My Scientology story...and why I became a "Knight of Xenu"
clark_john_w
articulate style. Anybody who has any questions about the effectiveness
of Scientoloty as a whole, or in part is automatically a Suppressive.
Normally the kind of actions that Patick describes would be called
'Reality Testing' but in Scientology, that appears to be a Big no.no.
I'ld love to see the 'faithfull' respond to this one!
In article <3kcgp1$5...@ra.nrl.navy.mil> jo...@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Patrick Jost) writes:
>Scientology: My Story
>
>
>by Patrick Jost
>
>
>
>This is my "insider's account" of the time I spent in Scientology. I
>wrote it because it has been suggested that since I have had no
>formal training (not true!) that I should not comment on it.
>
>Background: My father was in advertising, and had HEAVY "show business"
>connections. I dabbled in the music business when I was doing some
>graduate work at UCLA. A "celebrity" friend of the family had mentioned
>Scientology to me several times; I had never been interested in the
>talk of engrams and so on, but I WAS interested in claims of increased
>intelligence and so on. I read the "standard" bio of Hubbard, and
>decided someone with that background might actually have some
>useful ideas.
>
>As a result, I was "sponsored" (which means I didn't pay for it) for
>some courses and auditing at the Los Angeles Celebrity Centre.
>
>Initially, I found it all very strange and very interesting. I was
>very popular with the instructors, as I could do "Dear Alice" and
>some of the other procedures in several foreign languages (I'm
>a linguist by training and profession).
>
>I was declared a "natural clear" and people started to talk to me
>about a possible "position" in the Guardian's (or is it just Guardian?)
>Office. To "qualify" for this position, I was given what can best
>be described (and I'm fudging this a little to avoid any legal
>hassles) as a "crash course" covering New Era Dianetics through
>OTIII. I did some solo work, but most of it was with a "tutor"
>who, I determined later, was also gently probing me on various
>things to determine my suitability for the GO and probably the
>Sea Org.
>
>Well, I kept "advancing" but nothing happened. I mentioned this
>several times, and was told that by the time I made OT, that
>I'd have an IQ of 200 (whatever that means!), perfect recall,
>and so on. Yes, on occasion I "believed" I was getting some
>results, but would always decide that I wasn't. I was also
>hearing stories of "powers" but when I asked for details
>or demonstrations ("you can fly!?" "show me!") they
>remained stories.
>
>OTIII and events surrounding it were just too much for me. Most
>readers of this group will know that OTIII describes events
>in the distant past involving alien beings, space travel,
>exploding volcanos and so on. I started to object to this
>on scientific grounds. I also have a good background in
>archaeology, and was asking some VERY pointed questions
>about geology, biology, linguistics, and so on.
>
>Initially, I was told that I needed more processing, that
>I had some implants that prevented me from "accepting"
>the truth; I'd have to do this before my "capabilities"
>were "released" or some such thing.
>
>At about this point, my "sponsor" started to hint that
>it was time for me to start to pay for my own auditing;
>it seems that my "complaining" was reaching some of the
>higher levels and someone who had initially been perceived
>as a hot recruit was not working out.
>
>I found out the cost; I didn't have that sort of money,
>so I approached my father. We had a long talk...he said,
>"Let's investigate...what do you know about this man
>Hubbard?" I showed him the bio, and he found it incredible;
>he (my father) served with distinction in the Pacific, and
>just did not accept it. We got copies of Navy records, and
>sure enough, no command of a corvette squadron, no long
>list of citations, no mention of serious injuries.
>
>The next step was a PI, who checked with George Washington
>University and Princeton. Hubbard flunked out of GWU (or
>dropped out...) and never attended Princeton. We found
>a reference to a Ph.D. from Sequoia University, which was
>a degree mill.
>
>I then allowed an electrical engineer to open my E-Meter and
>take a look. He explained the Wheatstone Bridge circuit to me,
>and I accepted that there is no correlation between resistance
>and "mental mass" (whatever that means).
>
>I returned to the Celebrity Centre and had a long talk with
>my course supervisor. I told her that I had seen no results...
>not personally, not with anyone else. I told her that I now
>had serious doubts about Hubbard's background as well as
>the effectiveness of the E-Meter. I also repeated my list
>of questions about OTIII.
>
>She told me (quite sternly) that I should not investigate
>Scientology. She told me that a "high level OT" could
>wipe me out with a thought, and that the Church did not
>tolerate "snooping around" and the like.
>
>She said that I needed to do "an ethics course" and that
>it would not cost me anything. She said that if I didn't
>do the course, that I'd be declared an SP and kicked out
>of Scientology.
>
>OK, off to ethics. My first encounter was with the "Director
>of Communications" of the Celebrity Centre, who also seemed
>to be the receptionist. She told me that she had gained the
>ability to speak fluent Spanish through auditing. Well,
>let me tell you, she could not speak fluent Spanish, in
>fact, apart from a few expressions, she knew nothing about
>Spanish. She told me that such accusations were "going
>to get me into trouble" with the Ethics Officer, who was
>a "powerful" person.
>
>Finally...into the inner sanctum of the ethics officer. The
>guy was a little runt who wore glasses, squinted and chain
>smoked. He told me that I had to stop asking questions, stop
>investigating, stop challenging people's claims of abilities,
>and so on. He wanted me to sign some forms. I refused. He
>produced some paperwork, and said that he'd process me for
>"declaration". I said I didn't care. He then told me that
>he'd "take care of me" if I kept asking questions. I asked
>him what that meant. He said that he would certainly hurt
>me, maybe kill me "with his OT powers" if I did not comply
>with his demands.
>
>At this point, I had a "cognition": Scientology is RUBBISH. I
>told him about my cognition, wished him well, and got up
>to leave. He said "you'll never get home...I'll stop you!".
>
>I walked out, he followed me, making all sorts of threats.
>I got to my car, and got out my key. He grabbed me. I turned
>around, he hit me (not very hard). I said "try that again,
>and you'd better be Superman". He did, I blocked it, and
>hit him myself. He picked up a board and swung it at me;
>I knocked it out of his hands, and hit him a few times
>until he fell down.
>
>This altercation had attracted some attention, and someone
>had called the police. Within (it seemed) minutes, the parking
>lot was full of Scientologists, and two police cars and an had
>ambulance had arrived.
>
>I told my version of the story. The EO said I was "a troublemaker
>who needed to learn some manners". The police asked if I wanted
>to press charges. I said no, I just need to get home. The EO
>was taken to the hospital for stitches-he cut his face on
>the pavement when he fell (I didn't mean to hurt him, but
>hey...a board?!).
>
>A few nights later, I had dinner with my "sposor"; I didn't
>know it when I set up the dinner, but two "representatives"
>from the CoS came along as well.
>
>My sponsor didn't get to say more than "hello"; the two
>CoS reps told me that I had betrayed my sponsor, the
>Church, Hubbard, my fellow Scientologists, and
>that I was a criminal. They said I had committed a
>"high crime" by attacking the Ethics Officer.
>
>I was told that the ONLY way "out" was to sign up for
>the Sea Org-then and there-and promise to pay not only
>for all of the services I had received, but for what
>I gathered was about two years of additional training
>and auditing.
>
>I said that I was not going to join the Sea Org, not
>pay them anything, and not stop asking questions. One
>of them said "you know, I could kill you right now...
>with a thought". I said "well, you know, I've been asking
>for demonstrations for a while now, why don't you just
>do it and get it over with?"
>
>The reply was something like "don't worry, we'll get
>you when we have to".
>
>I said "let me give you some incentive" and poured
>a glass of water down the front of her blouse. I
>got up and left the restaurant. Yes, I know it was
>rude, but I did-and still do-want to see a demonstration
>of all these powers that I've heard about and been
>threatened with. I figured a little ice water ought
>to provoke even an operating thetan into action...
>
>And, surprisingly, that's about it. I got an
>"invoice" from them about two months later,
>which I ignored.
>
>So let's look at what happened...I got no results
>at all, that's important. If "the tech always works"
>then something's wrong here. I asked questions, and
>was accused of heresy (let's not get into the
>results of my research, but I will say that I think
>that CoS "history" is a bunch of lies). I was
>not only threatened, but attacked.
>
>To me, false claims, no results, and attacks are
>not a good combination. The actions of the Church
>of Scientology are what has set me against it.
>
>I welcome any and all comments...
>
>
>
>
>Patrick Jost
>
>
>
Ken Long
: As a result, I was "sponsored" (which means I didn't pay for it) for
: some courses and auditing at the Los Angeles Celebrity Centre.
Outpoint: Free service - free fall. If someone offered services to
Patrick without him paying for them (for the sake of "getting him to like
Scn." it was done so by a PTS, and part of the "trouble" as a result is
Patrick's current situation (whether it was his idea or not).
If it was not Patrick's idea then it was for the sake of a statistic, and
was non-standard to allow him to start.
If something is not valuable enough for a person to exchange for, that
lack of value will be reflected in a lack of results.
: I was declared a "natural clear"...
Outpoint: If someone pushes someone into a false attestation, or
declares someone as having attained some state he or she did not
originate then that's a skipped gradient, to say the least.
As Patrick later stated, he got no results - a blatant "string hanging
out" to any standardly trained tech or Qual personnel. When someone does
not or cannot GET the step they are on, there's an earlier step which was
omitted.
: To "qualify" for this position, I was given what can best
: be described (and I'm fudging this a little to avoid any legal
: hassles) as a "crash course" covering New Era Dianetics through
: OTIII.
Outpoint: "quickying." The person, himself, must KNOW and understand
his materials. Speeding up the process to suit someone's statistical
wellbeing is off purpose and off policy.
I did some solo work, but most of it was with a "tutor"
: who, I determined later, was also gently probing me on various
: things to determine my suitability for the GO and probably the
: Sea Org.
Outpoint: Supervising with alterior motives than achieving a complete
communication formula between a person intending to communicate with LRH
via his works.
: Well, I kept "advancing" but nothing happened.
Of course not! Gradients were skipped and no one LOOKED to SEE if that
had occurred.
: I mentioned this
: several times and was told that by the time I made OT, that
: I'd have an IQ of 200 (whatever that means!), perfect recall,
: and so on.
That "paying no attention" to BAD INDICATORS for the sake of a
statistic, or to "please seniors" is out-tech and "reasonableness."
Also, if "We always deliver what we promise" is Senior Policy, then "We
never promise anything unless we are CERTAIN we *can* deliver it" should
go along with it. ALL people's experiences are different. No general
abilities gained are (nor can be) predicted other than those on the
Grade Chart. If they are "promised" then they are promised by someone
other than a standard Scientologist (whether they appeared to be that or not).
: Initially, I was told that I needed more processing, that
: I had some implants that prevented me from "accepting"
: the truth; I'd have to do this before my "capabilities"
: were "released" or some such thing.
Yes! You needed the gradients in your auditing that were skipped! There
was some precise point at which progress or results should have occurred,
but didn't, which nobody noticed who should have noticed. As far as
"implants" go, nobody could *possibly* know that but you. Pointing the
finger at the PC and saying "his unhandled case is the reason I audit or
train shoddily" is very (opposite) of standard.
: At about this point, my "sponsor" started to hint that
: it was time for me to start to pay for my own auditing;
Get the free fall started, then grab onto the door of the airplane door,
while the person he "cared" about goes plummeting into oblivion, and
don't even toss him a parachute!
I'd call that an "irresponsor."
: it seems that my "complaining" was reaching some of the
: higher levels and someone who had initially been perceived
: as a hot recruit was not working out.
Of course, no one applied the Data Series and found out WHY. You kept
saying "the floor is the surface we are walking on, and if you look down
you will see it" and everyone kept looking UP. The proverbial "string
hanging out" and no one would pull it, but after a while they started
getting irritated that you were tickling them in the face with the "string."
: I returned to the Celebrity Centre and had a long talk with
: my course supervisor. I told her that I had seen no results...
: not personally, not with anyone else.
: She told me (quite sternly) that I should not investigate
: Scientology. She told me that a "high level OT" could
: wipe me out with a thought, and that the Church did not
: tolerate "snooping around" and the like.
Her response should have been, "When was the first point at which your
interest in the subject waned?"
Someone who has ARC for the subject and then indicated that the ARC has
lowered SHOWS that there has been a reduction in affinity (for some
reason), reality (for some reason), communication (for some reason) or
understanding (for some reason). The INSTANT the ARC was broken should
be found and the REASON be found and corrected.
The symbols are not the things. Someone indicating he has "changed his
mind" from interest to disinterest is a SYMBOL of the REAL THING at it's
route. If someone's poking you with a 10 foot stick, you don't start
sandpapering the end of the stick to make it more comfortable when it
pokes! It's just a symbol of something going on with *the guy who's
holding the stick*!
: She said that I needed to do "an ethics course" and that
: it would not cost me anything. She said that if I didn't
: do the course, that I'd be declared an SP and kicked out
: of Scientology.
Wrong why = wrong solution. "Form letter" response without recognizing
(or even looking for) the rightness of the being. It is not good to know
(or not) Policy without knowing tech too. You may know how to work in an
organization, but if you don't know what makes *beings* "tick" then 1/3
of the triangle is missing.
: He then told me that
: he'd "take care of me" if I kept asking questions.
According to what you've written here, not being taken care of
(standardly) was the reason you had a complaint in the first place.
: I asked
: him what that meant. He said that he would certainly hurt
: me, maybe kill me "with his OT powers" if I did not comply
: with his demands.
So much for maintaining friendly relations with the public and the
environment. You've indicated having a bit of an "attitude" by the time
you got *referred* (buck-passed) to the ethics officer. Who wouldn't?
An good auditor would know the consequences of indicating the wrong item.
But also, as far as your actions go, thinking Scientology didn't work
because you didn't know it wasn't Scientology you were getting is sort of
a "wrong indication" to someone who knows it works, as well. Thus their
response.
: At this point, I had a "cognition": Scientology is RUBBISH. I
: told him about my cognition, wished him well, and got up
: to leave.
What was being labeled as "Scientology" (but wasn't) was rubbish.
: The police asked if I wanted
: to press charges. I said no, I just need to get home.
Well done on maintaining friendly relations with the public and the
environment.
: My sponsor didn't get to say more than "hello";
: the two
: CoS reps told me that I had betrayed my sponsor, the
: Church, Hubbard, my fellow Scientologists, and
: that I was a criminal.
Only going by what you said, I'd say it was the other way around, except
for the criminality (something for nothing) of you not paying for your own
services. Had you done so, maybe your intention to insist on, and get,
results would have been greater. But who is paying for the service
should have nothing to do with tech and admin personnel insisting on
"result for the pc, results for the pc, results for the pc."
: They said I had committed a
: "high crime" by attacking the Ethics Officer.
Who attacked who? Which was it: Was he "off post" or having "case on
post". In the absence of policy adherence, case is the only guiding
factor in any person's actions, unless a little of the being can shine
through.
: I was told that the ONLY way "out" was to sign up for
: the Sea Org-then and there-and promise to pay not only
: for all of the services I had received, but for what
: I gathered was about two years of additional training
: and auditing.
Borderline declared SP, but that's "bygones-be-bygones" if you join the
S.O? Paying for what you got would be okay, but then getting what you
paid for would also have to figure in. That would mean correction of
what went wrong (the real Why).
: So let's look at what happened...I got no results
: at all, that's important. If "the tech always works"
: then something's wrong here.
What's wrong was out-tech. Maybe not all the way, but ANY gradient
skipped makes any further tech "out" until that's corrected, even if the
further tech is standard.
: I asked questions, and
: was accused of heresy (let's not get into the
: results of my research, but I will say that I think
: that CoS "history" is a bunch of lies). I was
: not only threatened, but attacked.
When comparing things LRH said to Life, I've found that he mostly spoke
the truth. He was a human being (being modified by "human") but his
brightness as a being shined through a LOT. The test of what he said
you'd find if you looked, where and how he said to look, is if you do and
you SEE the things he said you'd find. If you don't see them, then there
IS a lie involved *somewhere*!
So what if he only commanded a row boat in WW II. So what if he didn't
graduate high school. "Ye shall be judged according to thy works." Did
he ever do anything right? From what I've seen, PLENTY! Is the world or
even a single person better off for any of what he did? I'd say so. But
a general claim that it is a "bunch of lies" doesn't wash. If there was
something at the original basis of things going bad "in Scn." for you,
then that thing will be at the basis of *any* counter intention toward the
subject. If the subject "always works" - or even if it only sometimes
did, there would be *something* different about those times that it
worked compared to the times when it "didn't" work. From what I know,
the times it didn't work were because it was something other than
Scientology being passed off for the real thing.
: To me, false claims, no results, and attacks are
: not a good combination. The actions of the Church
: of Scientology are what has set me against it.
Totally understandable. If you were attacked, going only by what you
said here, the attacks were attacks of the WRONG TARGET. The correct
target, which should have been aggressively attacked, was the out tech
which resulted in the FIRST time you should have gotten results but
didn't. Everything afterward was just arbitraries, compounded by arbitrary
solutions, compounded by further arbitraries.
The only thing we can be upbraided for, really, is failure to apply our
technology. If someone doesn't SEE that a complaint is a complaint about
an absence of standard application, then they are liable to think the
complaint is "actually" due to any number of wrong targets.
-Ken-
Deirdre
jo...@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil writes:
> At this point, I had a "cognition": Scientology is RUBBISH. I
> told him about my cognition, wished him well, and got up
>
> I walked out, he followed me, making all sorts of threats.
> I got to my car, and got out my key. He grabbed me. I turned
> around, he hit me (not very hard). I said "try that again,
> and you'd better be Superman". He did, I blocked it, and
> hit him myself. He picked up a board and swung it at me;
> I knocked it out of his hands, and hit him a few times
> until he fell down.
This whole thing is really interesting. Note that the attention shifts at
this point to *stopping* Patrick.
[snip]
> I was told that the ONLY way "out" was to sign up for
> the Sea Org-then and there-and promise to pay not only
> for all of the services I had received, but for what
> I gathered was about two years of additional training
> and auditing.
>
> I said that I was not going to join the Sea Org, not
> pay them anything, and not stop asking questions. One
> of them said "you know, I could kill you right now...
> with a thought". I said "well, you know, I've been asking
> for demonstrations for a while now, why don't you just
> do it and get it over with?"
Yes, I don't believe they can do it either. For one thing, the CofS
doesn't teach either psychic attacks OR defense. Thank goodness for small
favors.
_Deirdre
Phil
a-j...@ac.tandem.com (clark_john_w) wrote:
> Patrick's article really seems to sum it all up in quite an
> articulate style. Anybody who has any questions about the effectiveness
> of Scientoloty as a whole, or in part is automatically a Suppressive.
You're OK patrick.
LRH said 'when in doubt communicate'(ask questions
investigate etc... thats covered fully in his writings in KSW and
Fundamentals of Ethics). Your questions were excellent,your wit
clean, and thats probably what underlies your success in life.
You insisted on confirmation of claims, data, and etc. (LRH's Data
Series 1). Thats just common sense.
You held this position despite verbal and physical assault.. I believe
thats called integrity.
You are not arrogant about the situation, thats a function of
intelligence, integrity and compassion....
____________
Your declare is hereby awarded back to the persons who issued it, and
you are awarded the NW. (Thats the 'Nice Write-up' award).
In retrospect you were being ask to join a group that was declared
enmass criminal itself, by the poodle himself, who is himself now
avoiding service, and who commands the 20 individuals indicted on
criminal charges in Spain, and of course employs the private eye
slug Mr.Gangerous Ingram who is a wanted man in several states!
I'd say your insights were 20/20 and about 10 years ahead of your
time, and .... you avoided being under the thumb of the 11 criminals
from the USGO who were sent to prison.
Now Lemme see? These guys called you a criminal? For what?, asking
questions. Perhaps we need to ask a few more questions.
Phil
......_________________________....
The truth will set a man free, lies no matter the justification
send a man to the pit ... and really thats not honorable intention,
from any perspective.
Andrew J. Testa
A point by point reply to Patrick's "Knight of Xenu" post:
* Wrong why = wrong solution. "Form letter" response without recognizing
* (or even looking for) the rightness of the being. It is not good to know
* (or not) Policy without knowing tech too. You may know how to work in an
* organization, but if you don't know what makes *beings* "tick" then 1/3
* of the triangle is missing.
* : I asked
* : him what that meant. He said that he would certainly hurt
* : me, maybe kill me "with his OT powers" if I did not comply
* : with his demands.
* So much for maintaining friendly relations with the public and the
* environment. You've indicated having a bit of an "attitude" by the time
* you got *referred* (buck-passed) to the ethics officer. Who wouldn't?
* An good auditor would know the consequences of indicating the wrong item.
* But also, as far as your actions go, thinking Scientology didn't work
* because you didn't know it wasn't Scientology you were getting is sort of
* a "wrong indication" to someone who knows it works, as well. Thus their
* response.
* : the two
* : CoS reps told me that I had betrayed my sponsor, the
* : Church, Hubbard, my fellow Scientologists, and
* : that I was a criminal.
* Only going by what you said, I'd say it was the other way around, except
* for the criminality (something for nothing) of you not paying for your own
* services. Had you done so, maybe your intention to insist on, and get,
* results would have been greater. But who is paying for the service
* should have nothing to do with tech and admin personnel insisting on
* "result for the pc, results for the pc, results for the pc."
* : They said I had committed a
* : "high crime" by attacking the Ethics Officer.
* Who attacked who? Which was it: Was he "off post" or having "case on
* post". In the absence of policy adherence, case is the only guiding
* factor in any person's actions, unless a little of the being can shine
* through.
* The only thing we can be upbraided for, really, is failure to apply our
* technology. If someone doesn't SEE that a complaint is a complaint about
* an absence of standard application, then they are liable to think the
* complaint is "actually" due to any number of wrong targets.
* -Ken-
So what Ken is saying here is that the Celebrity Center, from the
receptionists to the trainers all the way up to the Ethics officer and the
OSA stormtroopers, are all incapable of applying the scientology tech.
As we thought. How could EVERYONE at the center involved in Patrick's
case have bungled applying tech at every turn? Isn't this the same center
that takes the CoS showpieces? All the high profile Hollywood types?
Would the entire center be staffed by incompetents?
One question I have Ken, is why were so many people at the Celebrity
Center so obsessed with being able to "kill with a thought?" Patrick
was warned more than once that he could be "killed by a thought." Is
this standard practice at this center? Did these people really
believe they could kill Patrick with a thought? If so, why didn't they?
--
/ Brought to you by Mars [tm] brand candies. Xenu's favorite! \
/ Andy Testa I'm OT! I could KILL you with a thought! \
\ te...@hou.moc.com BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAAAA! /
\ Contributing to the downfall of Scientology since 1995. /
TarlaStar
make all along. Supposedly the "tech" is infallible if used
correctly. The problem is that it is used incorrectly so often,
that it would negate the usefullness of the "tech" even if the
claim of infallibilty were true.
Let's get completely objective here for a sec. Many Navajo still
practice the old religion. There are a variety of healing
ceremonies which fall under the category of "sand painting".
These ceremonies are not written down, but must be passed along,
word for word from teacher to student. If a patient comes to a
healer and is healed (either by "Magic" or by bio-feedback or
whatever) credit is given to the medicine man, and his/her
ability to perform the ceremonies properly. In fact, they are
infallible if done correctly.(native view) If, however, the
person doesn't get better, the blame is placed on a misspoken
word, or a misplaced bit of sand etc. In other words, it is NEVER
the belief system which is wrong, only the practitioner.
In our medical community, we go to healers who tell us what
microbe or virus or diseased cells are responsible for our
illness. We can't see these things, but the medical community has
created a mythos which is convincing enough that it works for
most of us, much of the time (either by magic/science or
biofeedback, or whatever). If we go to a doctor and we are
healed, we give credit to "medical science" for healing us. The
tech is pretty much infallible. If we are not healed, it is
because "you didn't come to me soon enough" or "we thought it was
something else, but we were wrong...NOW we know" etc. In other
words, we blame the practitioner and not the technology.
The truth of the matter is that we are just looking for the most
likely paradigm, the thing that explains what we experience in
the most orderly and simple fashion understandable by the
greatest number. I have no doubt that there are many who are
healed through Scientology (either by magic, or biofeedback or
whatever) but let's face it. The tech IS fallible. If it were
not, then any human could use it, and would NEVER fail. Admit a
basis of fallibility and maybe we can start a dialogue. Without
the open mindedness of allowing for falliblity, there is no way
for either side to come closer together.
--
"For me eroticism must be ugly, the aesthetic always divine,
and death beautiful." - S. Dali
*****
Rideo ergo sum-Tarla
Ken Long
: So what Ken is saying here is that the Celebrity Center, from the
: receptionists to the trainers all the way up to the Ethics officer and the
: OSA stormtroopers, are all incapable of applying the scientology tech.
No. What I'm saying is what I'm saying - not what you're saying. They
can and do apply standard tech, and have satisfied customers to show for
it. But they did not in Patrick's case. Also, this took place in the
1960s, and things have changed since - including the Bridge.
: As we thought.
: How could EVERYONE at the center involved in Patrick's
: case have bungled applying tech at every turn?
You'll have to ask them. But, as I said, the time period sheds a little
light onto it. Though not why the org has not applied Confusion through
Liability toward Patrick.
: One question I have Ken, is why were so many people at the Celebrity
: Center so obsessed with being able to "kill with a thought?"
Are they? Who, exactly?
: Patrick
: was warned more than once that he could be "killed by a thought." Is
: this standard practice at this center?
Is it/ Do you not know the subject enough to know the difference? Or do
you only "know" it enough to criticize?
: Did these people really
: believe they could kill Patrick with a thought? If so, why didn't they?
If the really could they would have said nothing of the ability. But, if
they had the ability, the case which prompted such a reactive response
would have been gone. Along with ability gained comes disability lost.
If a staff does not follow tech and policy, case is the only guideline a
person has left to determine his actions. Unless, of course, some of the
brighness of the being can filter through.
Policy takes the group toward its goals. Anything else either inhibits
that or reverses it. There is no "close" (except in horse shoe throwing).
-Ken-
Jon Noring
>...There is no "close" (except in horse shoe throwing).
And nuclear war. :^)
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two
1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books
Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations.
Andrew J. Testa
* No. What I'm saying is what I'm saying - not what you're saying. They
Forgive me then, Ken, but it appeared that you were saying that everyone
at the Celebrity Center had mishandled Patrick's case. I find it hard to
believe that all of these people would fail on a single case, rather than
individual failures on random cases. The latter could be attributted to
human error, but I don't buy the former.
* can and do apply standard tech, and have satisfied customers to show for
* it. But they did not in Patrick's case. Also, this took place in the
* 1960s, and things have changed since - including the Bridge.
I don't recall Patrick mentioning the time of his involvement. From what
to deduce this?
* : How could EVERYONE at the center involved in Patrick's
* : case have bungled applying tech at every turn?
* You'll have to ask them. But, as I said, the time period sheds a little
The problem is, I can't ask them. But there are proponents of the church
here who maintain that the tech is fool-proof. This should not have
happened, least of all with the Ethics Officer of the highest visibility
Org in the US!
* light onto it. Though not why the org has not applied Confusion through
* Liability toward Patrick.
When was the Condition of Confusion added to the Bridge? My 1976 copy
of "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" does not include it.
* : One question I have Ken, is why were so many people at the Celebrity
* : Center so obsessed with being able to "kill with a thought?"
* Are they? Who, exactly?
Yes. Patrick stated this quite clearly in his posting. You responded
to that posting. The Ethics officer and the OSA goon both threatened
him with it.
* : Patrick
* : was warned more than once that he could be "killed by a thought." Is
* : this standard practice at this center?
* Is it/ Do you not know the subject enough to know the difference? Or do
* you only "know" it enough to criticize?
Don't get defensive, Ken. I just want to know why two people felt it
necessary to do this. It seems patently ludicrous to me, especially since
the Ethics officer had to result to swinging a board at him. You don't
have to be a genius to criticise that kind of behavior.
* : Did these people really
* : believe they could kill Patrick with a thought? If so, why didn't they?
* If the really could they would have said nothing of the ability. But, if
* they had the ability, the case which prompted such a reactive response
* would have been gone. Along with ability gained comes disability lost.
None of this either follows or makes sense. All I want to know is:
Is this an ability that OT's believe they have? Is it related to the
rather bizarre wording of the High Crime "first degree murder, arson,
disintegration of persons or belongings" from "Introduction to
Scientology Ethics?"
* If a staff does not follow tech and policy, case is the only guideline a
But it seems that staff are always bungling tech! Operation was
bungled tech, according to Milne. It's really hard to believe that something
that claims to be so powerful and self-evident (from Milne) could be
so consistently mishandled by the highest level members of its church?
* person has left to determine his actions. Unless, of course, some of the
* brighness of the being can filter through.
* Policy takes the group toward its goals. Anything else either inhibits
* that or reverses it. There is no "close" (except in horse shoe throwing).
* -Ken-
I'm sorry, Ken. But you need to leave the scientology jargon out. I don't
want to decipher it. Please restate this using standard English. And the
stated Policies of the CoS can be downright repugnant.
Ken Long
: Also, this took place in the
Correction: 1970s. The Sea Org was started in the late 1960's anf the
Apollo was sold in the mid 1970's.
Things have still changed, since.
-Ken-
Marcus Pennell
ken...@netcom.com (Ken Long) wrote:
>
>Outpoint: If someone pushes someone into a false attestation, or
>declares someone as having attained some state he or she did not
>originate then that's a skipped gradient, to say the least.
>
In other words: If the sucker will not accept the suggestion being implanted
it is because the pre-conditioning was not thorough enough. Send them off to
be yelled at a bit more and they will comply.
Marcus
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"They're all the same," said Ron, with glee
"Old men, or bright-eyed youth.
It's always easier to sell them some shit,
Than it is just to give them the truth."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$