn't better off being cut off from
> emotional blackmail and contempt and people who do not practice what
> they preach than to just go off and do something different, and to
> live life in a manner in which he chose.
>
I've found that the "best" wins in life don't happen in scn at all.
> Scn is mystical in origin in some respects. The idea that one can
> deteriorate spiritually is very much extant in mysticism and in Scn.
> Well, fine, so one can. But it does not always mean that one WILL
> deteriorate as soon as he stops doing a particular thing or even if
> he, for a time, stops doing anything on the
metaphysical/philosophical
> front. One can be involved in spiritual activities and be very
> irresponsible and harmful to others and oneself. And one can be
> involved in mundane, "MEST" centered, every day activities and be
> leading a very fine life with no resulting detriment to his or her
> soul or spirituality or mental frame of mind or anything else.
>
> I think much of Scn is just fine. I like that path. I pick and
choose
> as to how I want to walk that path. So be it.
>
Thats the way it should be.
> But I tell you now that I'd rather be off that path completely than
to
> stick around for any emotional blackmail, fair game thingies or
> whatnot. (fortunately I don't have to. The ideas I like still exist,
> in or out of the church.)
>
> These things, while done under the aegis and auspices of a group
that
> supposedly fosters spirituality just compromise the ideology that
the
> group purports to espouse.
>
> Huh!! One would be better off being a janitor during the day, and
> doing sports, and barhopping in one's free time- IOW, one can be
> involved in some pretty mundane and ordinary stuff and still, as
long
> as one does not compromise himself, find himself being chipped at
day
> by day, have his wishes, thoughts and "determinism" overridden all
the
> time- be much better off than to give his all to a group that wishes
> to give little or nothing in return.
>
Out-exchange
> Scn centers find more and more excuses to not deliver auditing.
> Auditing's supposed to be THEIR deal. Their main thing. One doesn't
> get what one came for, then.
>
Hmmm...this has changed since I was in.
<snip>
> I'll end this post with another thought: any religion or methodology
> which prefers dishonesty, the stifling of candid express of thought
> over telling the truth - even when the truth is mighty embarrassing
> has some MAJOR housecleaning to do.
>
> And since the thought is father to the deed, then the first thing to
> get cleane d up would have to be some ideas that fostered these
> embarrassing things they don't want people discussing. This would
> include some of Hubbard's policies and of course, directives and
> projects put forth by post-LRH management.
>
This would be so easy to accomplish. All it really takes is a leader
with some foresight.
> Talk to ya later.
>
> Claire Swazey
> Ornery Do-It-Yourself Scientologist
heh
Good post.
best of luck
jack
barb
>
> I am going through withdrawl, of sorts, since I'm not in a position
> where I have constant access to a computer. But I'll try to keep in
> touch til I can get back to a normal situation.
Y'all are goin' threw "withdrawl?" Aww, darlin', does that mean y'all've
lost your Southern accsaint and are like, totally talkin' like a grunge
Seattlite?
Dude, I mean like, whoa! ;)
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.home.net/bwarr1/index.htm
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE $CIENTOLOGY? Sign the petition at
http://www4.PetitionOnline.com/cofs1/
"Every week, every month, every year, every decade and now
every century, Scientology does weird and stupid things
to damage its own reputation."
-Steve Zadarnowski
"Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
Scientology."
-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser