Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Evil Squirrel

2 views
Skip to first unread message

an1...@anon.penet.fi

unread,
Feb 19, 1993, 10:19:20 PM2/19/93
to

Several people in this group have referred to squirreling as if
it meant stealing ideas from the Cos. This is incorrect. Squirreling
occurs most often inside the Church itself, and every few years a
purge of squirrels occurs.
Squirreling is not stealing tech from CoS, it is any alteration
of the standard tech as discovered and written by LRH, no matter how
trivial. Even if it seems to work better, it isn't acceptable.

A personal example -> A student and I were doing a TR (Training
Routine) with me as the coach under the supervision of a course
supervisor. I would say begin, we would stare at each other without
moving or speaking until it ended. This student couldn't do this for
as long as required, so every time he moved I would end it by saying
"flunk" and then start the drill over.
After many failures, instead of saying "flunk" as specified in
the written instructions, I said "You did it again." This, I soon
discovered, was squirreling, and I was *required* to say the word
"flunk" to the student, because that's what LRH wrote. Even though the
TR was obviously over, and we had had a short conversation, he
demanded I say the word "flunk."

Since LRH frequently contradicted himself in writing, and was
vague as hell other times, this is a very useful way for someone with
influence to punish anyone he doesn't like. My having to say "flunk"
was amusing rather than punishing, but other people have been put
through hell for being squirrels when their alterations of the tech
were no worse than mine. Many other squirrels altered nothing, they
simply interpreted a sentence differently or followed the instructions
in one book instead of another. And under CoS justice "legal tricks
and technicalities" aren't allowed. This includes quoting a different
book or claiming your interpretation is as valid as the one held by
your accuser.


An Evil, Damned For Eternity, Squirrel

P.S. The newly-updated version of Bent Corydon's book, _L. Ron Hubbard
Messiah or Madman_ is now available in trade paperback. Hastings is
carrying it in their biography section for $15. At least one other
major chain has it on their shelves also.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to upd...@anon.penet.fi for details.

J Barbera

unread,
Feb 20, 1993, 4:10:44 AM2/20/93
to
In article <1993Feb20.0...@fuug.fi> an1...@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
> Several people in this group have referred to squirreling as if
>it meant stealing ideas from the Cos. This is incorrect. Squirreling
>occurs most often inside the Church itself, and every few years a
>purge of squirrels occurs.
> Squirreling is not stealing tech from CoS, it is any alteration
>of the standard tech as discovered and written by LRH, no matter how
>trivial. Even if it seems to work better, it isn't acceptable.
>
> A personal example -> A student and I were doing a TR (Training
>Routine) with me as the coach under the supervision of a course
>supervisor. I would say begin, we would stare at each other without
>moving or speaking until it ended. This student couldn't do this for
>as long as required, so every time he moved I would end it by saying
>"flunk" and then start the drill over.
> After many failures, instead of saying "flunk" as specified in
>the written instructions, I said "You did it again." This, I soon
>discovered, was squirreling, and I was *required* to say the word
>"flunk" to the student, because that's what LRH wrote. Even though the
>TR was obviously over, and we had had a short conversation, he
>demanded I say the word "flunk."

Making small alterations may seem harmless, but what kind of limit can one
put on these? No alterations are accepted for very obvious reasons. I
could see the workability of the tech as well as avoiding 2000+ splinter
groups very legitimate reasons.

> Since LRH frequently contradicted himself in writing, and was
>vague as hell other times, this is a very useful way for someone with
>influence to punish anyone he doesn't like. My having to say "flunk"
>was amusing rather than punishing, but other people have been put
>through hell for being squirrels when their alterations of the tech
>were no worse than mine. Many other squirrels altered nothing, they
>simply interpreted a sentence differently or followed the instructions
>in one book instead of another. And under CoS justice "legal tricks
>and technicalities" aren't allowed. This includes quoting a different
>book or claiming your interpretation is as valid as the one held by
>your accuser.

I have not yet seen a difference of "interpretation" that did not stem from
basic misunderstoods. I know some people are tired of hearing this, but
it is an absolute.

As for "punishment", handling is simply getting the person to restudy the
material to see what he/she missed.

>An Evil, Damned For Eternity, Squirrel

Sounds like intentional and outright squirreling or massive MU's.

Write to me at 12...@ef.gc.maricopa.edu so we can look into handling this in
a positive way.

Jonathon
Barbera

James Kibo Parry

unread,
Feb 22, 1993, 12:55:13 AM2/22/93
to
> Squirreling occurs most often inside the Church [of Scientology] itself,
> and every few years a purge of squirrels occurs.

I know someone who actually knows a nurse at the hospital where Tom
Cruise, prominent Scientologist, had a squirrel removed from his rectum!!!

-- K.

Frederick Scott

unread,
Feb 22, 1993, 3:17:08 AM2/22/93
to

That's nothing. I know the squirrel.

Apparently, it was a difficult operation for him (the squirrel, I mean).

Fred

AEgis

unread,
Feb 22, 1993, 12:16:39 PM2/22/93
to

>I have not yet seen a difference of "interpretation" that did not stem from
>basic misunderstoods. I know some people are tired of hearing this, but
>it is an absolute.

I agree, but the problem is that the ones "in power" can have
misunderstoods, too. And any attempt to make this known gets squashed.
What say you to that?


---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------

Psychotherapist ... Psycho-the-rapist ... coincidence? You decide.

Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
exu...@exu.ericsson.se "Don't let the .se fool you"

Dave Decot

unread,
Feb 23, 1993, 2:21:53 AM2/23/93
to
"Misunderstood" is a Scientologese word. It is used to refer vaguely to
a large variety of circumstances where the common characteristic is
that someone is confused by something they saw or read, because they
received a meaning something other than what was intended by the person
originating the communication.

It puts responsibility for misunderstandings fully on the reader, never
on the author. The student "has a misunderstood", which has to be "cleared".
No one would ever consider contemplating "clearing" the lousy text the
student was puzzling over.

The main Scientological effect of MU is to have the student blame himself
for LRH's ambiguity, word-invention, and vagueness.

Dave

Stig Atle Haugdahl

unread,
Feb 22, 1993, 7:40:03 PM2/22/93
to
I'm just wondering.
Now I've seen two scientologists use the word
misunderstood as a noun.
I checked up with my dictionary (english is 2. lang.)
but have not found references.
Is this a scn word?
What are the connotations (if any) making
it differ from the normal misunderstanding?
If there are no special connotations, why do
you use it? Too much like Newspeak to my likings.

No flames please

--
--------------------------------------------------
bibamus crapulam amici ///|\\\
mox nox mundi ultima veniet | o o |
volo amans moriri \ - /
-----------------------stig----------------(tm)---

J Barbera

unread,
Feb 23, 1993, 7:07:14 AM2/23/93
to

Interestingly, most of my misunderstoods have been with standard English
words. The technical terms I've found to be easily discovered and cleared.
I would have assumed that as a Class IV auditor, that would have overcome
enough MU's to no longer see the material as "vague" or whatever. What
is the source of the nattering?

Jonathon
Barbera

Dave Decot

unread,
Feb 23, 1993, 2:41:34 PM2/23/93
to
J Barbera (je...@lds-az.loral.com) wrote:

Bad word choice resulting in imprecise text is a problem with the author,
not the reader. There is good technical English and bad technical
English. Bad technical English causes confusion. Confusion is a BAD
THING.

If you want to call pointing out something that could be improved "nattering",
you are free to do so. I'm sure that many Scientologists experience
problems arising from poor word choice, but assume that everything LRH
writes must be completely perfect and precise, so blame themselves.

Eventually I finally discovered what LRH must have meant by his
ambiguous ramblings, but I can still see clearly that had he could have
chosen his words more carefully and standardly. Revising LRH's text
without changing the intended meaning would enable students to save much
time that is currently wasted arguing with each other and chasing down
"MU's" arising from LRH's use of words with several different meanings.

For instance, consider the following phrase from "Technical Degrades" (I
think; I am recalling because I don't have it handy), a bulletin every
Academy student must read and understand completely. It says something
like "Everyone must refrain from behavior calculated to lose to use
the technology of Dianetics and Scientology."

The idiom "to lose [something] to use" (meaning "to allow [something] to
become unusable") is not in any standard dictionary, nor is it in any
Scientology dictionary. But this is the only thing that LRH could have
meant here.

All people to whom I have mentioned this have been surprised and realize
that they never really understood that particular part of the policy
letter until now, and say something such as "I never would have figured
that out; I always thought there was just some kind of punctuation
or words missing there".

Dave Decot

Message has been deleted

Claudius

unread,
Feb 24, 1993, 5:32:58 AM2/24/93
to

an1...@anon.penet.fi wrote:

"...every few years a purge of squirrels occurs."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


A pride of lions
A pod of whales
A purge of squirrels
A fleecing of Scientologists


Claudius

Stig Atle Haugdahl

unread,
Feb 24, 1993, 3:28:23 AM2/24/93
to

OK, but what _is_ a misunderstood, then, except for being an
awkward spelling of misunderstanding?

Stephen M. Webb

unread,
Feb 24, 1993, 1:53:41 PM2/24/93
to

Rectum? Damn near killed 'm.


--
------- Stephen M. Webb -------

Ack! I've accidentally broken my leg! -- Ed the Happy Clown

Michael Preedy

unread,
Feb 24, 1993, 5:54:51 PM2/24/93
to

What ever happened to the good old jerbal? Does anyone know the advantages of
squirrels over jerbals?

-Mike

James Kibo Parry

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 12:58:38 AM2/25/93
to
In article <1993Feb24.1...@fuug.fi> an2...@anon.penet.fi (Claudius) writes:
> an1...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>
> "...every few years a purge of squirrels occurs."
>
> A pride of lions
> A pod of whales
> A purge of squirrels
> A fleecing of Scientologists

A bozing of Kibologists

-- K.

Ali Lemer

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 2:51:20 AM2/25/93
to
In article <C2yv5...@teleride.on.ca> ste...@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>In article <C2u5s...@world.std.com> ki...@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>>In article <1993Feb20.0...@fuug.fi> an1...@anon.penet.fi writes:
>>>
>>> Squirreling occurs most often inside the Church [of Scientology] itself,
>>> and every few years a purge of squirrels occurs.
>>
>>I know someone who actually knows a nurse at the hospital where Tom
>>Cruise, prominent Scientologist, had a squirrel removed from his rectum!!!
>
>Rectum? Damn near killed 'm.
>

He shoots, he scoooooooores!

(GOOD one. I wish I had said that. Yes, I know, "You will, you will.)

-- Ali "Yes, I'm costing the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars" Lemer.


--
Ali Lemer || "If all the world's a stage,
Columbia University (NYC) || I want to operate the trap door."
pho...@ctr.columbia.edu || -- Paul Beatty
**************** GO RANGERS! ******** POTVIN SUCKS! ***************************

Frederick Scott

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 3:36:09 AM2/25/93
to
mi...@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Michael Preedy) writes:
>What ever happened to the good old jerbal? Does anyone know the advantages of
>squirrels over jerbals?

Muscle mass to surface ratio. Gerbils (jerbal is an archaic spelling) have
been obsolete now for, oh roughly, 15-20 years in a technical sense and well
over 5 in the market. I don't think anyone's mass producing them anymore.

Fred

J Barbera

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 4:04:18 AM2/25/93
to

If you do something about, then it's not nattering. Write some letters or
something. Making comments here is nattering.

>Eventually I finally discovered what LRH must have meant by his
>ambiguous ramblings, but I can still see clearly that had he could have
>chosen his words more carefully and standardly. Revising LRH's text
>without changing the intended meaning would enable students to save much
>time that is currently wasted arguing with each other and chasing down
>"MU's" arising from LRH's use of words with several different meanings.
>
>For instance, consider the following phrase from "Technical Degrades" (I
>think; I am recalling because I don't have it handy), a bulletin every
>Academy student must read and understand completely. It says something
>like "Everyone must refrain from behavior calculated to lose to use
>the technology of Dianetics and Scientology."

"10. Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and
Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its
application."

One defintion of "to" is "for the purpose of" in my dictionary. I haven't
done KTL so I don't have certainty on this sort of thing yet.

>The idiom "to lose [something] to use" (meaning "to allow [something] to
>become unusable") is not in any standard dictionary, nor is it in any
>Scientology dictionary. But this is the only thing that LRH could have
>meant here.

How about "to deprive of the technology to use"?

(My dictionary has "to be deprived of" as a defintion for lose.)

>All people to whom I have mentioned this have been surprised and realize
>that they never really understood that particular part of the policy
>letter until now, and say something such as "I never would have figured
>that out; I always thought there was just some kind of punctuation
>or words missing there".
>
>Dave Decot

Have you written to RTC to see if there is something missing there?

Jonathon
Barbera

Eric Hill

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 4:33:02 AM2/25/93
to
In article <STIGH.93F...@jarl.itk.unit.no> st...@itk.unit.no (Stig Atle Haugdahl) writes:
>I'm just wondering.
>Now I've seen two scientologists use the word
>misunderstood as a noun.
>I checked up with my dictionary (english is 2. lang.)
>but have not found references.
>Is this a scn word?
>What are the connotations (if any) making
>it differ from the normal misunderstanding?
>If there are no special connotations, why do
>you use it? Too much like Newspeak to my likings.
>
>No flames please
>
>--

This is just the proof that scientologists can not speak english
after long exposure to the cult. After all the claims that
they improve the ability to communicate, they demostrate daily
(if not hourly) that they do not. In fact this even violates
thier own policy/tech. called "ARC" by using an english dialect
foriegn to the person they are talking to.

erichill


--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------

Free Radical

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 5:26:21 AM2/25/93
to
In article <1993Feb24.2...@g2syd.genasys.com.au>
mi...@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Michael 'Elron' Preedy) writes:
[...]

>What ever happened to the good old jerbal? Does anyone know the advantages of
>squirrels over jerbals?

One advantage comes to mind. Squirrels can spell.

RA

ro...@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (Rogue Agent)
----------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.

Phil Earnhardt

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 1:13:41 PM2/25/93
to

>>>Interestingly, most of my misunderstoods have been with standard English
>>>words. The technical terms I've found to be easily discovered and cleared.
>>>I would have assumed that as a Class IV auditor, that would have overcome
>>>enough MU's to no longer see the material as "vague" or whatever. What is
>>>the source of the nattering?
>>
>>Bad word choice resulting in imprecise text is a problem with the author,
>>not the reader. There is good technical English and bad technical English.
>>Bad technical English causes confusion. Confusion is a BAD THING.
>>
>>If you want to call pointing out something that could be improved
>>"nattering", you are free to do so. I'm sure that many Scientologists
>>experience problems arising from poor word choice, but assume that
>>everything LRH writes must be completely perfect and precise, so blame
>>themselves.
>
>If you do something about, then it's not nattering. Write some letters or
>something. Making comments here is nattering.

What Don's done is, via this newsgroup, report the problem to a CoS staff
person. He quoted the appropriate material.

Jonathon, why can't *you* do what's appropriate to fix the problem now?

Your last posting in this thread looks dangerously close to nettering (Usenet
nattering).

The other question: why has nobody else ever noticed the problem that
Don pointed out? Surely, of the people who understood the unclear writing,
one of them must have pointed out the problem to the right person...

--phil

Derek Tearne

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 7:45:03 PM2/25/93
to
(Michael Preedy) writes:
>(Frederick Scott) writes:

>(James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>>>an1...@anon.penet.fi writes:

>>>> Squirreling occurs most often inside the Church [of Scientology] itself,
>>>> and every few years a purge of squirrels occurs.

>>>I know someone who actually knows a nurse at the hospital where Tom
>>>Cruise, prominent Scientologist, had a squirrel removed from his rectum!!!

>>That's nothing. I know the squirrel.
>>Apparently, it was a difficult operation for him (the squirrel, I mean).
>

>What ever happened to the good old jerbal? Does anyone know the advantages of
>squirrels over jerbals?

Have you ever tried putting a spelling error up your bottom?

Derek "I certainly haven't" Tearne

--
Derek Tearne. -- de...@nezsdc.icl.co.nz -- Fujitsu New Zealand --
_______
_______} This is a Usenet Condom<tm>. Roll the condom over the .signature
file before posting to protect yourself from .sig retro-virii

Andrew Bulhak

unread,
Feb 25, 1993, 11:38:24 PM2/25/93
to
Michael Preedy (mi...@g2syd.genasys.com.au) wrote:

: What ever happened to the good old jerbal? Does anyone know the advantages of
: squirrels over jerbals?
^^^^^^^
Is this a misspelling, or does someone grep the net.news for "gerbil"?


+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | "If God is all, how can I be evil?" |
| sl...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | - Charles Manson |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | |
| Victoria, Australia | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Michael Preedy

unread,
Mar 1, 1993, 7:07:14 PM3/1/93
to
In article <1993Feb26.0...@nezsdc.icl.co.nz> de...@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:
>
>Have you ever tried putting a spelling error up your bottom?
>
>Derek "I certainly haven't" Tearne (or is that turd)
>
Actually, I have never tried sticking anything up my bottom but Bruce would
like his bed post back if you've managed to get it out yet Derek.

-Mike.

P.S. Jerbal is an easy word to misspell for one not intimate with the creature.

Message has been deleted

Chris Herborth

unread,
Mar 5, 1993, 9:12:34 AM3/5/93
to
In <1993Feb26....@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, Andrew Bulhak writes:
> Michael Preedy (mi...@g2syd.genasys.com.au) wrote:
>
> : What ever happened to the good old jerbal? Does anyone know the advantages of
> : squirrels over jerbals?
> ^^^^^^^
> Is this a misspelling, or does someone grep the net.news for "gerbil"?

The FBI _and_ the CIA!!!!

Now you're gonna get it...

--
-------------------========================================-------------------
Chris Herborth
cher...@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca

0 new messages