Why I am a public critic of CoS
Andreas Heldal-Lund
One of the reasons became obvious after this post to the
guest book at Operation Clambake:
Message #1 (07:03 23/06-98)
Name/Nick: Sarah
My ex-husband is in $. We have been divorced for 14 yrs.
We have two children that he has recently disconnected
from due to the fact that they have chosen not to study
Scientology. It has been heartbreaking for them. We have
appreciated this sight, the info, & support it has given
us.
Scientology really makes me sad. :(
Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________________
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius
Hud Nordin
In article <358f54e9...@193.212.213.145> hel...@online.no (Andreas Heldal-Lund) writes:
>One of the reasons became obvious after this post to the
>guest book at Operation Clambake:
>
> Message #1 (07:03 23/06-98)
> Name/Nick: Sarah
> My ex-husband is in $. We have been divorced for 14 yrs.
> We have two children that he has recently disconnected
> from due to the fact that they have chosen not to study
> Scientology. It has been heartbreaking for them. We have
> appreciated this sight, the info, & support it has given
> us.
>
>Scientology really makes me sad. :(
Mommy, where's Daddy?
He loves something more than us:
Scientology.
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California
Claire Swazey
Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote:
>
> One of the reasons became obvious after this post to the
> guest book at Operation Clambake:
>
> Message #1 (07:03 23/06-98)
> Name/Nick: Sarah
> My ex-husband is in $. We have been divorced for 14 yrs.
> We have two children that he has recently disconnected
> from due to the fact that they have chosen not to study
> Scientology. It has been heartbreaking for them. We have
> appreciated this sight, the info, & support it has given
> us.
>
> Scientology really makes me sad. :(
>
> Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
> _______________________________________________________________
> "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
> thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
> never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
> and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius
What makes me sad is a parent who does not give his children the freedom
to make their own choices and still love them and want to be with them.
Claire
John C. Randolph
Claire Swazey may or may not have said:
-> Andreas Heldal-Lund wrote:
-> >
-> > One of the reasons became obvious after this post to the
-> > guest book at Operation Clambake:
-> >
-> > Message #1 (07:03 23/06-98)
-> > Name/Nick: Sarah
-> > My ex-husband is in $. We have been divorced for 14 yrs.
-> > We have two children that he has recently disconnected
-> > from due to the fact that they have chosen not to study
-> > Scientology. It has been heartbreaking for them. We have
-> > appreciated this sight, the info, & support it has given
-> > us.
-> >
-> > Scientology really makes me sad. :(
[snip]
->
-> What makes me sad is a parent who does not give his children the freedom
-> to make their own choices and still love them and want to be with them.
Yeah, it's pretty heinous. Of course, it's not only clams who do this sort
of thing. I know a woman who was raised as a Jehovah's Witless, and when she
decided in her early twenties that she didn't believe it anymore, her mother
didn't talk to her for two years, and her sister *still* won't talk to her
(after fifteen years!)
I also know someone whose parents stopped talking to her for several years
because she married a man who isn't Jewish. They came to their senses,
though, when her brother also married a gentile. They didn't like the idea
of never knowing their grandchildren.
-jcr
(So glad I was raised without religion!)
Steve A
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:02:57 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> What makes me sad is a parent who does not give his children the freedom
> to make their own choices and still love them and want to be with them.
>
> Claire
Let me tell you something that makes me sad. A woman and her two
daughters moves in with another man, who starts to sexually abuse the
two girls. Eventually, the mother discovers what is going on, and goes
to her chaplain for advice. To her surprise, the chaplain not only
tells her that she must not go to the authorities and report her
boyfriend, who is also a member of the same congregation, but informs
her that, if she does, she will be thrown out of the church.
Those children had no freedom to resist the sexual advantage of
someone over three times their age, nor were they to be allowed the
freedom that most citizens would expect: that of being able to report
a crime to the authorities and at the very least have the perpetrator
removed from the situation.
Why did this woman's chaplain refuse to take action against the man
abusing her two daughters? Because he was doing good business for the
church - he was "upstat".
And the name of the so-called church that tacitly endorses such an
egregious abuse of youngsters?
Yup, our friends at the good old "Church" of Scientology.
Any comments, Claire?
--
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>
Bev
The URL with the case Steve is referring to below is at:
http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/Co$/strawn/ Worth
taking the time to read.
Beverly
Steve A wrote:
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > What makes me sad is a parent who does not give his children the freedom
> > to make their own choices and still love them and want to be with them.
> Let me tell you something that makes me sad. A woman and her two
Herculstud
>> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > What makes me sad is a parent who does not give his children the freedom
>> > to make their own choices and still love them and want to be with them.
>
>> Let me tell you something that makes me sad. A woman and her two
>> daughters moves in with another man, who starts to sexually abuse the
>> two girls. Eventually, the mother discovers what is going on, and goes
>> to her chaplain for advice. To her surprise, the chaplain not only
>> tells her that she must not go to the authorities and report her
>> boyfriend, who is also a member of the same congregation, but informs
>> her that, if she does, she will be thrown out of the church.
>>
>> Those children had no freedom to resist the sexual advantage of
>> someone over three times their age, nor were they to be allowed the
>> freedom that most citizens would expect: that of being able to report
>> a crime to the authorities and at the very least have the perpetrator
>> removed from the situation.
>>
>> Why did this woman's chaplain refuse to take action against the man
>> abusing her two daughters? Because he was doing good business for the
>> church - he was "upstat".
>>
>> And the name of the so-called church that tacitly endorses such an
>> egregious abuse of youngsters?
>>
>> Yup, our friends at the good old "Church" of Scientology.
>>
>> Any comments, Claire?
another glowing example of the tech
Claire Swazey
No,it's not any glowing example of anything but child abuse and
corruption. I don't give a S**t who is doing it and why and who
approves of it, it is wrong. Hubbard's policies do NOT say to do this
because -- hold onto your hats--it's WRONG to hurt kids and wrong to
condone or enable it in any way. If this woman was really harassed and
pursued by anyone from the church because she did the right thing about
this bastard that was hurting the kids, then that person (that did the
harassing) was unworthy of the term "Scientologist".
So, let me get this straight, every time a scientologist does something
wrong or unpleasant or immoral it's going to be proof positive that the
entire movement is no good. Seems to be what you are saying. Well, of
the people I know at my local org, I don't know ONE that would ever
countenance such treatment of children and those that protect them.
So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
group for it. Nice going.
All my love,
Claire
Keith Henson
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
snip
: > another glowing example of the tech
: No,it's not any glowing example of anything but child abuse and
: corruption. I don't give a S**t who is doing it and why and who
: approves of it, it is wrong. Hubbard's policies do NOT say to do this
: because -- hold onto your hats--it's WRONG to hurt kids and wrong to
: condone or enable it in any way. If this woman was really harassed and
: pursued by anyone from the church because she did the right thing about
: this bastard that was hurting the kids, then that person (that did the
: harassing) was unworthy of the term "Scientologist".
Well, maybe so to you anyway, but the person was an offical of
scientology, a minister yet, who insisted that the guy was upstat and it
would cause too much of a PR flap if she reported her kids were being
abused. Re Hubbard policy, there is a HCOB which makes the point you can
get away with anything if you are upstat, i.e., making money for CoS.
: So, let me get this straight, every time a scientologist does something
: wrong or unpleasant or immoral it's going to be proof positive that the
: entire movement is no good. Seems to be what you are saying. Well, of
: the people I know at my local org, I don't know ONE that would ever
: countenance such treatment of children and those that protect them.
I have not been impressed with the treatment I see scientology kids get
at the San Jose org. Kids who are only 3-4 wonder around it a bare
parking lot, no supervision, nothing to play with, and look through the
fence into the nice play yard for homeless families next door to the org.
But from what I see on the net, things are much worse at the big orgs
like FLAG or LA. And have you ever heard of FO 3905? The one which is
used to force abortions or banishment on SO families?
: So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
: If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
: his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
: group for it. Nice going.
Actually, I don't as much blame the group as I do Hubbard's nasty set of
memes (infectious ideas). They bring out the worst in people, much like
drugs do. If you don't believe me, to take a look at the L rundowns.
Keith Henson
Tilman Hausherr
>So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
>If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
>his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
>group for it. Nice going.
This happened in Clearwater, in the "mekka" of 100% standard tech. And
nowhere is there evidence that scientology ever apologized to the mother
and her daughters.
--
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
John C. Randolph
Claire Swazey may or may not have said:
-> So, let me get this straight, every time a scientologist does something
-> wrong or unpleasant or immoral it's going to be proof positive that the
-> entire movement is no good.
No, not at all. It's more like when a clam does something wrong, and it's
brought to the attention of the organization, and the org acts to cover it
up, *that* is the evidence that the movement is no good. That, and the
brutality towards the Co$'s critics and former members, the demands that Co$
victims dissociate from their families, the constant money-grubbing from
their band of suckers (that's you, Claire!) and the habitual lying about
everything from having millions of followers to LRH's pathetic navy record.
If a "religion" covers up the misdeeds of its adherents, that's what makes it
a rotten outfit.
-> Seems to be what you are saying.
Then go back and read it again.
-> Well, of the people I know at my local org, I don't know ONE that would
-> ever countenance such treatment of children and those that protect them.
Then your local org must not be in Clearwater, Florida.
-> So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
Dunno, cause I've never seen it happen.
-> If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
-> his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
-> group for it. Nice going.
Nope, I blame each and every *individual* for what they do, individually. In
the case in question, the child molestor is guilty of the molestation. His
girlfriend's "chaplain" is guilty of aiding and abetting a felony. The
mother of the girls, is guilty of obeying the Chaplain, when she was directly
ordered to leave her children in peril.
Garden variety clams like yourself, are in most cases merely guilty of giving
money to an organized crime operation, while emphatically denying the evil
right under your nose, which is blatantly obvious to anyone who'll simply
open their eyes.
-jcr
Claire Swazey
Just fyi, I never use the term "wog". I use the term
non-Scientologist. I would like to be on the receiving end of an
equivalent courtesy.
Claire Swazey
The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>
> In <3595CB4A...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
> >If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
> >his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
> >group for it. Nice going.
>
Zinj
And Claire, I have to admit that I do use the term 'Clam'
I don't do it malevolently I think, but just to point to the ridiculous
nature of the person who called himself 'Source', and who's concept of
'research' was to get doped up and return to proclaim revelations of undying
humorous quality :)
I don't mind if you do call me a Wog.
I'm a Wog and proud of it.
I'm also not good raw meat for a reg
That said.. I like your posts and hope you do more of them. (there's a hidden
agenda here; defined by my secret psych-lords in Germany) I have yet to meet
an honest Scientologist who began conversing with honest wogs who didn't in
the end decide that a 'Cleared Planet' would be a very boring place.
Zinj
In article <35966E5D...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
--
I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a
megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released.
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Tilman Hausherr
>The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
>to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
>their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
I see. So when a person has a success, it is thanks to scientology; when
a person does something bad, it is the individual.
Ydrrisil
>The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
>to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
>their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize
What you say is true in its way Claire. In the same way the Roman Catholic
church itself has never promoted or condoned child abuse by priests - but where
it has been nailed for liability both in the courts and in the heart is for the
fact that it's officers were officially notified and did nothing about it.
The point you are missing is - if scientology cannot increase the awareness,
ability and sheer integrity of people who hold official positions - what use is
it?
If a person can be going through, being a child molester without the tech
even finding it out and when its is brought to an official person they want to
sweep it under the carpet - then what use is the tech?
Not much. In the "mecca of technical perfection" this happened.
Its not scientology's fault that this creep was a child molester and I am
sure that 99.9% of scientologists would absilutely vomit at the thought of this
creep let loose.
++++++++++++
Cavaliers - wrong but wromantic
Roundheads - right but repulsive
Podkayne
In article <35966E5D...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> Just fyi, I never use the term "wog". I use the term
> non-Scientologist. I would like to be on the receiving end of an
> equivalent courtesy.
I only use "clam" for the brain-dead wgerts & Justins.
Claire is communicating, therefore she is not a clam.
Podkayne
In article <199806282003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ydrr...@aol.com (Ydrrisil) wrote:
> >The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> >to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> >their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize
>
> What you say is true in its way Claire. In the same way the Roman
Catholic
> church itself has never promoted or condoned child abuse by priests - but
where
> it has been nailed for liability both in the courts and in the heart is
for the
> fact that it's officers were officially notified and did nothing about it.
(I knew this was going to come up)
Another major diff between the two organizations - your average Catholic
will admit that the RCC did a Bad Thing by doing nothing.
Bev
Claire Swazey wrote:
> Thanks much, but what about someday,sometime when I inevitably manage to
> say something to which many people on the n.g. are in definite
> disagreement, or if I make them mad?
> I have been known to make the occasional gaffe...
Then you will have been officially ~pledged~ ;-)
From years of observing various NG's on the net, the best thing
to do with a flame is ignore it. If you don't, the deterioration
can go to unbeleivable lows.
Beverly
Claire Swazey
I wouldn't quite put it that way. I guess I was basically trying to say
that humans have free will. We can be influenced by Scientology or by
another religion or by other people or what have you, but ultimately
it's our own decision to do what we do. When a Scientologist does
something bad or good, it's that person's own actions. Maybe he was
influenced by Scientology,maybe he (or she) was acting on his/her own.If
someone does something really crappy it might be that person's own thing
and not anyone else's.
Claire S.
And from my husband,John:
Scientology as a subject is dedicated to the betterment of mankind and
of the individual as a whole. It is not dedicated to abusing women and
children and these actions are not espoused in Hubbard's writings.
Therefore, when a Scn'ologist is performing positive or good actions he
is in alignment with the goals and directions of Scientology, which
doesn't mean he doesn't get the credit for doing these positive things.
One who engages in criminality and mayhem cannot claim to be acting as a
Scn'ologist, since this is in opposition to the mores of the group.One
who is doing good works in society is acting in accordance with the
mores of the group and as such,if he wished, could give credit to the
philosophy which helped him to be able to do such things.
John S.
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>
> In <35966FE7...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> >to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
Claire Swazey
Podkayne wrote:
>
> In article <35966E5D...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Just fyi, I never use the term "wog". I use the term
> > non-Scientologist. I would like to be on the receiving end of an
> > equivalent courtesy.
>
> I only use "clam" for the brain-dead wgerts & Justins.
>
> Claire is communicating, therefore she is not a clam.
Thanks much, but what about someday,sometime when I inevitably manage to
say something to which many people on the n.g. are in definite
disagreement, or if I make them mad?
I have been known to make the occasional gaffe...
Claire
Tilman Hausherr
>I wouldn't quite put it that way. I guess I was basically trying to say
>that humans have free will. We can be influenced by Scientology or by
>another religion or by other people or what have you, but ultimately
>it's our own decision to do what we do. When a Scientologist does
>something bad or good, it's that person's own actions. Maybe he was
>influenced by Scientology,maybe he (or she) was acting on his/her own.If
>someone does something really crappy it might be that person's own thing
>and not anyone else's.
>
>Claire S.
>
>And from my husband,John:
>
>Scientology as a subject is dedicated to the betterment of mankind and
>of the individual as a whole. It is not dedicated to abusing women and
>children and these actions are not espoused in Hubbard's writings.
>Therefore, when a Scn'ologist is performing positive or good actions he
>is in alignment with the goals and directions of Scientology, which
>doesn't mean he doesn't get the credit for doing these positive things.
>
>One who engages in criminality and mayhem cannot claim to be acting as a
>Scn'ologist, since this is in opposition to the mores of the group.One
>who is doing good works in society is acting in accordance with the
>mores of the group and as such,if he wished, could give credit to the
>philosophy which helped him to be able to do such things.
You basically repeat my own argument, just making it longer. You are not
willing to blame scientology for anything bad that happened, as that
cannot be scientology. And you are not willing that if something good
happens to a scientologist, it may not have anything to do with
scientology.
Truth is that what happened was pure scientology: "The Group" (3D) had
to be protected against bad PR. What says a lot is that there is no
evidence that "Chaplain Sergio" & co have ever been punished for what
they did to that woman. This silence means approval!
While scientology is not "dedicated to abuse children" as such, what is
done to children in scientology is child abuse & exploitation. I include
here the schedule for Saint Hill, that applies also for children. You
will see it is a 17 hour per day schedule. I have many more examples of
child abuse, if needed.
S E A O R G A N I Z A T I O N
E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T I V E
AOSH UK ED 1241 27 MARCH 1996
AOSH UK SCHEDULE
------------------
AOSH UK
CLO UK
CMO UK
FLAG DATA FILES
The AOSH UK schedule is being revised to accomodate all new
coordination meetings. HCO is responsible for its implementation.
Org hours are 09:00 - 22:00 Monday - Sunday , except Saturday
13:00 - 22:00.
MONDAY
------
07:15 - 07:45 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
07:45 - 08:30 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL
08:30 - 08:45 MUSTER
08:45 - 09:00 CLEANING STATIONS
09:00 - 12:00 PRODUCTION / STUDY
12:00 - 12:40 LUNCH
12:40 - 13:00 MUSTER / ALL HANDS
13:00 - 18:30 PRODUCTION / STUDY
16:00 - 16:30 MESS PRESIDENTS MEETING
17:00 - 17:30 PERIMETER COUNCIL
18:00 - 18:30 BASE COORDINATION COMMITTEE
18:30 - 19:10 DINNER
19:10 - 19:30 MUSTER / DRILLINGS
19:30 - 22:00 PRODUCTION
22:00 - 22:45 BASE BRIEFINGS AND WOSB DRILLING
22:45 - 23:30 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
24:00 SECURE.
TUESDAY
-------
07:15 - 07:45 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
07:45 - 08:30 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL
08:30 - 08:45 MUSTER
08:45 - 09:00 CLEANING STATION
09:00 - 12:00 PRODUCTION / STUDY
09:15 - 09:30 NCC
09:30 - 10:00 PRODUCT CONFERENCE
12:00 - 12:40 LUNCH
12:40 - 13:00 MUSTER / ALL HANDS
(c) 1996 COSRECI. All rights reserved.
_________________________________________________________________
13:00 - 18:30 PRODUCTION / STUDY
18:30 - 19:10 DINNER
19:10 - 19:30 MUSTER / DRILLING
19:30 - 22:15 PRODUCTION
21:55 - 22:15 OFFICERS COUNCIL
22:15 - 23:00 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
23:00 - 24:00 HALF HOUR OF EXERCISE TIME
24:00 SECURE.
WEDNESDAY
---------
07:15 - 07:45 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
07:45 - 08:30 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL
08:30 - 08:45 MUSTER
08:45 - 09:00 CLEANING STATIONS
09:00 - 12:00 PRODUCTION / STUDY
09:15 - 09:30 NCC
09:30 - 10:00 PRODUCT CONFERENCE
12:00 - 12:40 LUNCH
12:40 - 13:00 MUSTER / ALL HANDS
13:00 - 18:30 PRODUCTION / STUDY
18:00 - 18:30 UK EXPANSION COMMITTEE
18:30 - 19:10 DINNER
19:10 - 19:30 MUSTER / DRILLING
19:30 - 22:15 PRODUCTION / STUDY
22:15 - 23:00 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
23:00 - 24:00 HALF HOUR OF EXERCISE TIME
24:00 SECURE
THURSDAY
--------
07:15 - 07:45 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
07:45 - 08:30 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL
08:30 - 08:45 MUSTER
08:45 - 09:00 CLEANING STATIONS
09:00 - 12:00 PRODUCTION / STUDY
09:15 - 09:30 NCC
09:30 - 10:00 PRODUCT CONFERENCE
12:00 - 12:40 LUNCH
12:40 - 18:30 PRODUCTION / STUDY
14:00 - 15:00 STATS TO BE REPORTED TO HCO
17:00 AC MEET FOR FP
18:30 - 19:10 DINNER
19:10 - 19:30 MUSTER / DRILLING
19:30 - 22:05 PRODUCTION / STUDY
20:00 EC MEET FOR FP
22:05 - 22:45 STAFF MEETING
22:45 - 23:30 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
24:00 SECURE
_________________________________________________________________
FRIDAY
------
07:15 - 07:45 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
07:45 - 08:30 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL
08:30 - 08:45 MUSTER
08:45 - 09:00 CLEANING STATIONS
09:00 - 12:00 PRODUCTION / STUDY
09:15 - 09:30 NCC
09:30 - 10:00 PRODUCT CONFERENCE
12:00 - 12:40 LUNCH
12:40 - 13:00 MUSTER / ALL HANDS
13:00 - 18:30 PRODUCTION / STUDY
18:30 - 19:10 DINNER
19:10 - 19:30 MUSTER / DRILLING
19:30 - 20:00 PRODUCTION
20:00 - 21:30 GRADUATION ( MANDATORY FOR ALL CREW )
21:30 - 22:15 AFTER GRADUATION SURVEYS , SELLING , RECRUITING ETC....
22:15 - 23:00 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
23:00 - ONWARDS ORG AWARDS ( WHEN UPSTAT )
SATURDAY
--------
08:15 - 09:00 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
09:00 - 09:15 MUSTER IN THE GYM
09:15 - 10:00 CLEANING STATIONS
10:30 - 11:15 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL / EG TOWN ( ONE BUS )
11:15 - 12:00 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL / EG TOWN ( ONE BUS )
12:45 - 13:00 MUSTER
13:00 - 18:30 PRODUCTION
13:00 - 13:15 NCC
13:15 - 13:45 PRODUCT CONFERENCE
18:30 - 19:10 DINNER
19:10 - 19:30 MUSTER / DRILLING
19:30 - 21:00 PRODUCTION
21:00 - 21:05 CLEANING MUSTER
21:05 - 22:15 WHITE GLOVE CLEANING
22:15 - 23:00 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
23:00 - 24:00 HALF HOUR OF EXERCISE TIME
24:00 SECURE
SUNDAY
------
07:15 - 07:45 BREAKFAST SERVED AT WALSH MANOR
07:45 - 08:30 TRANSPORT TO SAINT HILL
08:30 - 08:45 MUSTER
08:45 - 09:00 CLEANING STATION
09:00 - 12:00 PRODUCTION / STUDY
09:15 - 09:30 NCC
09:30 - 10:00 PRODUCT CONFERENCE
12:00 - 12:40 LUNCH
12:40 - 13:00 MUSTER / ALL HANDS
13:00 - 18:30 PRODUCTION / STUDY
18:30 - 19:00 DINNER
19:00 - 19:50 MUSTER / SOURCE NIGHT
_________________________________________________________________
19:50 - 22:15 PRODUCTION
22:15 - 23:00 TRANSPORT TO WALSH MANOR
LIBERTY:
Liberty may be taken on Saturday if one has a CSW approved by ones
seniors and the Captain. CSWs must be submitted by 18:00 hrs on Friday.
STUDY TIME / PERSONAL ENHANCEMENT:
Each staff member is expected to take 12 1/2 hours of study /
personnel
enhancement time per week ( per HCO PL 02/08/71 STUDY TIME ) and 5 hours
for
crew on product one ( per FO 3756RF 05/09/89 ).
Wendie Clarkson
E.ESTO I/T AOSH UK
approved by
Exec Council AOSH UK
Authorised by
LRH Communicator AOSH UK
for Church of
Scientology Religious
COSRECI:JB:EC:WC:wc.jl Education College Inc.
SCIENTOLOGY , HCO and LRH are trademarks and service marks owned by
Religious
Technology Center and are used with its permission.
SCIENTOLOGY is an applied religious philosophy.
LRonsScam
>From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 01:42 EDT
>Message-id: <3595CB4A...@home.com>
>
>No,it's not any glowing example of anything but child abuse and
>corruption. I don't give a S**t who is doing it and why and who
>approves of it, it is wrong. Hubbard's policies do NOT say to do this
>because -- hold onto your hats--it's WRONG to hurt kids and wrong to
>condone or enable it in any way. If this woman was really harassed and
>pursued by anyone from the church because she did the right thing about
>this bastard that was hurting the kids, then that person (that did the
>harassing) was unworthy of the term "Scientologist".
>
>the people I know at my local org, I don't know ONE that would ever
>countenance such treatment of children and those that protect them.
>
Claire, the sad part about it is management was responsible for this. This is
on court records and Scientologists believe that what is the greatest good for
the greatest number of poeple or dynamics. This person was a so called OT and
the church would oppress the imformation if he did molest a kid. They would say
things to the effect that the OT had some problems and don't make the OT levels
look bad because one person did something wrong.
All you Scientologists have dug your own grade by the very fact of agreeing
that OT means perfection. Hubbard put the seed out and you let it grow.
>
>All my love,
>
>Claire
></PRE></HTML>
.
.
__
In Xenu We Trust.....
A does equal A, does equal A, does equal A. What was Hubbie trying to
say?.....
." Life is a cartoon." Howard Stern while referring to Lisa Marie Presley's
involvement with Co$.
LRonsScam
>From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 21:13 EDT
>Message-id: <3596DDBB...@home.com>
>
>I wouldn't quite put it that way. I guess I was basically trying to say
>that humans have free will.
Free will is different from informed will and because you have no idea of what
the OT levels consist of, then you don't have informeed will. I know what they
are and so I am informed. I choose not to further my studies in Scientology.
Scientologists on the other hand have a Web Nanny to help them not discover
things about Scientology and not just the OT levels.
We can be influenced by Scientology or by
>another religion or by other people or what have you, but ultimately
>it's our own decision to do what we do.
I will go further with informed will. Freedom of choice only exists when one
has the ablility to decide on the correct information. If one says that this
group is all good and you accept it and something goes amiss, then you are
likely to look for blame in the wrong places. Never does the organization
accept respnsiblity. Never, never, never.
When a Scientologist does
>something bad or good, it's that person's own actions.
Then why does the CoS only use the person's suscces stories. Why not give a
reality of the loss too. When you have a loss in Scientology you aren't allowed
to discuss it with anybody for that might invalidate them of the tech. If one
has a win you can invalidate someone's loss. Isn't that so?
Maybe he was
>influenced by Scientology,maybe he (or she) was acting on his/her own.If
>someone does something really crappy it might be that person's own thing
>and not anyone else's.
I agree but Scientology considers to be, by its own definition, the most
ethical organization on the planet. Why shouldn't we critisize things that are
out. I know that Scientology does some good things but that is all they
acknowledge that they do: Good. When something bad comes out of their midst
they sue to silence. It has happened too many times.
>
>Claire S.
>
>And from my husband,John:
>
>Scientology as a subject is dedicated to the betterment of mankind and
>of the individual as a whole.
No Scientology is dedicated to the betterment of Scientology by the individual
as a whole.. Scientologists are more loyal to Hubbard's words than anything
else. Even more loyal to their families and to themselves.
It is not dedicated to abusing women and
>children and these actions are not espoused in Hubbard's writings.
I agree, they aren't; but if in the process these things happen then so be it.
Scientology is the elite in many importances in one life. Wouldn't you
sacrifice your life for it?
>Therefore, when a Scn'ologist is performing positive or good actions he
>is in alignment with the goals and directions of Scientology, which
>doesn't mean he doesn't get the credit for doing these positive things.
In many senses you are right, but I would like to use an analogy of other
religions here. In the Catholic church I don't know how many times a peron has
said ' by the grace of god I was saved'. It could have been a drowning or a
building collapsing on the individual, but by that one sentence does that
Catholic mean that by the un-grace of god that another person died? I think you
can't help but say yes. A Catholic will deny this, but by his denial doesn't
make it any less true.
So goes the same for Scientology. When a person is successful s/he will write
up a success story and Scientology will flaunt it to the world as if they were
the sole providers of this success. When a person fails in Scientology they are
deemed unethical; PTS; Downstat; Suppressive and a host full of other names
that makes Scientology not responsible for it. In other words ~success is
because of us and failure is because of you. You can enjoy success but don't
forget where it came from and tell others so they will be succesful too~.
When was the last time you have heard ANY Scientologist say they had a failure
during a course and if you did they were probably sent to
ethics..................I can go on for hours.
>
>One who engages in criminality and mayhem cannot claim to be acting as a
>Scn'ologist,
Of course not. How convenient. If you are ethical then you are a Scientologist
and if you are unethical, you are not. Funny, Ethical is an ambiguous word
that only had meaning for one who makes his own meaning. Usually it is defined
by their faith.
since this is in opposition to the mores of the group.One
>who is doing good works in society is acting in accordance with the
>mores of the group and as such,
The mores of Scientology are in KSW, and KSMM ( keeping Scientology making
money). I know you don't see it as that way but this is the totality of
Scientology. Why the expense? Because otherwise Scientology couldn't harass
people and sue them into oblivion for exposing them.
if he wished, could give credit to the
>philosophy which helped him to be able to do such things.
But who takes responsibility for the failures?
>
>John S.
Look John and Claire. Sincere doesn't mean correct or right; free will doesn't
mean informed will and just becuase many people believe in something doesn't
mean that something is correct. There have been many, like yourself, who have
been sincere and honest and upright and have supported Scienrtology to the
fullest extent of their ability.
John W. Campbell is one of them
He died a non scientologist but supported Dianetics immensly. He
advertised it in his magazine: Astounding Sciente Fiction.
Dr. Winter;
Died a non scientologist. He even wrote a book about Dianetics
proclaiming problems with it. Scientology even uses his prologue/preface in
Dianetics now and again.
Ronald Dewolf or LRH Jr.
He left , I believe, 1959 when his father came out with the E
meter. He died a Non Scientologist
Quinten Hubbard
Died, IMO a non Scientologist. He killed himself supposedly
because he was gay.
And what about the whole of LRH's children. Where are they now? I believe the
only active Scientologist or the Hubbard clan is Diana. I don't know, but why
wouldn't they be mentioned more in Scientology?
I can go on and on and on about people who have been Scientologists who no
longer are. Scientology survives because of the money it sucks out of blind
believers. It that is huge sums of it.
Best WIshes
>
>Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>>
>> In <35966FE7...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
>> >to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
>> >their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
>>
>> I see. So when a person has a success, it is thanks to scientology; when
>> a person does something bad, it is the individual.
>>
>> --
>> 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
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <35b529de...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>While scientology is not "dedicated to abuse children" as such, what is
>done to children in scientology is child abuse & exploitation. I include
>here the schedule for Saint Hill, that applies also for children. You
>will see it is a 17 hour per day schedule. I have many more examples of
>child abuse, if needed.
Me too! :8)
http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/childabuse.html
Also the story of Tanya. Actually that page means more for me than
anything else I've webbed. I hate to see how the evil cult exploits
children, who are "valuable assets and resources" in the SO.
28 August 1981 - AIDES ORDER 203-71
"WHY: DUE TO FALSE DATA AND IGNORANCE OF FOUNDER ADVICES, PAC ADULTS
CONTINUE TO VIEW THE PAC CHILDREN AS "KIDS" RATHER THAN 3RD DYNAMIC
RESOURCES AND SO SABOTAGE ANY ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN ON-SOURCE CADET ORG
BY COVERT OR OVERT KNOCK-OFF OF CHILDREN'S HATS."
This is not a forgery or a joke! The cult claims the copyrights on that
piece _and_ say that the stuff is confidential. I have the letters from
their Dutch lawyer to proof so. Oh yeah, in the same document it's written
that SO kids are behind grade level on public shool, which was "absurd"
because they've "study tech and wogs don't" after all.
Sick mind warping and child exploiting wicked cult.
Mike
Marcus Hill
Claire Swazey wrote:
>
> The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
>
>
The Catholic church recently put out an apology in the UK for the
behaviour of some of its priests involving child abuse. They
publically disavowed the individuals and condemned their behaviour.
The Co$ has done no such thing, AFAIK, with respect to the actions
of one of its "ministers" actively protecting a child abuser.
********* Song of Steel LRP at http://www.netlrp.uk.com/sos **********
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?" -Albert Einstein
Marcus.
Zinj
In article <3595CB4A...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
Hubbard's policies do NOT say to do this
>because -- hold onto your hats--it's WRONG to hurt kids and wrong to
>condone or enable it in any way. If this woman was really harassed and
>pursued by anyone from the church because she did the right thing about
>this bastard that was hurting the kids, then that person (that did the
>harassing) was unworthy of the term "Scientologist".
>
>All my love,
>
>Claire
Unfortunately Claire, there are HCOBs that indicate that this is exactly
policy.
I've read them, and they are real world, meaning that they are implemented on
a daily basis.
While I don't have the exact quotes, nor HCOB numbers handy, the wonders of the
net will bring them to this thread very soon I'm sure.
And yes, once you decide that Wog justice isn't your forte this kind of abuse
is to be expected. (not all that fond of wog justice himself)
Keep posting please Claire.. and reading..
Painful truth is the only real one.
Zinj
Zinj
In article <3599a173...@news.concentric.net>, info...@informer.org
says...
>
>lron...@aol.com (LRonsScam):
>
>Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>>>I wouldn't quite put it that way. I guess I was basically trying to say
>>>that humans have free will.
>
>The rest of the time, they mostly run on path-of-least-resistance type
>motivation.
>
>>Free will is different from informed will and because you have no idea of
what
>>the OT levels consist of, then you don't have informeed will.
>
>mind), but when the guy arrives, you sell him another, more profitable
>item. (such as exorcisms)
>
>>I know what they
>>are and so I am informed. I choose not to further my studies in Scientology.
>>Scientologists on the other hand have a Web Nanny to help them not discover
>>things about Scientology and not just the OT levels.
>
>
>> We can be influenced by Scientology or by
>>>another religion or by other people or what have you, but ultimately
>>>it's our own decision to do what we do.
>
>
>>I will go further with informed will. Freedom of choice only exists when one
>>has the ablility to decide on the correct information.
>
>>If one says that this
>>group is all good and you accept it and something goes amiss, then you are
>>likely to look for blame in the wrong places. Never does the organization
>>accept respnsiblity. Never, never, never.
>>
>>When a Scientologist does
>>>something bad or good, it's that person's own actions.
>
>whatever. Or, we ignore those?
>
>>Then why does the CoS only use the person's suscces stories. Why not give a
>>reality of the loss too.
>
>
>>When you have a loss in Scientology you aren't allowed
>>to discuss it with anybody for that might invalidate them of the tech.
>
>
>>If one
>>has a win you can invalidate someone's loss. Isn't that so?
>
>> Maybe he was
>>>influenced by Scientology,maybe he (or she) was acting on his/her own.If
>>>someone does something really crappy it might be that person's own thing
>>>and not anyone else's.
>
>But in the cult, they are non-existent.
>
>>I agree but Scientology considers to be, by its own definition, the most
>>ethical organization on the planet. Why shouldn't we critisize things that
are
>>out.
>
>
>>I know that Scientology does some good things but that is all they
>>acknowledge that they do: Good.
>
>not being the sci-fi weirdo fascists they actually are.
>
>>When something bad comes out of their midst
>>they sue to silence. It has happened too many times.
>
>Lisa McPherson.
>
>>>Claire S.
>>>
>>>And from my husband,John:
>>>
>>>Scientology as a subject is dedicated to the betterment of mankind and
>>>of the individual as a whole.
>
>
> Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@primenet.com>
> <inF...@newsguy.com>
I'd like to add something here claire and john.
Dennis has some of the best reasons in the world to be bitter towards
scientology.
I won't enumerate them here, but he put out his newsletter The INformer from
practically a decade before the internet ARS existed.
Scientology has done it's best to destroy him but hasn't succeeded.
Dennis is a very abrasive guy, but he's an ex cramming officer.. so whatcha
want:)
Don't let yourselves be put off.. Dennis is one of the warmest most cuddly
individuals I know.. and I know I'm going to be whacked for this :)
Claire.. listen.. John listen
This is serious bullshit
Ydrrisil
>>One who engages in criminality and mayhem cannot claim to be acting as a
who is doing good works in society is acting in accordance with the
philosophy which helped him to be able to do such things.
John S.>>
This is a very nice high sounding statement Clare and John. But the point you
miss - people join scientology - so the church says - to better themselves,
become more ethical, more powerful, more able.
But the truth is that it doesn't happen - yes you John may have become more
ethical but the cofs does not bring about, even within its own narrow borders,
the increased state of ethical awareness it claims it wishes to bring to the
earth.
Why not take of the blinkers just for a minute and look? Look at what the
policy of YOUR CHURCH is doing IN YOUR NAME.
Government offices were infiltrated - and no, I am not talking about the GO
but by OSA.
You have read on ARS the scurrilous and wild dead agenting that has been
employed against people like Bob Minton, Jeff , Grady etc. You can verify it
from deja News, you may have even seen something at your local church.
The CofS has refused - despite court judgements - to pAy the money awarded to
Wollersheim in a legal decision by a jury.
Is this ethical?
If the Church cannot, by its existence and its procedures, produce the
ethical environment it claims then its "technology" is a sham isn't it?
The argument your husband uses is the same apologist argument that was used
for Communism "well those who used the system for personal gain were not real
communists" which iognores the fact that such corruption was only possible
because of the totalitarian state.
It is the apologist argument for abusive priests "well they are not
practicing real christianity".
Its true - they weren't a real communist or a real christian. The
organizations, its quirks and its beliefs provided the shelter for the virus to
exist and to grow.
Scientology with its secretive nature, its hidden command channels, its
confiedential levels is the ideal breeding ground. Add to that its seige
mentality and the instruction to "always attack" and you have a recipe for
disaster and cover up.
And many many things have been covered up.
Until people like yourself and your husband actually stop apologizing for
yourselves and your religion and actually take responsibility for what is being
done there is no hope for its future.
The absolute refusal of scientologists to take responsibility for what is
being done in their name is the cast iron guarantee that the religion will end
up getting pushed off the planet.
You have no idea, I guarantee you, what has been done on your behalf. You
have no idea of where the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed by people
like you actually sit and who decides what is done with them. There is no,
none, accountability - I bet you do not know how much money the CofS has and
how it is being spent.
Ask yourself why not?
Re-read Hubbards Essay on Managment and ask why the figures are not freely
available.
Re-Read Essay on Management and ask why there are confidential areas of
management.
Don't just sit there - actually fight for your religion - apply the HCOPLs
yourself.
And when you get decklared for it - you will have a warm welcome here.
Yddris
Steve A
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 10:01:40 GMT, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman
Hausherr) wrote:
> In <3595CB4A...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
> >If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
> >his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
> >group for it. Nice going.
>
> This happened in Clearwater, in the "mekka" of 100% standard tech. And
> nowhere is there evidence that scientology ever apologized to the mother
> and her daughters.
From what I can gather, the mother is no longer in Scientology (no
surprise there!). So, presumably, she is now "suppressive", and
beneath contempt as far as the religion that was prepared to let her
daughters continue to get screwed by their stepdad is concerned.
Steve A
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:17:55 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> Podkayne wrote:
> >
> > In article <35966E5D...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Just fyi, I never use the term "wog". I use the term
> > > non-Scientologist. I would like to be on the receiving end of an
> > > equivalent courtesy.
> >
> > I only use "clam" for the brain-dead wgerts & Justins.
> >
> > Claire is communicating, therefore she is not a clam.
>
> Thanks much, but what about someday,sometime when I inevitably manage to
> say something to which many people on the n.g. are in definite
> disagreement, or if I make them mad?
>
> I have been known to make the occasional gaffe...
Some will call you a clam, some will not. Generally speaking, and as
Podkayne wrote, the term "clam" is used for the write-only robots that
spew their nonsense here and will not engage in debate - it has
nothing to do with how mad you make anyone.
Steve A
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 05:42:24 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> Herculstud wrote:
> >
> > >> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > What makes me sad is a parent who does not give his children the freedom
> > >> > to make their own choices and still love them and want to be with them.
> > >
[my post re Donald Strawn snipped]
> >
> > another glowing example of the tech
>
> No,it's not any glowing example of anything but child abuse and
> corruption. I don't give a S**t who is doing it and why and who
> approves of it, it is wrong. Hubbard's policies do NOT say to do this
> because -- hold onto your hats--it's WRONG to hurt kids and wrong to
> condone or enable it in any way. If this woman was really harassed and
> pursued by anyone from the church because she did the right thing about
> this bastard that was hurting the kids, then that person (that did the
> harassing) was unworthy of the term "Scientologist".
That person was acting per policy, Claire. Hubbard's writings do state
quite clearly that someone who is "upstat" is, effectively, immune
from Scientology "justice".
Furthermore, it is a High Crime to report a Scientologist to the civil
authorities as opposed to Scientology authority. True or false,
Claire?
So if the mother of these girls had reported Strawn to the police, she
would have been guilty of a High Crime PER OFFICIAL LRH POLICY, not
purely on the whim of the local chaplain.
> So, let me get this straight, every time a scientologist does something
> wrong or unpleasant or immoral it's going to be proof positive that the
> entire movement is no good. Seems to be what you are saying. Well, of
> the people I know at my local org, I don't know ONE that would ever
> countenance such treatment of children and those that protect them.
That may be. But the fact is that the Strawn case took place. And,
were it "merely" for the fact that the abuser of the two girls was a
Scientologist, then critical reaction to this affair would have been
considerably less: of course we understand that, simply because the
abuser was a Scientologist, Scientology should not automatically be
held to account for his behaviour (although, given Hubbard's claims
for the "tech", one would have thought that dealing with a tendency
towards child sexual abuse would have been a trivial task to perform).
No, what is offensive about this business is the trouble that the
"Church" of Scientology went to to prevent this woman from doing her
duty as a mother and protecting her children, simply to avoid a PR
flap or have one of their upstat executives go to prison (or, more
likely, both). There is no excuse for that, Claire, and it saddens me
to see you fail to address it, especially in the light of your views
on child sexual abuse in general, with which I completely agree.
> So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
Not at all. If five hundred Scientologists do something good, I'll be
the first to applaud it. However, with Scientology's record on lying
about its achievements, I'd need to see a little more than an
unsubstantiated claim that it had happened.
> If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
> his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
> group for it. Nice going.
As I said - and I'll repeat it to ensure that the point gets made - my
problem is not with the fact that an individual Scientologist fucked
his stepdaughters, but that the org then attempted to blackmail the
mother of those girls into staying quiet.
Incidentally, the end result was that the mother *did* go to the
authorities, and Donald Strawn pleaded not guilty to the charges. At
or around the beginning of the trial, he changed his plea to guilty,
and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He is at the moment, I
believe, appealing the length of his sentence, though not his
conviction.
Personally, I'd be happy to see him spend the rest of his natural life
in prison, and I'd be happier to see those who do not even have the
excuse of his deviant sexual appetites to fall back on, yet who were
prepared to condone in cold blood what he was doing to two young
girls, spend a significant proportion of their lives alongside him
there.
And I see no reason why the "Church" of Scientology should not be held
accountable for the fact that the actions of those stooges for a child
abuser were carried out as mandated by official "church" policy.
[I wonder if someone would be good enough to cite the Hubbardspeak
regarding a) not going after upstats, and b) the High Crime of
reporting a Scieno to the authorities?]
Steve A
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:24:44 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
They were following policy, Claire. And they do not appear to have
been punished by Scientology, which rather implies that Scientology,
tacitly at least, supports their actions.
Ydrrisil
Poddy writes:>>Another major diff between the two organizations - your average
Catholic
will admit that the RCC did a Bad Thing by doing nothing. >>
Oh yes - I wholeheartedly agree - and another great difference is that the
Roman Catholic Church and the Pope are not busy running a series of back pr
campaigns against the persons who brought the lawsuits.
Its amazing isn't it? Some organziations actually respond to criticism by
evaluatiing whether the criticism is corect and if it is they then actually
move to correct the factors that caused the problem.
But not the CofS - you could point out that people are being over-regged,
paying in far more than they can afford and you will be attacked for being
"soft well" even as the personal bankruptcies rise.
The trouble is Clare that you are out here discussing your faith - and I
respect you immensely for it believe me - but you simply have no idea what goes
on inside this organization you are trying to protect.
In the early eighties people were declared for saying that the price rises
were out of line, way too high etc etc. They were called soft sell, many
scientologists were declared and kicked out of the church for becoming
"disaffected".
They were kicked out by Sea org management. The same management who had
already been told by Hubbard in early 84 that the price rises were out of hand.
And that "they had better do something to handle it without crashing the GI".
Hubbard knew that the prices were out of control, SO management including
Miscavige, Lesevre, Yager et al *knew* that the prices were out of reason and
yet they enforced the RBing and declaration of Mission Holders and public who
dared to speak up about it.
So much for ethics level. From Hubbard through WDC and Exec Strata they were
bought and sold for a few dollars more on the Gross Income. They preferred to
see people being terrorised and bankrupted rather than interrupt a stat (which
was declining as it was).
For gods ake Clare, you sound like a reasonable, thoughtful person, someone
dedicated to improving herself and her family. Why not just look around you?
Take a long hard look.
Do you have children? Well before you start entrusting their spiritual growth
to this organization at least have the courage to investigate the organization
and ask the tough questions and demand the answers.
If not for yourself then for your kids.
David VanHorn
>No one should feel bad about having written a knowledge report on
>another individual. A k/r is designed to inform the group of
>destructive actions that a person is committing. The idea is to get the
>person back functioning in a positive direction. Neither the person
>that's had the knowledge report written on him or the person writing it
>should feel bad about it.
>
>John S.
Like Heber in Spain?
They're just trying to get him back in compliance with the law! :)
Starshadow
In article <lscdoesnteatspam...@netcom.com>,
lscdoesntea...@netcom.com says...
> John Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >The main problem I have with that is that one would have to be derelict
> >in one's duties as a Scn'ologist to not actually try to assist the
> >members of a family that was being abused. This would include not just
> >other Scientology people but also others in the community. Scientology
> >in all ways opposes victimization of the helpless.
>
> Yes, John, Scientology Church leaders in this case were derelict in
> their duty. Scientology Church leaders in this case did not oppose
> victimization of the helpless. Others in the community--police,
> district attorney, the attorney for the wife, the judge, etc--these
> people were NOT derelict in their duty. The only Scientologist
> in this case that we know of who tried to do her duty is the
> mother, who DISOBEYED Scientology Church leaders and sought help
> in the legal system. For this action she was thrown out of Scientology!
Actually, she wasn't in scientology. He was. She went to the cops; he
is now in prison, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Claire Swazey
Steve A wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:24:44 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> > to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> > their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
>
> They were following policy, Claire.
No.
Claire Swazey
LRonsScam wrote:
>
> >From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> >Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 21:13 EDT
> >Message-id: <3596DDBB...@home.com>
> >
> >I wouldn't quite put it that way. I guess I was basically trying to say
> >that humans have free will.
>
> Free will is different from informed will and because you have no idea of what
> the OT levels consist of,
I don't???
then you don't have informeed will. I know what they
> are and so I am informed. I choose not to further my studies in Scientology.
> Scientologists on the other hand have a Web Nanny to help them not discover
> things about Scientology and not just the OT levels.
That's a heck of a generalization,pardnuh...John and I don't have a web
nanny. Neither do most of the people we know in Scn. Perhaps you meant
to say something like "some scientologists have a web nanny" ??
>
> We can be influenced by Scientology or by
> >another religion or by other people or what have you, but ultimately
> >it's our own decision to do what we do.
>
> I will go further with informed will. Freedom of choice only exists when one
> has the ablility to decide on the correct information. If one says that this
> group is all good and you accept it and something goes amiss, then you are
> likely to look for blame in the wrong places. Never does the organization
> accept respnsiblity. Never, never, never.
>
Perhaps they do so internally but do not wish to give their critics and
self-admitted enemies ammunition. I have seen a number of statements on
this ng wherein the person posting stated their wish to see Scn go away
and in some cases,their wish to help that happen.I am certain that the
Church has this in mind.
> When a Scientologist does
> >something bad or good, it's that person's own actions.
>
> Then why does the CoS only use the person's suscces stories. Why not give a
> reality of the loss too. When you have a loss in Scientology you aren't allowed
> to discuss it with anybody for that might invalidate them of the tech. If one
> has a win you can invalidate someone's loss. Isn't that so?
That's not true. One IS encouraged to talk about losses. What one is
encouraged NOT to do is spread it around during break,socialization,etc,
to other students and those who are doing well. But one is NOT supposed
to keep these losses to oneself- the CofS DOES want to know about them.
When I have something happen I report it. To whom? Well,it depends on
what the thing is. If I don't like my course, I can talk to my course
supervisor about it. I have done just that. If I don't like the
auditing I got, I can talk to the Director of Processing,tell the
Examiner about it, submit something to the Case Supv, even write it up
for the Ethics officer if it seems like that's where it should go. And
when a person does not know who to talk to or what to do, but (s)he
knows there's something wrong, there is always the Chaplain, and I have
done this as well. Also dealing with any of the afore-mentioned
individuals is, I have found, more helpful than talking to another
student who is likely to look helpless and say something like: "gee, I
don't know what to tell you. Wow, that sounds really bad." When I have
a problem, this is not the sort of thing I want to hear.
>
> Maybe he was
> >influenced by Scientology,maybe he (or she) was acting on his/her own.If
> >someone does something really crappy it might be that person's own thing
> >and not anyone else's.
>
> I agree but Scientology considers to be, by its own definition, the most
> ethical organization on the planet. Why shouldn't we critisize things that are
> out. I know that Scientology does some good things but that is all they
> acknowledge that they do: Good. When something bad comes out of their midst
> they sue to silence. It has happened too many times.
>
It's that ammunition thing...
> >
> >Claire S.
> >
> >And from my husband,John:
> >
> >Scientology as a subject is dedicated to the betterment of mankind and
> >of the individual as a whole.
>
> No Scientology is dedicated to the betterment of Scientology by the individual
> as a whole.. Scientologists are more loyal to Hubbard's words than anything
> else. Even more loyal to their families and to themselves.
Not true in my case or my husband's. I have always put my family's needs
ahead of all else and the Church knows this. This is another
generalization and certainly not true of all Scientologists.
>
> It is not dedicated to abusing women and
> >children and these actions are not espoused in Hubbard's writings.
>
> I agree, they aren't; but if in the process these things happen then so be it.
> Scientology is the elite in many importances in one life. Wouldn't you
> sacrifice your life for it?
Only if I thought it would actually be meaningful. And this would apply
to ANY situation in which I felt called to make some sort of a moral
stand. Wouldn't have to be Scientology. I'd sacrifice my life for
family and in some cases for a friend. Of course I say this now, in the
comfort of my computer room, but really I can only hope I would have the
courage to stand by ANY of my convictions if the time actually came to
put them to the test.
>
> >Therefore, when a Scn'ologist is performing positive or good actions he
> >is in alignment with the goals and directions of Scientology, which
> >doesn't mean he doesn't get the credit for doing these positive things.
>
> In many senses you are right, but I would like to use an analogy of other
> religions here. In the Catholic church I don't know how many times a peron has
> said ' by the grace of god I was saved'. It could have been a drowning or a
> building collapsing on the individual, but by that one sentence does that
> Catholic mean that by the un-grace of god that another person died? I think you
> can't help but say yes. A Catholic will deny this, but by his denial doesn't
> make it any less true.
>
> So goes the same for Scientology. When a person is successful s/he will write
> up a success story and Scientology will flaunt it to the world as if they were
> the sole providers of this success. When a person fails in Scientology they are
> deemed unethical; PTS; Downstat; Suppressive and a host full of other names
> that makes Scientology not responsible for it. In other words ~success is
> because of us and failure is because of you. You can enjoy success but don't
> forget where it came from and tell others so they will be succesful too~.
> When was the last time you have heard ANY Scientologist say they had a failure
> during a course and if you did they were probably sent to
> ethics..................I can go on for hours.
They would probably be asked to talk to their course supv or to the
appropriate person in the qualifications division. Speaking as a course
supv and former staff member myself,this is what I have seen that
typically happens anyplace I've been on lines.
>
>
> >
> >One who engages in criminality and mayhem cannot claim to be acting as a
> >Scn'ologist,
>
> Of course not. How convenient. If you are ethical then you are a Scientologist
> and if you are unethical, you are not. Funny, Ethical is an ambiguous word
> that only had meaning for one who makes his own meaning. Usually it is defined
> by their faith.
No,not convenient at all. If one acts in accordance with what the mores
or precepts of a group are, then one could be said to be acting the way
a member of that group is expected to act. But when it comes down to
it, the goodness is done by that person and not by anyone else. But one
could say the group encouraged the person to act this way. So no matter
what the person does, good, bad,ethical,Scientological, whatever, it's
really that person that did it and gets the credit for the action.
Let's take a really extreme example. Shakers. They were a sect
(actually there are still a couple of Shaker communities around but they
are a dying breed) of people who dressed plainly (like Quakers,Amish and
Mennonites),were encouraged to pray a whole lot and also be celibate.
Couldn't even have relations with one's spouse. Not ever. Not even on
Christmas. So let's say a fictional Shaker (although this has probably
happened) goes off the rails,so to speak, goes to sin city , puts on
soem brightly colored garments, and has relations with ever person that
will say yes to him/her. Is that Shaker behavior? No,it's not. It's
this person's own decision to kick over the traces and go for it.
Let's say another Shaker gets up very early in the morning, dresses in
his plain clothing, waves a cheery hello to his wife and does several
hours of chores,singing hymns all the while. Then he goes and ministers
to the poor, helps build a school for impoverished inner city kids, then
assists his children with their studies for awhile,fixes his daughter's
dolly (she's only 3-she doesn't have any schoolwork yet) tells his wife
how nice she looks and how good her dinner was, and then settles down
for a good night's sleep. Well,those actions are consistent with Shaker
mores, but they are HIS actions, this is a nice guy who decided that he
would like to act in accordance with Shaker mores and ethics. So maybe
the Shaker church helped him be that way,but ultimately that was him in
there doing all that saintly stuff. Conversely, the Shakers would not
be responsible for the other guy going off the rails in sin city.
(I guess I kind of hammed that one up but I did that for emphasis)
Zinj
Claire.. I like the fact that you write as much as you do.
And everytime I want to say 'but!...' I keep reading.
Keep it up please.
I have one question for you tho.. and it's not a nice one.
Have you ever filed a Knowledge Report on anyone?
And did you have a kind of dirty feeling after you did so?
Best wishes
Zinj
Claire Swazey
Rev Dennis Erlich wrote:
>
> zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj):
>
> >Dennis has some of the best reasons in the world to be bitter towards
> >scientology.
>
> streetcorners. Some folks put in my position by the cult might just
> be tempted.
>
> But not me. I'm gonna wear-and-tear 'em down with their own
> energies. They gonna git so suck to me, they gonna wish they's in the
> briar patch.
>
> >I won't enumerate them here, but he put out his newsletter The INformer from
> >practically a decade before the internet ARS existed.
>
>
> >Scientology has done it's best to destroy him but hasn't succeeded.
>
>
> >Dennis is a very abrasive guy,
>
>
> 'Sides, thought I'm set up for GRINDING at this moment, it's not a
> behavioral habit 6 months in Bimini or Barbatos with a couple of hot
> chicks and a fat bank account couldn't cure.
>
> >but he's an ex cramming officer.. so whatcha
> >want:)
>
> contract. I gonna stand watch for a while.
>
> >Don't let yourselves be put off..
>
> about me. That I am a teddybear. Everyone who knows me, sez so.
>
> >Dennis is one of the warmest most cuddly
> >individuals I know..
>
>
> > and I know I'm going to be whacked for this :)
>
>
> >Claire.. listen.. John listen
> >This is serious bullshit
>
> repossess your thetan)
I didn't pledge it as collateral.Regardless of what you might think.
Claire
Lisa Chabot
Claire Swazey's husband John wrote wrote:
>One who engages in criminality and mayhem cannot claim to be acting as a
>who is doing good works in society is acting in accordance with the
>philosophy which helped him to be able to do such things.
Probably most of us have heard of cases (or maybe you're just lucky)
of Christian husbands and fathers physically abusing their wives and
or children and when the wife goes to the minister for advice, she
is told she is supposed to submit, or to consider what it is that
she or the children did wrong in order to receive this treatment.
Yes, the acts themselves are criminal--or at least, we have finally
become enlightened enough to recognize them as so (this wasn't
necessarily the case just a quarter of a century ago). These things
are deplorable: we all agree. The reason we blame the religion,
whether it be Scientology, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or something else,
is because a *spiritual* *leader*, A MINISTER (which in the case of
Scientology, means someone trained to audit), said that there was
nothing to be criticized in the husband's behavior. Turning a blind
eye to vicious, criminal behavior, and doing so for reasons of
scripture or dogma is what we why we are complaining about this being
a problem of Scientology.
Most of us are lucky enough not to have witnessed these sorts of
horrible things in either or family, neighborhood, or congregation,
but some of us do know people who have been the victims or witnessed it.
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
Claire Swazey
Hi,
I have filed one or two.I felt fine about it (this particular one I'm
thinking of) because I wanted the ethics officer to know that I was
being sexually harassed. Not something to keep under wraps.
I also did a couple more where it seemed I was not being listened to by
a course supv.This was an extremely nice guy who was kind of new at it.
Once I made my concerns known,via the knowledge report,it was discussed
with me,and him, and it worked out,and relations between me and the
course supv (who I like alot) were improved.
I have done this only a few times,ever, as this is not the first ethics
gradient (the first is seeing something non-optimum and not saying
anything about it and it goes on from there) and therefore not
applicable to every situation.
Claire
______________________________________________________________________
And from John:
Claire Swazey
Hi, Lisa:
The main problem I have with that is that one would have to be derelict
in one's duties as a Scn'ologist to not actually try to assist the
members of a family that was being abused. This would include not just
other Scientology people but also others in the community. Scientology
in all ways opposes victimization of the helpless.
John S.
Zinj
In article <35984414...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
Scientology covers up crimes by it's 'upstat' members.. and HCOB's that show
that that is church policy would you be interested?
Zinj
In article <359841C5...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
That's nice John, and I think you are both sincere.
The simple fact is every KR filed goes into a folder.
And those folders are used to blackmail people.
Zinj
In article <35983E24...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: More power to you.
Lisa Chabot
John Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>The main problem I have with that is that one would have to be derelict
>in one's duties as a Scn'ologist to not actually try to assist the
>members of a family that was being abused. This would include not just
>other Scientology people but also others in the community. Scientology
>in all ways opposes victimization of the helpless.
Yes, John, Scientology Church leaders in this case were derelict in
their duty. Scientology Church leaders in this case did not oppose
victimization of the helpless. Others in the community--police,
district attorney, the attorney for the wife, the judge, etc--these
people were NOT derelict in their duty. The only Scientologist
in this case that we know of who tried to do her duty is the
mother, who DISOBEYED Scientology Church leaders and sought help
in the legal system. For this action she was thrown out of Scientology!
Ralph Hilton
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:32:25 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
Do you have a policy reference on this writing of K/Rs? My understanding (from
HCOPL 1 May 65) was that they are only to be used by staff and then only when an
investigation is in progress.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS
>From: zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj)
>Date: Mon, Jun 29, 1998 23:36 EDT
>Message-id: <%2Zl1.22$bc3....@news.inreach.com>
<snip>
>John.. if I could you show you documents that prove irrefutably that
>Scientology covers up crimes by it's 'upstat' members.. and HCOB's that show
>that that is church policy would you be interested?
>
>Zinj
>
>
Zinj,
If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology helps
people and is a good thing, would *you* be interested?
Claire Swazey
> The simple fact is every KR filed goes into a folder.
> And those folders are used to blackmail people.
>
> Zinj
Claire:
Don't think so. For example, I myself have been (not lately but this
did happen) in extreme hot water with the local church of where I was
living at the time. The Exec Dir of the place did not like me AT ALL.
But she did not stoop to using the contents of my ethics or pc folders
against me.
From John:
The purpose of knowledge reports are to keep things on track and running
smoothly. For example, if a course supv is claiming greater success
with his students than he is actually getting, such as test results
higher than they actually are, a knowledge report should be written by
someone else who is aware of this. The corrective action would include
actually finding out if his addition is bad as well as looking to see if
he is attempting to hide his own incompetence.
The solutions to the two different situations would be quite different.
In one case, some more training in arithmetic and records keeping would
take place. This would be beneficial to the supervisor himself as well
as to his students.
In the second situation, one would need to find out what the course
supervisor did not understand about his job and why he felt it was
necessary to falsify his student's statistics. It would be necessary
for him to understand that his actions were detrimental to his
students,to himself, and to his organization.The corrective action could
include retraining on the areas of running the courseroom that he did
not understand. Having this done would be beneficial to him and to his
students.
Since this is the type of thing which the vast majority of knowledge
reports refer to, even the potential of blackmail is basically
non-existant.
I would think that as a general principle one should not engage in
criminal behavior. I would also think that one should not commit
debased and shameful acts. I can see that it might worry the person who
is committing these acts that they become known.
John S.
Geoff Burling
>Podkayne wrote:
>>
>> In article <35966E5D...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Just fyi, I never use the term "wog". I use the term
>> > non-Scientologist. I would like to be on the receiving end of an
>> > equivalent courtesy.
>>
>> I only use "clam" for the brain-dead wgerts & Justins.
>>
>> Claire is communicating, therefore she is not a clam.
>
>Thanks much, but what about someday,sometime when I inevitably manage to
>say something to which many people on the n.g. are in definite
>disagreement, or if I make them mad?
>
>I have been known to make the occasional gaffe...
>
As someone who habitually makes gaffes, let me give you some free
advice:
If you feel you made a mistake, then admit it & go on. I've been told
that we only learn by making mistakes (although this may not work as a
defense when you're caught speeding).
If someone flames you for what you write, ignore them -- unless you
enjoy returning the fire. Ignoring a flamer is the best revenge, short
of dropping the fool into your kill file & never letting him know.
If someone thoughtfully explains an opinion that is at varience from
yours, read the poster carefully, & write your own response with as
much care as the poster took in hers or his. Then, if you are sure
it's of interest to the rest of the newsgroup, post it; or you can
email your writing to the person.
Good luck,
Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore
Note that my return address has been munged to foil spambots.
Want to try Hubbard's ``Tech"? Go to http://www.fza.org/pilot/
& do it for free!!!
Wulfen
On 30 Jun 1998 05:24:33 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS
>>From: zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj)
>>Date: Mon, Jun 29, 1998 23:36 EDT
>>Message-id: <%2Zl1.22$bc3....@news.inreach.com>
>>
>>In article <35984414...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
>
><snip>
>
>>John.. if I could you show you documents that prove irrefutably that
>>Scientology covers up crimes by it's 'upstat' members.. and HCOB's that show
>>that that is church policy would you be interested?
I'd be interested. Are they on the web anywhere?
>>Zinj
>>
>>
>
>Zinj,
>
>If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology helps
>people and is a good thing, would *you* be interested?
----------------------------------------------------------------
SP, Quake/2 addict, amateur rationalist.
-- http://www.total.net/~wulfen/scn --
"Science is a method, not an ideology."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wulfen
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:36:27 GMT, zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj) wrote:
(SNIP)
>John.. if I could you show you documents that prove irrefutably that
>Scientology covers up crimes by it's 'upstat' members.. and HCOB's that show
>that that is church policy would you be interested?
I'd be interested. Are they on the web anywhere?
>Zinj
>
>--
>I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a
>megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released.
>Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
>
Claire Swazey
> >> .
> >> .
> >> --
> >> non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
> >>
> >> Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
> >
> >in one's duties as a Scn'ologist to not actually try to assist the
> >members of a family that was being abused. This would include not just
> >other Scientology people but also others in the community. Scientology
> >in all ways opposes victimization of the helpless.
> >
>
> John.. if I could you show you documents that prove irrefutably that
> Scientology covers up crimes by it's 'upstat' members.. and HCOB's that show
> that that is church policy would you be interested?
>
>
> --
> I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a
> megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released.
> Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
I'd have to look at the actual policies. I would hope that it wouldn't
be a situation where I was called upon to give some odd interpretation
of them, such as the interpretations we saw in this ng about the "lurid
blood sex crimes" where the phrase "if true" was left out. The purpose
was to expose *actual* crimes and misconduct by opponents to the church.
However, the interpretation on this ng was that some collection of
falsified stories should be made public.
John S.
Claire Swazey
Hi:
Sure.Intro to Scn Ethics,pg 292,Knowledge Reports,Definition of.
Also pg 180,same book.
I'm aware of the reference you're using,however that's only a partial
explanation.
John S.
Ralph Hilton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:32:25 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Do you have a policy reference on this writing of K/Rs? My understanding (from
> HCOPL 1 May 65) was that they are only to be used by staff and then only when an
> investigation is in progress.
>
John C. Randolph
WONDERFULR may or may not have said:
-[snip]
-> Zinj,
->
-> If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology
helps
-> people and is a good thing, would *you* be interested?
Hey, if you've got something better than the usual anonymous "big win"
stories, bring 'em on. Of course, you should be prepared for close scrutiny.
If you try to float another bullshit story, like the great work your
"church" has done to promote literacy in South Africa, you run the risk of
looking pretty damned silly.
-jcr
Zinj
In article <199806300524...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com says...
>
>>Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS
>>From: zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj)
>>Date: Mon, Jun 29, 1998 23:36 EDT
>>Message-id: <%2Zl1.22$bc3....@news.inreach.com>
>>
>
>>John.. if I could you show you documents that prove irrefutably that
>>that that is church policy would you be interested?
>>
>>Zinj
>>
>>
>
>
>If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology helps
Of course Russ.. I think you know me well enough to know that I'm open to
listening.
Zinj
Joe Lynn
-
Zinj
In article <35986D65...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
Honestly John.. I have to admit.. I'm exactly what scientology claims that
suppressive people are.
If you'd really like to hear my crimes ask me sometime.
Most of the critics I know are incredibly boring by comparison.
Zinj
(by the way tho.. I'm not ashamed of my crimes, nor do I ever try to hide them)
[OSA knows them, so I'm not too worried]
--
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
WONDERFULR (wonde...@aol.com) wrote:
: If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology helps
: people and is a good thing, would *you* be interested?
Something other than infomercial testimonials, right? Kudos from
clueless politicians are also pretty unimpressive. Maybe the cult
donating large sums to hospitals? And the documentation is from
non-Scientology sources?
After 2+ years on this NG, it would be pretty interesting to see and would
raise the question of why such documentation is only now being offered.
Beck
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
: to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
: their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
So what are the rest of you rank-and-file types going to do to rid
Scientology of such people - especially those in the upper echelons of the
cult? After all, both the Strawn case and the McPherson case occurred in
Clearwater - Mecca of the tech. One would think that FLAG would represent
the very highest integrity.
There have been several scientologists in this group that have attempted
to handle outpoints in scientology using KR's, etc. - and been declared
for their efforts. Their names were smeared, they were accused of crimes,
all to shut them up and keep others - people like you - from listening to
them.
Beck
Captain Nerd
In article <35987735...@home.com>,
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Sure.Intro to Scn Ethics,pg 292,Knowledge Reports,Definition of.
>
>Also pg 180,same book.
>
>I'm aware of the reference you're using,however that's only a partial
>explanation.
>
>John S.
Claire, John, I must say it's refreshing to see people like you
representing your church. The quality of pro-scientologist posters
has been poor, prior to this. More to the point, they have been
anti-critic more than pro-scientology, and often less than rational
or communicative. If this is a change in policy, I approve. If
you guys are doing this on your own, be careful. You are definitely
communicating with suppressive persons, with all the bad things that
implies.
The fact that you actually answer posts sets you apart! You two and
Whippersnapper are the only ones left that answer posts, Enzo used to,
before he disappeared, MikeSmith3 and StveJ don't reply, just like
the earlier posters we called "clambots." If you haven't seen them,
you should do a search on DejaNews for the psoters "wg...@loop.com"
and "rod_fl...@hotmail.com." That was the quality of scientologist
most on this group are used to.
Again, be careful, and if the rhetoric gets too heated for you, just
learn to ignore the more vehement ones. Remember: It's only Usenet.
Not real life, not even an incredible simulation.
Cap.
--
===============================================================================
= Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
= "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
===============================================================================
Zinj
Keith Henson's post reminded me of this and it still almost makes me cry.
Zinj
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/picketpage/prla398d.html
In article <hkhenson...@netcom.com>, hkhe...@netcom.com says...
>
>Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>: > another glowing example of the tech
>
>: No,it's not any glowing example of anything but child abuse and
>: corruption. I don't give a S**t who is doing it and why and who
>: approves of it, it is wrong. Hubbard's policies do NOT say to do this
>: because -- hold onto your hats--it's WRONG to hurt kids and wrong to
>: condone or enable it in any way. If this woman was really harassed and
>: pursued by anyone from the church because she did the right thing about
>: this bastard that was hurting the kids, then that person (that did the
>: harassing) was unworthy of the term "Scientologist".
>
>Well, maybe so to you anyway, but the person was an offical of
>scientology, a minister yet, who insisted that the guy was upstat and it
>would cause too much of a PR flap if she reported her kids were being
>abused. Re Hubbard policy, there is a HCOB which makes the point you can
>get away with anything if you are upstat, i.e., making money for CoS.
>
>: So, let me get this straight, every time a scientologist does something
>: wrong or unpleasant or immoral it's going to be proof positive that the
>: entire movement is no good. Seems to be what you are saying. Well, of
>: the people I know at my local org, I don't know ONE that would ever
>: countenance such treatment of children and those that protect them.
>
>I have not been impressed with the treatment I see scientology kids get
>at the San Jose org. Kids who are only 3-4 wonder around it a bare
>parking lot, no supervision, nothing to play with, and look through the
>fence into the nice play yard for homeless families next door to the org.
>But from what I see on the net, things are much worse at the big orgs
>like FLAG or LA. And have you ever heard of FO 3905? The one which is
>used to force abortions or banishment on SO families?
>
>: So if five hundred Scientologists do something good, you'll ignore it.
>: If one does something bad instead of thinking that he may have acted on
>: his own you will assume it is scientology at work and blame the entire
>: group for it. Nice going.
>
>Actually, I don't as much blame the group as I do Hubbard's nasty set of
>memes (infectious ideas). They bring out the worst in people, much like
>drugs do. If you don't believe me, to take a look at the L rundowns.
>
>Keith Henson
Zinj
Some will call you a clam, some will not. Generally speaking, and as
Podkayne wrote, the term "clam" is used for the write-only robots that
spew their nonsense here and will not engage in debate - it has
nothing to do with how mad you make anyone.
>Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12.
><SARCASM>I am a Scientologist</SARCASM>
Claire I'm sure you already know that I think you and your hubby are my
favorite clams in ages :)
I don't think name calling is worth much, and I don't use it that way I hope.
There are a lot of names I've been called in my life (list availlable on
request) but things like 'clam' and 'wog' don't really bother me.
I hope you show up on Efnet #scientology someday soon, I think you'd like the
crowd.
And god knows we could use some real people there to support the
scientologist position.
Zinj
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <35a402b7...@news.concentric.net>,
Rev Dennis Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>:
>
>>The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
>>to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
>>their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
>
At one time, Dennis, someone like YOU was in a position of authority.
You ain't no more, big boy, so maybe the "scieno scum" get it right once
in a while. Hmmm?
As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
have some hard questions for the man.
However I don't think that's the case so you're blowing smoke. As usual.
- Whippersnapper
"Childhood is so disillusioning." -- Calvin
Zinj
> Free will is different from informed will and because you have no idea of
what
> the OT levels consist of,
I don't???
hehe.. keep in mind.. Claire said Xenu.. I think she probably knows :)
Zinj
In article <6nb2m1$q...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...
If you look back Whip you'll find a direct reference to the HCOB that defined
how to deal with upstat people. (child molestors or no)
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <359976bd...@news.atnet.at>, ra...@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton)
wrote:
>Do you have a policy reference on this writing of K/Rs? My understanding (from
>HCOPL 1 May 65) was that they are only to be used by staff and then only when an
>investigation is in progress.
HCOPL 22 July 1982, "Knowledge Reports" - in PTS/SP pack.
Mike
--
Why are these people dead Scientology?
http://www.enturbulate.nu/
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <35a0530f....@news.demon.co.uk>,
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>[I wonder if someone would be good enough to cite the Hubbardspeak
>regarding a) not going after upstats, and b) the High Crime of
>reporting a Scieno to the authorities?]
HCOPL 1 September 1965 (from a posting of Jeff - look on Dejanews)
"In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his
statistic is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down."
http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/sp_rules.html
HCOPL 23 December 1965
"Such Suppressive Acts include.. reporting or threatening to report
Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to
suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practising or receiving
standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology
organization or Scientologist including the non-payment of bills or
failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of
the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply;"
M
spbill
In article <199806300524...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>Zinj,
>
>If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that
>Scientology helps people and is a good thing, would *you* be
>interested?
The question for me is not whether Scientology helps people.
I will readily concede that Scientology *does* help people. In
fact I'll even concede that many people have been helped a great
deal by Hubbard's technology. The "church" helps people in return
for money.
It's easy to help people - Charlie Manson may well have helped a
little old lady across the street one day, for example. Anyone
can help people. It doesn't prove they are well-intentioned, in
fact it doesn't say anything at all about their intentions. The
question for me is one of motive. The cult helps people because it
serves the cult's purpose. Whenever they do anything charitable they
make sure they get as much P.R. mileage out of it as possible. The
question for me is whether Scientology has ever helped someone or some
group and *not* subsequently crowed loudly about it to the world.
Somehow, I doubt it.
The big question goes to motive. What is their basic purpose?
Since a great number of people have been *harmed* by Scientology
especially in the areas of "ethics" and "justice" screw-ups, we can be
reasonably sure the top church management folks aren't as lily-white
as they'd like us to believe. A number of possibilities suggest
themselves to explain why so many are harmed by this "church" :
1. LRH tech is basically flawed or is routinely misapplied. I lump
these two together because rampant misapplication indicates that there
must be a flaw in the material itself; they are supposed to know how
to train people to do it right.
2. Whoever is running the "church" is working to make sure the "good"
purpose of Scientology is being suppressed - i.e. working to make sure
Scientology fails in the long run. Which would mean the current
leaders are S.P.'s.
3. There is still a lot of reactivity which hasn't yet been handled,
and the ongoing dramatization of it explains why the "church" is
having so much trouble getting the job done.
At this point I am inclined to believe all three of the above are
true.
spbill
The best way to reform CoS is to run it out.
spbill
In article <6nb5i1$8rs...@ppp18.ietc.ca>,
bi...@ietc.ca (spbill) wrote:
>In article <199806300524...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>
>>Zinj,
>>
>>If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that
>>Scientology helps people and is a good thing, would *you* be
>>interested?
Russ is referring to two different things here:
1) Scientology helps people
2) Scientology is a good thing
A lot of people have been helped by Scientology. But that doesn't
mean Scientology is a good thing overall. Counterexample: the Mafia
"helps" its members to live well without having to work very hard -
but that doesn't *prove* the Mafia is a good thing.
Scientology helps for money. It helps some people some of the time.
Not all people all of the time. The church is unwilling to help *me*
for instance (well, I suppose they'd be eager to "help" me commit
suicide :-))
The real issue here is whether Scientology is a good thing. It isn't
very easy to evaluate. Sure, they have the means to free people from
their aberrations - at least the more easily-resolved ones. But why
do they charge such exhorbitant fees if their basic purpose is to
help? One wonders if their basic purpose isn't to obtain as much
money as possible from their followers. Helping people is a good
game: you help someone, then he is willing to pay more money for more
help. If you make him more able but still a rondroid (a willing slave
to the leaders who run the cult) it's a good move also. Much better
to have competent robots willing to do whatever Miscavige says than to
have some bungling wogs who can't follow orders!
A more esoteric argument would be that if a system is flawed you
don't want to let it get too much power, because then those in
charge will perpetuate the status quo.
How to evaluate whether Scientology is good or evil overall?
Their potential for helping people is finite: after they clear the
planet, then that's it. On the other hand, their potential for
harming people is unlimited: they could take control of the world and
keep the evil dictatorship going indefinitely, suppressing any other
movements which might want to *really* help people.
Seems to me, if Scientology's basic purpose were to help people then
they would throw open their doors and provide all the auditing that
was needed for free. Over the years they must have trained hundreds
of thousands, perhaps even millions of highly-skilled auditors. Why
not give them a chance to do something worthwhile? I think if
Scientology offered to help *everyone* - regardless of ability to pay,
then there would be much more enthusiasm for getting the job done.
Auditors would volunteer their time. The morale would go way up. We
might even be able to clear the planet.
The fact the cult doesn't do this speaks volumes to me about its true
motives.
One more thing. I believe the tech is flawed; it's a solution that
doesn't solve the whole problem. Works fine up to a point, then
fails. The existing cult mentality insists on an all-or-nothing,
take-it-or-leave-it scenario. "You are either with us or against us"
- and that is aberrated in the extreme. It's the age-old stupidity of
making a firm decision in a marginal situation. Why should I have to
accept the bad parts of Scientology just because overall it does more
good than evil? That's *if* it does more good than harm when you add
it all up.
So Russ, do you have any convincing argument to show that Scientology
is a good thing overall? I would certainly be interested. If you can
convince me I will tone down my criticism considerably. The irony is
that Scientology doesn't actually have to *be* a good thing, it only
has to *convince* me that it is. Then I'll shut up, maybe even
contact the IJC about doing steps A..E.
How about it Russ? Show us the evidence.
Bev
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
> have some hard questions for the man.
Well, how about the people in charge that ~DID~ not only condone
the cover up, but suggested it? What hard questions do you have
for those Co$ leadership? Do you agree that the Co$ leaders who
did this were wrong?
Beverly
BP
> Scientology in all ways opposes victimization of the helpless.
>
>John S.
Oh, John, if you had only been at the Ft Harrison when Lisa MaPherson
was helpless due to psychosis and being abused by crackpot physical
care and mental care that consisted of being totally ignored as she tried
for over two weeks to escape false imprisonment. If only YOU could
have looked at the situation and intervened, taking the obvious course
of action to get Lisa to a hospital. She would be alive today, if only
your type of Scientologist had been present.
So what happened? How could that helpless girl be so victimized
by your "church"? Why do the perpetrators who haven't left the
country show no remorse? What will stop this from happening again?
And why aren't you using the approved filter so that the very name
"Lisa MacPherson" is deleted, just as the person was?
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <35a508d0...@news.concentric.net>, info...@informer.org
(Rev Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>>http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/childabuse.html
>
> Superbly inFormative site, Mike! Many thanks for assembling that
>particular significant material.
Thanks! <blush> I don't know what to say...
>
> It will be one of the first links on the inFormer Ministry webpage,
>should we ever actually get one up and running.
Lets hope so, Dennis, the more information the better. Children our the
future not some damn "3d resources" who should be exploited. The
exploration of adults is bad enough. If the cult sues me over the Flag
ORders I will make very sure that all the media will know what's in
them, the total disregard for kids can only mean more bad PR for them.
I'm ready for it. Wonder if they are too.
Mike
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6nc0b8$irv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <giz...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <6nb2m1$q...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>
> [...]
>
>> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
>> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
>> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
>> have some hard questions for the man.
>>
>>
>> - Whippersnapper
>
Actually, I don't know. I've read only things posted here, and haven't
investigated further.
>How far up the chain was action taken?
My guess would be, it got noticed clear to the top once it became a legal
situation. Who did what at that point I do not know. What you're doing
here I think, is assuming I am an insider to such things. I'm not.
>Was the action geared to cooperate
>with the government, or was the action more on the lines of hiring lawyers
>for everyone involved ... like with the Lisa McPherson incident?
I don't know what was done in EITHER case. But my guess would be -- BOTH.
The Church would, if it is following its own policy, cooperate with
authorities, obey the law, AND defend itself and its members.
>I agree with you saying that Miscavige is too far up the ladder to catch any
>mud from this incident ... so what, pray tell, has Miscavige done to change
>the corporate climate that will prevent using stats as an excuse to hide
>abuse in the future? Anything? Nothing?
Again, I do not know. But I think it is far more than likely that
specific policy grew out of the incident, and I daresay that that policy
requires reporting of crimes NOT be prevented or discouraged.
I wouldn't mind knowing for sure myself. But I am far from those events
at present. It's been years since I was on staff. If anything along that
line has been posted here, I might well have missed it, BTW.
- Whippersnapper
"Don't we even get a few practice semesters?" -- Calvin
giz...@my-dejanews.com
[...]
> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
> have some hard questions for the man.
>
> However I don't think that's the case so you're blowing smoke. As usual.
>
> - Whippersnapper
So, Whippersnapper, what action did the Co$ take when the abuse was reported?
How far up the chain was action taken? Was the action geared to cooperate
with the government, or was the action more on the lines of hiring lawyers
for everyone involved ... like with the Lisa McPherson incident?
I agree with you saying that Miscavige is too far up the ladder to catch any
mud from this incident ... so what, pray tell, has Miscavige done to change
the corporate climate that will prevent using stats as an excuse to hide
abuse in the future? Anything? Nothing?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chris Owen
In article <359841C5...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
writes
>Zinj wrote:
>>
>> Have you ever filed a Knowledge Report on anyone?
>>
>> And did you have a kind of dirty feeling after you did so?
>
>thinking of) because I wanted the ethics officer to know that I was
>being sexually harassed. Not something to keep under wraps.
>
>I also did a couple more where it seemed I was not being listened to by
>a course supv.This was an extremely nice guy who was kind of new at it.
>Once I made my concerns known,via the knowledge report,it was discussed
>with me,and him, and it worked out,and relations between me and the
>course supv (who I like alot) were improved.
>
>I have done this only a few times,ever, as this is not the first ethics
>gradient (the first is seeing something non-optimum and not saying
>anything about it and it goes on from there) and therefore not
>applicable to every situation.
>
>Claire
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>And from John:
>
>No one should feel bad about having written a knowledge report on
>another individual. A k/r is designed to inform the group of
>destructive actions that a person is committing. The idea is to get the
>person back functioning in a positive direction. Neither the person
>that's had the knowledge report written on him or the person writing it
>should feel bad about it.
>
>John S.
My compliments to both of you - I hope you don't get cut off by OSA, as
appears to have happened to other Scientologists who've engaged this
newsgroup in a genuinely constructive way, as you have.
I wanted to add some comments from a military perspective, as it seems
to me that there's some interesting parallels with the Scientology
system of knowledge reports. Forces personnel are encouraged to report
instances of bullying or racial/sexual harassment (quite rightly, too)
as well as things such as unsafe procedures or significant violations of
regulations. In a sense, everyone in uniform is a policeman: if one
drops a piece of litter on the street, it's unlikely that your fellow
citizen will order you to pick it up. If you're a soldier and you drop
the same piece of litter on a parade ground, you can be sure that any
officers seeing it would order you to pick it up, and might well order
you to pick it up even if you weren't the person who dropped it. See
the parallel?
The difference, I think, is twofold.
First, what constitutes "destructive actions"? In the military, most
offences correspond with civilian expectations - for instance,
disobedience or disrepect of higher authority (which wouldn't get you
far in any civilian company), non-compliance with standard procedures,
anything criminal, etc. The one really notable exception is
homosexuality, which wouldn't be an issue in any company worth its salt
but can and does still result in expensively-trained people being
dismissed from the British forces. It's fair to say that the military
are out of step with civilian attitudes in this area.
Scientology's view of "destructive actions" is in many respects wildly
out of kilter with non-Scientologist expectations. You only have to
look at a list of "suppressive acts" in Hubbard's "Introduction to
Scientology Ethics" to see what I mean. To give one example - a very
real issue for German Scientologists, who are facing national elections
this summer - Hubbard labels as a "suppressive act" the action of
"proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or
laws directed towards the suppression of Scientology."
Now, all the major German political parties have banned Scientologists
from their membership. If you voted for any of them, you would be
supporting "ordinances directed towards the suppression of Scientology."
Therefore you would face disciplinary action if you voted for any party
with such rules in force. How can it be right for a Church which claims
to be non-political to dictate the way one votes?
There are many other "high crimes" and "suppressive acts" relating to
public criticism of Scientology which, it's fair to say, most non-
Scientologists would regard as incompatible with democratic values of
free speech.
The second issue, and possibly the more important, is how disciplinary
actions arising from knowledge reports are dealt with. Military
commanders have the authority to "try" and punish minor offenders on the
spot. More serious offences go before a court-martial, which has
elaborate procedures to ensure a fair trial. Judicial independence is
rigorously enforced to prevent any political interference; the defendant
has his own defence counsel; although there isn't a jury, the
prosecuting and judicial functions are kept separate (and are
represented by different people).
Now consider a Scientology Committee of Evidence. Obviously I've never
been through one myself, so I'm happy to concede that my knowledge may
not be 100% accurate, but from what I've seen of Comm Ev reports, there
appear to be major failings in the system. There doesn't appear to be
any "judicial" independence; the Ethics officers are fully integrated
into the organisational structure and do not appear to have any shelter
from political pressure. There's no apparent accountability within the
Church - indeed, LRH actually says that democracy is a disastrous
organisational philosophy - which is an ideal situation for political
favouritism and cronyism. The defendant doesn't have any sort of
counsel. And the Committee itself appears to act as judge, jury *and*
prosecution. In short, it seems to me to be not so much a tribunal as
an inquisition.
The real problem with knowledge reports isn't so much the culture of
mutual snitching which it entails as the unreasonable list of offences
and the lack of due process in the administration of "Scientology
Justice". During their respective periods of dictatorship, Germans and
Russians were afraid of people snitching on them because they knew that
quite trivial transgressions were punished severely and especially
because they knew they would not get a fair trial. Likewise in
Scientology one can be punished for actions which the ordinary man in
the street would consider quite innocuous, and the Comm Ev system
appears to operate in a way that violates basic principles of natural
justice and the separation of the court's powers.
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR WEB ARCHIVE: |
| http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair |
| OFFLINE VERSION: http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair/plansinc.zip |
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <35995D...@iag.net>, Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
>> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
>> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
>> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
>> have some hard questions for the man.
>
>the cover up, but suggested it? What hard questions do you have
>for those Co$ leadership?
I suspect those questions were asked them, in Scn justice proceedings. I
have no hard facts at all, but I know without asking, that those people
wound up in serious trouble.
>Do you agree that the Co$ leaders who did this were wrong?
I don't know who they were nor to what degree they were "leaders." But
yes, absolutely, they were wrong. The mother should have been at total
liberty to report the crime and see it prosecuted.
The Scn Ethics codes such as this one:
(Defining as a High Crime...) "Delivering up the person of a Scientologist
without justifiable defense or lawful protest to the demands of civil or
criminal law."
(and I think there are a couple of others which say similar things) are
meant -- as I understand them -- to represent a total disagreement that
Scientology itself or its practice should be subjected to being
prosecuted as a crime; and/or that Scientologists have a duty to ensure
their fellows are fairly treated and well defended.
I see those codes as being, for example, in the spirit of the Code of a
Scientologist, which says, "To actively decry the suppression of
knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help mankind." And the
Credo of a True Group Member, which says, "The group member should not
permit laws to be passed which limit or proscribe the activities of all
the members of the group because of the failure of some of the members of
the group." And there are other references, but I'm sure you get my
drift.
I do NOT see those Ethics codes as justifying a coverup or any failure to
allow prosecution of crimes by any legal authority.
I surmise though, that those fools who did try to cover up the child
abuser may have been thinking along those lines, perhaps misunderstanding
the above-quoted code to mean one NEVER delivers up a group member to
civil or criminal authorities.
And again, I feel very sure they were called to account for it, whatever
their justifications.
- Whippersnapper
"I say just punch him then and there." -- Calvin
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <BP8m1.92$bc3.4...@news.inreach.com>,
Zinj <zinj...@inreach.com> wrote:
>In article <6nb2m1$q...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...
>>
>>In article <35a402b7...@news.concentric.net>,
>>Rev Dennis Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
>>>Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>:
>>>
>>>>The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
>>>>to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
>>>>their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
>>>
>>> What if "people like that" are running the cherch you support?
>>
>>At one time, Dennis, someone like YOU was in a position of authority.
>>
>>You ain't no more, big boy, so maybe the "scieno scum" get it right once
>>in a while. Hmmm?
>>
>>Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
>>abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
>>have some hard questions for the man.
>>
>>
>>
>>- Whippersnapper
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>If you look back Whip you'll find a direct reference to the HCOB that defined
>how to deal with upstat people. (child molestors or no)
>
>Zinj
Zinj, are you REALLY a literal-minded idiot, or do you just play the part
in a.r.s?
There's nothing "upstat" about child sexual abuse. It would never, ever
be ignored on that basis by anyone but a complete fool. Granted, you are
convinced no doubt that all Scientologists are so stupid. But
fortunately, that is not the case.
- Whippersnapper
"I take it there's no qualifying exam to be a dad." -- Calvin
WONDERFULR
>Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS
>Date: Tue, Jun 30, 1998 17:50 EDT
>Message-id: <35995D...@iag.net>
>
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
>> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
>> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
>> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
>> have some hard questions for the man.
>
>the cover up, but suggested it? What hard questions do you have
>did this were wrong?
ANYONE who - in ~any~ way - kept a piece of shit like that from the authorities
was WAY out of line. Period.
There is NOTHING that makes sexual molesting children okay. Ever. There are
NO conditions that excuse it.
And for ars critics to even ~imply~ that this "is Scientology" is a very wild
distortion of the truth.
>
>Beverly
WONDERFULR
>>Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS
>Date: Tue, Jun 30, 1998 15:38 EDT
>Message-id: <6nbes3$8s8...@ppp9.ietc.ca>
>
>In article <6nb5i1$8rs...@ppp18.ietc.ca>,
> bi...@ietc.ca (spbill) wrote:
>>In article <199806300524...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>> wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>
>>>Zinj,
>>>
>>>If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that
>>>Scientology helps people and is a good thing, would *you* be
>>>interested?
>
>Russ is referring to two different things here:
>
>1) Scientology helps people
>2) Scientology is a good thing
>
>A lot of people have been helped by Scientology. But that doesn't
>mean Scientology is a good thing overall. Counterexample: the Mafia
>"helps" its members to live well without having to work very hard -
>but that doesn't *prove* the Mafia is a good thing.
I agree with your above paragraphs.
>
>Scientology helps for money. It helps some people some of the time.
>Not all people all of the time. The church is unwilling to help *me*
>for instance (well, I suppose they'd be eager to "help" me commit
>suicide :-))
*Scientologists* routinely help people - just because they want to. Money
isn't a factor at all.
And I suspect you already know that.
>
>The real issue here is whether Scientology is a good thing. It isn't
>very easy to evaluate. Sure, they have the means to free people from
>their aberrations - at least the more easily-resolved ones. But why
>do they charge such exorbitant fees if their basic purpose is to
>help?
Auditors are FAR more scarce than preclears. Always have been. LOTS of
preclears. Not that many trained auditors (in comparison to the number of PC's
- even WITH the prices being charged).
Co-auditing is *very* inexpensive.
> One wonders if their basic purpose isn't to obtain as much
>money as possible from their followers.
Only one who feels betrayed wonders that.
> Helping people is a good
>game: you help someone, then he is willing to pay more money for more
>help. If you make him more able but still a rondroid (a willing slave
>to the leaders who run the cult) it's a good move also. Much better
>to have competent robots willing to do whatever Miscavige says than to
>have some bungling wogs who can't follow orders!
What exactly *are* these "orders" that we are supposed to be getting all the
time?
>
>A more esoteric argument would be that if a system is flawed you
>don't want to let it get too much power, because then those in
>charge will perpetuate the status quo.
>
>How to evaluate whether Scientology is good or evil overall?
>
>Their potential for helping people is finite: after they clear the
>planet, then that's it.
Not really.
There are other planets. And I don't see this one being "totally clear" in the
next month or so - so the work isn't that "finite".
> On the other hand, their potential for
>harming people is unlimited: they could take control of the world and
>keep the evil dictatorship going indefinitely, suppressing any other
>movements which might want to *really* help people.
How do you consider it possible for Scientology to "take over the world"?
Seriously?
>
>Seems to me, if Scientology's basic purpose were to help people then
>they would throw open their doors and provide all the auditing that
>was needed for free.
On a co-audit basis that has been and is true right now.
Do you REALLY want auditing? Really?
> Over the years they must have trained hundreds
>of thousands, perhaps even millions of highly-skilled auditors. Why
>not give them a chance to do something worthwhile?
Millions of auditors? Highly trained?
And this is being posted by an ars ~critic~? <g>
> I think if
>Scientology offered to help *everyone* - regardless of ability to pay,
>then there would be much more enthusiasm for getting the job done.
Interesting theory. Why not open a field group and test that theory?
>Auditors would volunteer their time. The morale would go way up. We
>might even be able to clear the planet.
I'm with all the way on the goal! Just not too convinced with the method.
>
>The fact the cult doesn't do this speaks volumes to me about its true
>motives.
If you are truly convinced what you post is true, why not do it yourself?
>
>One more thing. I believe the tech is flawed; it's a solution that
>doesn't solve the whole problem. Works fine up to a point, then
>fails. The existing cult mentality insists on an all-or-nothing,
>take-it-or-leave-it scenario. "You are either with us or against us"
Or somewhere in between. :-)
>- and that is aberrated in the extreme. It's the age-old stupidity of
>making a firm decision in a marginal situation. Why should I have to
>accept the bad parts of Scientology just because overall it does more
>good than evil? That's *if* it does more good than harm when you add
>it all up.
I don't think you have to accept anything you don't want to accept. Do you?
>So Russ, do you have any convincing argument to show that Scientology
>is a good thing overall? I would certainly be interested. If you can
>convince me I will tone down my criticism considerably.
What are you willing to accept as "convincing"?
> The irony is
>that Scientology doesn't actually have to *be* a good thing, it only
>has to *convince* me that it is. Then I'll shut up, maybe even
>contact the IJC about doing steps A..E.
You obviously have attention on doing just that.
>
>How about it Russ? Show us the evidence.
>
>spbill
What is acceptable evidence to you? Really.
Steve A
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:16:55 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> Rev Dennis Erlich wrote:
> > It's only about who you're gonna alow to own your soul. (or
> > repossess your thetan)
>
> I didn't pledge it as collateral.Regardless of what you might think.
The whole point of much of our objection to Scientology, Claire, is
that a great deal of trouble is taken to ensure that your soul _is_
pledged as collateral. It might not be explicit, and it might not be
obvious, but it's happening now, even as you deny it.
Like Dennis, I suspect that you won't begin to realise just how much
you are in hock to the cult until you're about to leave or you've
already gone.
--
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
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:22:35 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> LRonsScam wrote:
> >
> > >From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> > >Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 21:13 EDT
> > >Message-id: <3596DDBB...@home.com>
> > >
> > >I wouldn't quite put it that way. I guess I was basically trying to say
> > >that humans have free will.
> >
> > Free will is different from informed will and because you have no idea of what
> > the OT levels consist of,
>
> I don't???
I know you can't discuss your case, Claire, so I won't ask you what OT
level you are. Assuming that you've done *some* of the OT's, though,
would it not be fair to say that there was certain information given
to you during the levels you have done that you were not aware of
before doing them?
Assuming you haven't done all the OT levels, would it not therefore
also be fair to say that there are aspects of the levels you haven't
done which, like the ones you have done, will not be revealed to you
until the proper time.
Given that, and assuming you aren't OTVIII, how can you say with so
much certainty that you know what the upper levels of your cult's
scriptures say? Have you been reading www.xenu.net?
> then you don't have informeed will. I know what they
> > are and so I am informed. I choose not to further my studies in Scientology.
> > Scientologists on the other hand have a Web Nanny to help them not discover
> > things about Scientology and not just the OT levels.
>
> That's a heck of a generalization,pardnuh...John and I don't have a web
> nanny. Neither do most of the people we know in Scn. Perhaps you meant
> to say something like "some scientologists have a web nanny" ??
Fair enuf. Fact is, that Scientology wants *everybody* to have a web
nanny, and go to the trouble of covertly installing it for them when
they install Netscape off their CD.
Incidentally, I wonder whether Netscape might not have any views on
their browser being repackaged and redistributed incorporating such a
piece of software: with a lot of commercial software, it is against
the licensing terms of the package to repackage it or distribute it in
an altered fashion. Shame if Netscape ended up suing the criminal
cult, and given that Netscape already represents about the only
opposition to that other high-control coercive organisation,
Microsoft, in the browser wars, it might be an interesting moral
battle.
> > We can be influenced by Scientology or by
> > >another religion or by other people or what have you, but ultimately
> > >it's our own decision to do what we do.
> >
> > I will go further with informed will. Freedom of choice only exists when one
> > has the ablility to decide on the correct information. If one says that this
> > group is all good and you accept it and something goes amiss, then you are
> > likely to look for blame in the wrong places. Never does the organization
> > accept respnsiblity. Never, never, never.
> >
> Perhaps they do so internally but do not wish to give their critics and
> self-admitted enemies ammunition. I have seen a number of statements on
> this ng wherein the person posting stated their wish to see Scn go away
> and in some cases,their wish to help that happen.I am certain that the
> Church has this in mind.
I have a stated wish to see Scn go away. Scn, that is, as represented
by the actions of your criminal cult. I have no beef with the
religious aspects, although I find them even more ludicrous than many
other religious belief systems, but I do find the coerciveness, deceit
and level of milieu control to be offensive.
> > When a Scientologist does
> > >something bad or good, it's that person's own actions.
> >
> > Then why does the CoS only use the person's suscces stories. Why not give a
> > reality of the loss too. When you have a loss in Scientology you aren't allowed
> > to discuss it with anybody for that might invalidate them of the tech. If one
> > has a win you can invalidate someone's loss. Isn't that so?
>
> That's not true. One IS encouraged to talk about losses. What one is
> encouraged NOT to do is spread it around during break,socialization,etc,
> to other students and those who are doing well. But one is NOT supposed
> to keep these losses to oneself- the CofS DOES want to know about them.
Of course. They're future business. "Oh dear, chum, still got some
BT's? Another auditing block, perhaps?"
Steve A
On 30 Jun 1998 05:24:33 GMT, wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Why I am a public critic of CoS
> >From: zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj)
> >Date: Mon, Jun 29, 1998 23:36 EDT
> >Message-id: <%2Zl1.22$bc3....@news.inreach.com>
> >
> >In article <35984414...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> >John.. if I could you show you documents that prove irrefutably that
> >Scientology covers up crimes by it's 'upstat' members.. and HCOB's that show
> >that that is church policy would you be interested?
> >
> >Zinj
> >
> >
>
> Zinj,
>
> If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology helps
> people and is a good thing, would *you* be interested?
I certainly would. Please remember, though, that your standard of
irrefutable proof may well differ from mine.
Try me.
Steve A
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:08:13 -0000, stars...@mindless.com
(Starshadow) wrote:
> In article <lscdoesnteatspam...@netcom.com>,
> lscdoesntea...@netcom.com says...
> > John Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > >The main problem I have with that is that one would have to be derelict
> > >in one's duties as a Scn'ologist to not actually try to assist the
> > >members of a family that was being abused. This would include not just
> > >other Scientology people but also others in the community. Scientology
> > >in all ways opposes victimization of the helpless.
> >
> > Yes, John, Scientology Church leaders in this case were derelict in
> > their duty. Scientology Church leaders in this case did not oppose
> > victimization of the helpless. Others in the community--police,
> > district attorney, the attorney for the wife, the judge, etc--these
> > people were NOT derelict in their duty. The only Scientologist
> > in this case that we know of who tried to do her duty is the
> > mother, who DISOBEYED Scientology Church leaders and sought help
> > in the legal system. For this action she was thrown out of Scientology!
>
> Actually, she wasn't in scientology. He was. She went to the cops; he
> is now in prison, and good riddance to bad rubbish.
She was, too, I believe. It was this event which, not entirely
surprisingly, caused her to harbour certain doubts about Scientology.
Of course, the minute she did that, she'd just added being Suppressive
to the list of High Crimes she had already committed against
Scientology, and even less important to the crime syndicate that was
prepared to endorse the ongoing abuse of her children.
Steve A
On 30 Jun 1998 12:10:41 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
> In article <35a402b7...@news.concentric.net>,
> Rev Dennis Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
> >Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>:
> >
> >>The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> >>to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> >>their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
> >
> > What if "people like that" are running the cherch you support?
>
> At one time, Dennis, someone like YOU was in a position of authority.
The point is, though, Whimp, that he saw the error of his ways and got
the hell out.
HE did something to make a difference. Scientology has done NOTHING
visible to make any sort of difference with respect to the Donald
Strawn case.
> You ain't no more, big boy, so maybe the "scieno scum" get it right once
> in a while. Hmmm?
Oh, the old DA shit that he wasn't good enough, so you threw him out,
eh? I really don't know why you bother, WHimp - it even comes across
as half-hearted from you, too.
> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
> have some hard questions for the man.
So why no hard questions for the chaplain who DID condone the coverup
of the abuser? Why does he sit there as if nothing was wrong? If, as
you and Claire seem intent on insisting, the actions of the officials
concerned were not in line with their orders, how did at least one of
them hang onto his job?
> However I don't think that's the case so you're blowing smoke. As usual.
And offering the usual proof for your vague assertions as usual,
Whimp.
Steve A
On 01 Jul 1998 00:32:16 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
> In article <BP8m1.92$bc3.4...@news.inreach.com>,
> Zinj <zinj...@inreach.com> wrote:
> >In article <6nb2m1$q...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...
> >>
> >>In article <35a402b7...@news.concentric.net>,
> >>Rev Dennis Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
> >>>Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>:
> >>>
> >>>>The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> >>>>to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> >>>>their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
> >>>
> >>> What if "people like that" are running the cherch you support?
> >>
> >>At one time, Dennis, someone like YOU was in a position of authority.
> >>
> >>You ain't no more, big boy, so maybe the "scieno scum" get it right once
> >>in a while. Hmmm?
> >>
> >>As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
> >>Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
> >>abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
> >>have some hard questions for the man.
> >>
> >>However I don't think that's the case so you're blowing smoke. As usual.
> >>
> >>
> >>- Whippersnapper
> >>
> >>"Childhood is so disillusioning." -- Calvin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If you look back Whip you'll find a direct reference to the HCOB that defined
> >how to deal with upstat people. (child molestors or no)
> >
> >Zinj
>
> Zinj, are you REALLY a literal-minded idiot, or do you just play the part
> in a.r.s?
>
> There's nothing "upstat" about child sexual abuse. It would never, ever
> be ignored on that basis by anyone but a complete fool.
Then there are quite a few complete fools in the hierarchy of the
Clearwater Org, then. Is there anywhere that the stench of corruption
does not reach to within Scientology, or is it spread to root and
branch from the Source of all corruption, the festering body of
Hubbard and his homunculus, Miscavige?
Steve A
I'm not sure whether the logical leap required to go from prosecuting
a Scn for a criminal offence to "...suppress [him] from practising or
receiving standard Scientology" is entirely justified: one *could*
argue that taking a Scieno to the authorities for a crime would be an
attempt to prevent his receiving "standard Scientology" in prison, but
I wouldn't like to push it that far, personally.
That said, Scientology's history is littered with examples of where
they have used tinier gaps than this to wriggle out of a problem, so
it is hard not to see it with a rather jaundiced eye and mentally
compliment Hubbard for some exquisitely lawyeresque evasions and
equivocations.
Steve A
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:25:10 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
> Steve A wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:24:44 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> > > to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> > > their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
> >
> > They were following policy, Claire.
>
> No.
It will take more than a flat denial to convince me, Claire.
Let me put it more clearly:
Scientology documents clearly state that it is a High Crime to report
a Scientologist to the civil authorities rather than report him to
Scientology authorities. True or False?
The mother of the children reported the abuse to the Scientology
authorities. We can presume that at that stage she informed them that
she wished to inform the civil authorities, as this was what prompted
the threat of excommunication, per Scientology's own rules. True or
False?
Assuming that you answered True to both questions (and I cannot see
how you cannot, since you seem utterly certain in your view that the
Scientology officials - in Clearwater, the Mecca of the "tech",
remember - were out-tech, so you're presumably not claiming ignorance
of their actions), then you are agreeing that the actions taken by
those officials were acting in accordance with Scientology "tech".
>
> And they do not appear to have
> > been punished by Scientology, which rather implies that Scientology,
> > tacitly at least, supports their actions.
You failed to respond to this. If, as you claim, the Scientology
officials were out-tech, then they should have been punished for that.
Yet nothing has been done, and at least one of the individuals
concerned is still in post. So either he hasn't been punished by
Scientology for aiding and abetting a child sex abuser, or the
punishment did not extend to his losing his post.
Which is it, Claire?
Scott A. McClare
On 30 Jun 1998 05:24:33 GMT, WONDERFULR <wonde...@aol.com> wrote:
>If I could show ~you~ documents that prove irrefutably that Scientology helps
>people and is a good thing, would *you* be interested?
"Proof" coming from YOU? Bahahaha!
Dream on, LibelousR.
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP4 GGBC#42 "I see you now and then in dreams
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca Your voice sounds just like it used to
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj871/ I believe I will hear it again
PGP 1024/E7950B29 via finger/keyserver God how I love you" - Mark Heard
Geoff Burling
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:30:53 GMT, cpt...@access4.digex.net (Captain
Nerd) saith:
>
> Claire, John, I must say it's refreshing to see people like you
> representing your church. The quality of pro-scientologist posters
> has been poor, prior to this. More to the point, they have been
> anti-critic more than pro-scientology, and often less than rational
> or communicative. If this is a change in policy, I approve. If
> you guys are doing this on your own, be careful. You are definitely
> communicating with suppressive persons, with all the bad things that
> implies.
>
Actually, from time to time a practicing Scieno *does* show up here,
& attempt to have a true discussion with us critics. Some -- like
Heidrun Beer aka ClearBaby -- run afoul with the CoS management & end
up leaving the organization. Others -- like Funny...@aol.com -- post
for a while until they are abruptly told to stop. (In Funny's case,
she was a minor, & her parents believed it was not best for her to
talk with folks like us.)
There were one or two others, & also a countless number who'd appear
for a post or two & then vanish once again. So the only impression of
the CoS that readers like myself are left with are either outargued
posters like Whippersnapper or Ron's Amigo, or CoS apparatniks who
dutifully type in responses their supervisors give them.
> The fact that you actually answer posts sets you apart! You two and
> Whippersnapper are the only ones left that answer posts, Enzo used to,
> before he disappeared, MikeSmith3 and StveJ don't reply, just like
> the earlier posters we called "clambots." If you haven't seen them,
> you should do a search on DejaNews for the psoters "wg...@loop.com"
> and "rod_fl...@hotmail.com." That was the quality of scientologist
> most on this group are used to.
>
> Again, be careful, and if the rhetoric gets too heated for you, just
> learn to ignore the more vehement ones. Remember: It's only Usenet.
> Not real life, not even an incredible simulation.
>
Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore
Note that my return address has been munged to foil spambots.
Want to try Hubbard's ``Tech"? Go to http://www.fza.org/pilot/
& do it for free!!!
spbill
In article <199807010823...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
wonde...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:
>>So Russ, do you have any convincing argument to show that
>>Scientology is a good thing overall? I would certainly be
>>interested. If you can convince me I will tone down my criticism
>>considerably.
>
>What are you willing to accept as "convincing"?
I would accept LRH's criterion: greatest good for the greatest number
of dynamics. If we put all the good done by Scientology on one side
of a balance scale, and all the harm done by Scientology on the other
side, then find the scale tips in favor of the good side, I would find
that convincing. Of course there will be some quibbling about whether
the "good" which is paid for (fair exchange) should count. Let's
count the good deeds the church performs "altruistically" - and we
need to obtain a complete confession from the church of all its
negacts, to be certain we know about them. Such a weighing-up of the
evidence should reveal whether Scientology is a good thing overall, or
not.
>What is acceptable evidence to you? Really.
There is a way I could accept that Scientology is a good thing
overall, without having to weigh all the evidence. It's based on the
fact I would find it inconceivable that anyone with *truly* good
intentions would knowingly commit negacts. If I really believed
church management were sincerely trying their best to help people and
that was their primary purpose, I would not feel any need to add
things up. The hitch here is that it can be awfully difficult to
ascertain someone's true purpose.
I would like to see each Scientologist have the freedom to participate
fully in the ongoing creation of Scientology. (That is bigger than it
looks at first glance). It includes being free to offer improvements
to the technology, and the freedom to communicate openly about
Scientology's shortcomings without any threat of sanctions. When
management stops acting like they're hiding something, I'll feel a
whole lot more like trusting them.
Tilman Hausherr
In <6nce4g$7...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>There's nothing "upstat" about child sexual abuse. It would never, ever
>be ignored on that basis by anyone but a complete fool. Granted, you are
>convinced no doubt that all Scientologists are so stupid. But
>fortunately, that is not the case.
You play with words. A scientologist can get away with child abuse (or
murder) if he is upstat. The thing with the murder is even written
policy.
Of course, you might say "is a joke", "is historical", etc. There is
also a policy about such people.
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Keith Henson
Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
: WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
:
: > As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
: > Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
: > abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
: > have some hard questions for the man.
: Well, how about the people in charge that ~DID~ not only condone
: the cover up, but suggested it? What hard questions do you have
: for those Co$ leadership? Do you agree that the Co$ leaders who
: did this were wrong?
May I suggest that Grady (who had scientology's phone records for a few
days) be asked if he remembers any pattern of phone calls by high level
scientologist in the days before or after Lisa McPherson died? If he does
have such a memory, either Ken Dandar or the Xenu City (formerly
CLEARwater) cops could look into this, i.e., get their own copy of the
phone company records. Keith Henson
giz...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6ncani$p...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
> In article <6nc0b8$irv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <giz...@my-dejanews.com>> > Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> As for those running the Church, if you were to demonstrate that
> >> Miscavige, for example, ordered or condoned the coverup of the child
> >> abuser, I think Claire and I and most of the Scientologists we know would
> >> have some hard questions for the man.
> >>
> >>
> >> - Whippersnapper
> >
>
> investigated further.
Same here, we are not insiders, after all. We can only watch as the
Scientology organization gets poked in various places and observe the
reaction.
>
> >How far up the chain was action taken?
>
> My guess would be, it got noticed clear to the top once it became a legal
> situation. Who did what at that point I do not know. What you're doing
> here I think, is assuming I am an insider to such things. I'm not.
Oh, it most certainly would have been noticed clear to Miscavige. The problem
is that no basic change in corporate culture appears to have taken place.
It is hard to believe that you are not an insider, but ever since Rogue Agent
mentioned his doubt, it has become more and more comfortable to accept it.
You are not so unlike some True Believers in other religions I have met.
>
> >Was the action geared to cooperate
> >with the government, or was the action more on the lines of hiring lawyers
> >for everyone involved ... like with the Lisa McPherson incident?
>
> I don't know what was done in EITHER case. But my guess would be -- BOTH.
> The Church would, if it is following its own policy, cooperate with
> authorities, obey the law, AND defend itself and its members.
That is not at all obvious. The top ranks in Scientology have no problems
with paying lawyers to engage in frivilous lawsuits (and in great volume),
commision and manufacture purjured declarations for use in courts, engage in
discovery abuse, etc. Some of these shysters are even part of Scientology's
top rank. They certainly do not shy away from PIs that comit crimes for them.
This does not give me any confidence that the top management cares about
whether policy conflicts with the laws of the land.
Then there is the added problem that Miscavige aparently has no formal
position in the Scientology church, yet has staggering power. This situation
alone would cause many people in an organization to ignore any written policy
and just go with the culture.
>
> >I agree with you saying that Miscavige is too far up the ladder to catch any
> >mud from this incident ... so what, pray tell, has Miscavige done to change
> >the corporate climate that will prevent using stats as an excuse to hide
> >abuse in the future? Anything? Nothing?
>
> Again, I do not know. But I think it is far more than likely that
> specific policy grew out of the incident, and I daresay that that policy
> requires reporting of crimes NOT be prevented or discouraged.
Errrr, you're guessing here Whippersnapper. It would be nice to believe this,
and it would be as easy to guess that the policy change you suggest applies
ONLY to very sensitive hot buttons, such as child abuse.
Such a policy change should have been given WIDE circulation ... if you are
even partly right. I wonder just how far down the ladder it went, as the
ARSCC has not posted it here on ARS. Such a policy should not be held as a
deep secret.
>
> I wouldn't mind knowing for sure myself. But I am far from those events
> at present. It's been years since I was on staff. If anything along that
> line has been posted here, I might well have missed it, BTW.
That is a good suggestion Whippersnapper. Have any of you Ex'es seen any
office memos come down the line regarding a new policy on criminal/dangerous/
sexist/harrasing behavior? Even a memo reaffirming an old policy? Has
anything come down which would put limits on the "anything for an Upstat"
mentality?
This need not be a secret, top level directive. Many companies put out
messages like this and circulate them as widely as possible. They should
be easy to come by, if they exist.
>
> - Whippersnapper
Claire Swazey
Steve A wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:16:55 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rev Dennis Erlich wrote:
> > > It's only about who you're gonna alow to own your soul. (or
> > > repossess your thetan)
> >
> > I didn't pledge it as collateral.Regardless of what you might think.
>
> The whole point of much of our objection to Scientology, Claire, is
> that a great deal of trouble is taken to ensure that your soul _is_
> pledged as collateral. It might not be explicit, and it might not be
> obvious, but it's happening now, even as you deny it.
>
> Like Dennis, I suspect that you won't begin to realise just how much
> you are in hock to the cult until you're about to leave or you've
> already gone.
>
> --
Your suspicions are incorrect.
Claire Swazey
Rev Dennis Erlich wrote:
>
> zinj...@inreach.com (Zinj):
>
> >The simple fact is every KR filed goes into a folder.
> >And those folders are used to blackmail people.
>
> Wait til they pull out 25 year old reports from your pc folder and
> ask you about them in a deposition.
>
> Perhaps that will change your mind.
>
> Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@primenet.com>
> <inF...@newsguy.com>
As I will not be involved in legal proceedings with the Church, I rather
doubt this will occur.
Claire
Claire Swazey
Thanks for the nice post. We *are* doing this on our own. It's just my
insatiable desire to put my two cents in on topics that interest me, I
guess.
I do enjoy this ng.
Claire
Captain Nerd wrote:
>
> In article <35987735...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >Hi:
> >
> >Sure.Intro to Scn Ethics,pg 292,Knowledge Reports,Definition of.
> >
> >Also pg 180,same book.
> >
> >I'm aware of the reference you're using,however that's only a partial
> >explanation.
> >
> >John S.
>
> Claire, John, I must say it's refreshing to see people like you
> representing your church. The quality of pro-scientologist posters
> has been poor, prior to this. More to the point, they have been
> anti-critic more than pro-scientology, and often less than rational
> or communicative. If this is a change in policy, I approve. If
> you guys are doing this on your own, be careful. You are definitely
> communicating with suppressive persons, with all the bad things that
> implies.
>
> The fact that you actually answer posts sets you apart! You two and
> Whippersnapper are the only ones left that answer posts, Enzo used to,
> before he disappeared, MikeSmith3 and StveJ don't reply, just like
> the earlier posters we called "clambots." If you haven't seen them,
> you should do a search on DejaNews for the psoters "wg...@loop.com"
> and "rod_fl...@hotmail.com." That was the quality of scientologist
> most on this group are used to.
>
> Again, be careful, and if the rhetoric gets too heated for you, just
> learn to ignore the more vehement ones. Remember: It's only Usenet.
> Not real life, not even an incredible simulation.
>
> Cap.
>
>
> --
> ===============================================================================
> = Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
> = "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
> ===============================================================================
Claire Swazey
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin wrote:
>
> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
> : The way I look at it is that it isn't SCIENTOLOGY that did this or needs
> : to apologize, it's some individaul staff members with their heads up
> : their asses. And people like that are never going to apologize.
>
> Scientology of such people - especially those in the upper echelons of the
> cult? After all, both the Strawn case and the McPherson case occurred in
> Clearwater - Mecca of the tech. One would think that FLAG would represent
For an answer to this question,see previous postings between me (& John)
and Zinj re: knowledge reports.
Claire
>
> There have been several scientologists in this group that have attempted
> to handle outpoints in scientology using KR's, etc. - and been declared
> for their efforts. Their names were smeared, they were accused of crimes,
> all to shut them up and keep others - people like you - from listening to
> them.
>
> Beck
Claire Swazey
Michael 'Mike' Gormez wrote:
>
> In article <35a0530f....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>
> >[I wonder if someone would be good enough to cite the Hubbardspeak
> >regarding a) not going after upstats, and b) the High Crime of
> >reporting a Scieno to the authorities?]
>
> HCOPL 1 September 1965 (from a posting of Jeff - look on Dejanews)
>
> "In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his
> statistic is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down."
>
> http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/sp_rules.html
>
> HCOPL 23 December 1965
>
> "Such Suppressive Acts include.. reporting or threatening to report
> Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to
> suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practising or receiving
> standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology
> organization or Scientologist including the non-payment of bills or
> failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of
> the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply;"
>
That's so. If one were to bring the actions of the person committing
the crime to the Church and then received the reply, per the above, one
would then be free to pursue the matter with the legal authorities. And
also it says "in an effort to suppress Scn or Scn'ologists". I don't
happen to think that letting the authorities know about a crime and
trying to protect a woman or child,for example, could have the motive of
suppressing Scn to it.
Claire
>
> --
> Why are these people dead Scientology?
> http://www.enturbulate.nu/
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <35a110d4...@news.demon.co.uk>,
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>I'm not sure whether the logical leap required to go from prosecuting
>a Scn for a criminal offence to "...suppress [him] from practising or
>receiving standard Scientology" is entirely justified: one *could*
...
>That said, Scientology's history is littered with examples of where
>they have used tinier gaps than this to wriggle out of a problem, so
>it is hard not to see it with a rather jaundiced eye and mentally
>compliment Hubbard for some exquisitely lawyeresque evasions and
>equivocations.
The "beauty" of Scientology is that one can always find something in
Hubbard's writings to use for his/her own objective. That is also one
of my concerns. While good natured culties (they do exist) find some
of Guru Hubbard's texts marvelous, no doubt, they won't look at what
critics consider the darker sides of his gigantic output. It is nice
that Phatmanotoo wrote that one should fight for his rights, but where
would mine or yours be, if we'd be put in "permanent quarantine" per
Hubbard, or be stripped of our "civil rights" (Science of Survival) ??
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/germany/quotes.html
(if you haven't done so, read that page!)
Other example, the PR of a world without war etc.. Nice! Who wants a
world full of war? No one in his right mind. The more sinister, and
imo true face, emerges in the targets to control governments and the
media etc.. -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/index.html#background
Yet another one, while scio's say that the GO was a group that more or
less was operating from its own non-scn policies, I maintain the viewpoint
that the GO operated exactly as Hubbard intended. The difference lies imo,
in interpretation or attaching a different significance to the same texts,
not taking in account the specific GO programmes.
See also Whappers post <6ncds5$6...@examiner.concentric.net> he writes
"as I understand them" - and that's really the point.
(At least he doesn't deny the rape and subsequent handling by the cult.
A Dutch scieno who is assigned the handling of nl.s doesn't accept
anything. Won't even talk about it. 25 years in the cult has made him
an empty shell without a personalty whatsoever. Comparing picketers
with "black leather jack" thugs is "humor" for him. Go figure..)
Mike