Dangerous Auditor Warning - Pierre Ethier.
Ralph Hilton
rather slimy third party number.
It seems appropriate to publicly make some things known.
Pierre was removed from tech lines after demonstrating on video to the senior C/S
International that he couldn't read an E-meter.
He was observed to have obscured meter reads on a metab test by fiddling with the TA knob.
In his defense he says that he wouldn't have sent up the video if he had bothered to check
it first.
A "Class 12" who can't do a metab properly?
On www.robertdam-cos.dk/Class%20XII%20ex%20so%20briefing.rtf
One can see the following:
"Being highly trained, I read many sessions C/Sed by LRH for XDN, CL VIII, OT III repairs,
L-10,11,12, when the person had become psychotic, even suicidal. Most of L-11 for instance
was developed from the case of a staff member who had become intensely and violently
psychotic on the Apollo. (In C/S 22 LRH mentions that a CL XI has a different approach to
handle psychosis). After all throughout those materials, LRH boasts that he has the cure
to insanity. Unfortunately checking into the later track of all those pcs, one finds the
bulk of them, far from being the Supermen they were made to attest to, were for the most
part later declared SP, showed very aberrated behavior and failed as execs.
The original psychotic out of whom L-11 was derived was named Peggy McCall and her auditor
was Liese Klingsvall. According to the case history she had been found to be raving
hostile remarks against LRH and had been "violent" (no specifics). LRH invented from the
top of his head a process later known as C/S series 37R claiming she would be permanently
cured of her insanity by it. After auditing that action and a few other steps (which is
textually L-11 as given today) she was made to attest and offloaded. This shows that a
powerful rundown claimed to cure insanity, was piloted on ONE person beside LRH doing it
solo on himself before being labeled as "fully researched and vindicated". The name of the
pc on whom L-11 is based is Peggy McCall who went crazy and was locked up on the Apollo in
1971."
Would you really trust an auditor to run you on L11 who posted the above?
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.ralphhilton.org
C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.net
bb
For the second time in the last few weeks I have received reports that
Ethier is doing a
rather slimy third party number.
He had vigorous and polite response. Free speech has ruled.
RH
It seems appropriate to publicly make some things known.
Pierre was removed from tech lines after demonstrating on video to the
senior C/S
International that he couldn't read an E-meter.
He was observed to have obscured meter reads on a metab test by
fiddling with the TA knob.
In his defense he says that he wouldn't have sent up the video if he
had bothered to check
it first.
A "Class 12" who can't do a metab properly?
BB
You really take seriously the diktats of a mad suppressive
organisation?
The one that declared you?
Nick Warren
"bb" <basic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129845500.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> RH
> For the second time in the last few weeks I have received reports that
> Ethier is doing a
> rather slimy third party number.
> BB
> He had vigorous and polite response. Free speech has ruled.
If you're talking about the dig he had at me on ifachat, then I see what you
mean BB.
However, Ralph mentions the word "second". I am unaware myself of what the
other instance is.
Also, to say that free speech has ruled, although true in a limited sense,
is not really a full analysis of what happened in the instance I do know of:
a) He does not seem able to stop himself from having a dig at one or two
folks. I was not a member of ifachat, was not really even interested in
what was happening there, the post by someone else that brought my name on
to that list didn't really in any way promote me as some kind of tech guru -
yet he reacted as if I was the coming of the Devil about to invalidate the
hell out of everything he claims he stands for. If he doesn't like me -
well fair enough - but why the continued inappropriate comm? Ralph and I
had long since stopped having digs at him.
b) In the process he invalidated the hell out of using not just the version
of the OCA I put up on fzaoint, but the OCA used by the CoS and recommended
by LRH in all those bulletins he claims to follow. Well, opinions of the
usefullness of the OCA may vary, but he kind of left folks (Nancy in
particular) with no usable stable datum to use in its place either. To say
the least that is not the action of a sensible CS - CSes are supposed to
build confidence and knowledge in others, not rip away what stable data they
have and replace it with nothing.
The thing that I find particularly frustrating, however, is not Pierre
Ethier, but its you. You're so flaming reasonable, nicey nice, free speech
and all that. Well I commend that view in regard to new folks - but - in
regard to someone who wishes to be known as a Class XII. Come on mate....
Nick
Ralph Hilton
<4358...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
>
>"bb" <basic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1129845500.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> RH
>> For the second time in the last few weeks I have received reports that
>> Ethier is doing a
>> rather slimy third party number.
>> BB
>> He had vigorous and polite response. Free speech has ruled.
>
>If you're talking about the dig he had at me on ifachat, then I see what you
>mean BB.
>
>However, Ralph mentions the word "second". I am unaware myself of what the
>other instance is.
I'm not on the "IFA" list so missed that. Ethier sent a couple of people some BS in mails
and I received copies which he didn't intend. Ethier is a lying little shit who crawls
around off public lines and doesn't have the guts to appear in the open.
If bb wants to front for him then he'll have to take the shit that pierre deserves.
Ball of Fluff
"Nick Warren" <nickw...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4358...@news2.lightlink.com...
>
> The thing that I find particularly frustrating, however, is not Pierre
> Ethier, but its you. You're so flaming reasonable, nicey nice, free
> speech and all that. Well I commend that view in regard to new folks -
> but - in regard to someone who wishes to be known as a Class XII. Come on
> mate....
>
To whom is this directed?
a...@123.net
Ralph Hilton <ra...@ralphhilton.org> wrote:
It would seem a little more time form place and event would make THIS
post seem less like third party itself.
Not taking sides....just noticing the missing data....
Rogers. D.Scn.
> It would seem a little more time form place and event would make THIS
> post seem less like third party itself.
>
> Not taking sides....just noticing the missing data....
I'm not taking sides either, but...errrh... I'm with you, Haybeecee.
Not knowing the contents of those couple of e-mails Ralph referred to, it's
hard to get the flavor of what "third partying" transpired. But
nevertheless, the other missing "data" (missing terminals) that I note
pertains to this person or these two people who were (cough) "kind" enough
to relay those e-mails to Ralph. Yes, very kind and concerned citizens, I
suppose. (he says with unavoidable sarcasm.)
Personally, my attention still goes to those one or two "concerned
citizens." Is there a possibility they will be kind enough to relay Ralph's
(quote) 3rd partying over to Pierre now? Back and forth, back and forth?
Fuel a fire?
But since Pierre doesn't participate in ACT (or even read it, that I know
of) it seems the wrong forum for accusations against him.
Les.
Ralph Hilton
msg <4359102d$1...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
I sent Pierre a copy of what I posted.
bb
a) He does not seem able to stop himself from having a dig at one or
two
folks.
So it seems. And you gave appropriate response.
NICK
I was not a member of ifachat, was not really even interested in
what was happening there, the post by someone else that brought my name
on
to that list didn't really in any way promote me as some kind of tech
guru -
yet he reacted as if I was the coming of the Devil about to invalidate
the
hell out of everything he claims he stands for. If he doesn't like me
-
well fair enough - but why the continued inappropriate comm? Ralph and
I
had long since stopped having digs at him.
Apparently not. Publically stating he's a dangerous auditor is an
escalation
of that. And unwarrented. Its not usefull or even interesting.
Unless your helping out with the Freezone survivors FZ hate site.
Its also not true.
I have heard only very good things from people who have had
auditing or C/Sing
from him. This includes some who recieved auditing from in in COS and
wanted to connect up with him again now he's in the FZ. I know of no
one
who's had any complaint about his C/Sing or auditing.
NICK
b) In the process he invalidated the hell out of using not just the
version
of the OCA I put up on fzaoint, but the OCA used by the CoS and
recommended
by LRH in all those bulletins he claims to follow. Well, opinions of
the
usefullness of the OCA may vary, but he kind of left folks (Nancy in
particular) with no usable stable datum to use in its place either. To
say
the least that is not the action of a sensible CS - CSes are supposed
to
build confidence and knowledge in others, not rip away what stable data
they
have and replace it with nothing.
BB
Its common knowledge that much has been alterised by RTC. It would
not
be suprising that this includes the OCA. It would be quite correct to
point this out
if its been altered. Specially as some rundowns are C/Sed against OCA
results.
NICK
The thing that I find particularly frustrating, however, is not Pierre
Ethier, but its you. You're so flaming reasonable, nicey nice, free
speech
and all that. Well I commend that view in regard to new folks - but -
in
regard to someone who wishes to be known as a Class XII. Come on
mate....
BB
There has been more than enough slanging of FZ tech terminals by
their peers,
the COS, FZ survivors, and any tom dick and harry.
Of the first 20 class XIIs produced under LRH or on the boat 16
have been
declared. RTC have been driving auditors out of COS, or off tech posts
for years.
I wouldn't place any faith on their comments or their removals of tech
personnel.
Ralph Hilton
<abc-BCA5CF.0...@nntp.charter.net>, :
The original was posted on http://www.antisectes.net/ but seems to have gone.
Details of the metab video were from Pierre himself.
Nick Warren
"Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
Well, it was hardly directed at Ralph
Nick
Nick Warren
> NICK
> b) In the process he invalidated the hell out of using not just the
> version of the OCA I put up on fzaoint, but the OCA used by the CoS and
> recommended by LRH in all those bulletins he claims to follow. Well,
> opinions of
> the usefullness of the OCA may vary, but he kind of left folks (Nancy in
> particular) with no usable stable datum to use in its place either. To
> say the least that is not the action of a sensible CS - CSes are supposed
> to build confidence and knowledge in others, not rip away what stable data
> they have and replace it with nothing.
> BB
> Its common knowledge that much has been alterised by RTC. It would
> not be suprising that this includes the OCA. It would be quite correct to
> point this out if its been altered. Specially as some rundowns are C/Sed
> against OCA
> results.
I do not think that is the case here. P.E's stated reason for distrusting
the modern OCA is that it is you've only got to get a couple of questions
"wrong" on traits G and H to get a low OCA in those areas. However, this
has been the case for at least the last 30 years to my certain knowledge.
It would suggest that, for a significant period, he was not familiar with
how OCAs were marked. Anyone who has ever hand marked an OCA would be
familiar with the raw score/"centile" conversion charts and know that some
traits are much easier to get a high "centile" score than others.
To blame the results of some supposedly failed past auditing (that he of
course heroically repaired) solely on the OCA smacks of a overly simplistic
analysis of the cases to me. Either the OCAs were falsely marked, or the
error was somewhere else entirely.
> BB
> There has been more than enough slanging of FZ tech terminals by
> their peers, the COS, FZ survivors, and any tom dick and harry.
With most such things I think I predominantly agree with you. But not in
relation to this geezer.
Nick
bb
NICK
I do not think that is the case here. P.E's stated reason for
distrusting
the modern OCA is that it is you've only got to get a couple of
questions
"wrong" on traits G and H to get a low OCA in those areas. However,
this
has been the case for at least the last 30 years to my certain
knowledge.
It would suggest that, for a significant period, he was not familiar
with
how OCAs were marked. Anyone who has ever hand marked an OCA would be
familiar with the raw score/"centile" conversion charts and know that
some
traits are much easier to get a high "centile" score than others.
To blame the results of some supposedly failed past auditing (that he
of
course heroically repaired) solely on the OCA smacks of a overly
simplistic
analysis of the cases to me. Either the OCAs were falsely marked, or
the
error was somewhere else entirely.
BB
You may be correct. Why not ask him re his data? Clarify things.
> BB
> There has been more than enough slanging of FZ tech terminals by
> their peers, the COS, FZ survivors, and any tom dick and harry.
NICK
With most such things I think I predominantly agree with you. But not
in
relation to this geezer.
BB
Maybe think again. He knows the tech. He gets good results. It is
not
unique to Pierre to have flaws.
Its not even unique for LRH.
Ralph Hilton
<1129845500.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, :
I presume you mean dictates. Pierre was trained in an insane organization. He relies for
his status on that training. One of the tactics he appears to have been trained in is
suppressive invalidation of others in order to establish a position of authority.
Nick Warren
> BB
> You may be correct. Why not ask him re his data? Clarify things.
In relation to P.E, you must be mistaking for someone who gives a shit. He
has my email address if he wants to fix things up.
You, on the other hand, I care about.
Nick
Ball of Fluff
I was confused by the grammatical syntax because of the "...someone who
wishes to be known as a ClassXII"...
C
Ball of Fluff
"Ralph Hilton" <ra...@ralphhilton.org> wrote in message
news:krpil1ha51656jhs4...@4ax.com...
> "bb" <basic...@yahoo.com> wrote on 20 Oct 2005 14:58:21 -0700 in msg
> <1129845500.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, :
>
>>RH
>>For the second time in the last few weeks I have received reports that
>>Ethier is doing a
>>rather slimy third party number.
>>BB
>> He had vigorous and polite response. Free speech has ruled.
>>RH
>>It seems appropriate to publicly make some things known.
>>
>>Pierre was removed from tech lines after demonstrating on video to the
>>senior C/S
>>International that he couldn't read an E-meter.
>>
>>He was observed to have obscured meter reads on a metab test by
>>fiddling with the TA knob.
>>In his defense he says that he wouldn't have sent up the video if he
>>had bothered to check
>>it first.
>>
>>A "Class 12" who can't do a metab properly?
>>
>>BB
>> You really take seriously the diktats of a mad suppressive
>>organisation?
>>
>> The one that declared you?
>
> I presume you mean dictates. Pierre was trained in an insane organization.
WADR, and ya know I love ya and will always be grateful to ya, but
wellll...so were you, right?
C
Ralph Hilton
in msg <4359...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
Of course, my dear :-)
BB is a bit like the sweet innocent little old lady that LRH talks about in some early
tapes. Used to rake the balls of the enemy some lifetimes back.
I met Pierre at Flag. He was a bit slimy and unctuous.
acw --- wis......@cyber
Muldoon
LRH is dead.
However, LRH's organizational extension or "alter ego" does participate
in ACT.
But that's another topic is it not?
As to this Ralph, etc. situation, I, and others, are semi-observing
from a far - the way one might when forced to witness a noisy married
couple arguing loudly on their front porch.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> But since LRH doesn't participate in ACT (or even read it,
> that I know of) it seems the wrong forum for accusations
> against him.
In passing, most of the accusations I see directed toward LRH seem based on
an effort of the accuser to undermine and suppress Scientology OR missed
withhold phenomena.
But, putting LRH aside for now, alt.clearing.technology is or should be
devoted to tech. Tech understandings, tech cognitions, tech revelations,
tech correction, etc., etc. To that degree, and in this sort of context,
ACT transcends issues of "participation."
I know I for one have critiqued a number of tech "authors" - some of the
materials coming up on the roboposter - who never have, or no longer do,
participate in ACT. But it's the TECH that's under inspection, it's the
TECH that sometimes needs Qual'ing - or, at the very least, hashing out for
better clarity and understanding.
Les.
Ball of Fluff
> But since LRH doesn't participate in ACT (or even read it,
> that I know of) it seems the wrong forum for accusations
> against him.
So what forums would you suggest?
LOL
mode...@lightlink.com
Ralph Hilton <ra...@ralphhilton.org> wrote:
THIS THREAD IS CLOSED.
acw --- wis......@cyber
Well if you include Les the super-squirrel (verbal tech) and decipherer
of what LRH meant, who has never audited but is a expert at all things
Hubbardian - you do end up with an "altered-ego."
Is there an "alt.contactthedead.technology"?
Rogers. D.Scn.
> Well if you include Les the super-squirrel (verbal tech) and decipherer
> of what LRH meant...
Lordy! Listen who's talking!
Les.
Ralph Hilton
msg <435a...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
The man who graced your BS with a response is one of only a few people whose expertise in
the tech that I would trust.
You perhaps think that posting a lot gives you credulity.
I haven't seen an experienced auditor acknowledge anything you've written as worth the
cyberink it is written on.
I had some early problems with Alan due to 3P but that was all resolved and I can see that
he knows the tech.
Your silly philosophical BS shows your naivety.
Get an E-meter and some cans and learn to use them.
Had a good day today. A lady from from Germany was here last week for training on Solo
Nots. When she went back a friend of hers just looked at her and was blown out. He phoned
us today to arrange when he can come.
The wins of the PCs is all that this is about.
Endless philosophical yap yap doesn't produce case gain. Auditing does. Maybe you could
try it out one day?
Muldoon
Ralph Hilton wrote:
> "Rogers. D.Scn." <The_...@NOSPAMmsn.com> wrote on Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:58:11 -0600 in
> msg <435a...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
>
> >"acw --- wis......@cyber" <wis...@cyberstation.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> Well if you include Les the super-squirrel (verbal tech) and decipherer
> >> of what LRH meant...
> >
> >Lordy! Listen who's talking!
> >
> >Les.
>
> The man who graced your BS with a response is one of only a few people whose expertise in
> the tech that I would trust.
>
> You perhaps think that posting a lot gives you credulity.
>
> I haven't seen an experienced auditor acknowledge anything you've written as worth the
> cyberink it is written on.
>
> I had some early problems with Alan due to 3P but that was all resolved and I can see that
> he knows the tech.
>
> Your silly philosophical BS shows your naivety.
>
> Get an E-meter and some cans and learn to use them.
>
> Had a good day today. A lady from from Germany was here last week for training on Solo
> Nots. When she went back a friend of hers just looked at her and was blown out. He phoned
> us today to arrange when he can come.
Long duration "NOTs" has a bad track record of sustained positive
results. I wish you had picked some other area as an example of your
good work.
Tina & Joel Phillips
<snip>
>You perhaps think that posting a lot gives you credulity.
Tina presumes you mean credibility.
Tina & Joel Phillips
--
Proud Sponsors of the Church of Scientology's Hate Site, Religious Freedom
Watch. Reluctant Sponsors of http://www.xenu.net.
And recently we've become big fans of L Ron Hubbard's Affirmations!
Read L Ron Hubbard's Affirmations, one of the earliest examples of OT solo
auditing.
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/english/admissions-hubbard.html
or
http://www.lermanet2.com/reference/Admissions.pdf
L Ron Hubbard's Affirmations inspire us! That's what Tina says!!
Rogers. D.Scn.
> The man who graced your BS with a response is one of only a few people
> whose expertise in
> the tech that I would trust.
I imagine, no heartily believe, Alan probably has far more expertise,
certainly more experience, as an auditor than you yourself, Ralph, so I can
see how and why you should admire him.
I admire him for that myself, as well as some other of his endearing and
rather remarkable traits.
But, and oh, Ron pointed this out way way back, auditors in the field tend
to drift off standard tech - that ain't my fault, and it ain't my fault if
they dig themselves into a service faccy auditor beingness armored with cast
iron.
It also ain't my fault if auditors get "vested" in their practice, for right
or wrong. That ain't my fault either.
On ACT it is, as it has to be, a "let those who have the ears to hear, hear
this" scenario.
(I'm going to make another point in a separate post.)
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> The man who graced your BS with a response is one of only a few people
> whose expertise in
> the tech that I would trust.
Ignoring for the moment, the issue of Alan's expertise as an auditor as well
as the apparent gesture of admiration in mentioning it, how about we turn
the coin over? How about we talk about mutual out-ruds?
Agreement contributes to a sense of ARC and that agreement, alas, can also
be in the context of mere co-motion or, indeed, mutual (cough)
"understandings."
I don't know how many people, in ancient times, used to believe the world
was flat, but I'm sure they all got along fine with that mutual agreement.
Anyway, I continue.
The way I understand it, neither you, Ralph, nor Alan, believe the Clearing
Course factually produces a Clear who is cause over mental mest (like actual
GPMs, say). And all your combined experience and expertise auditing pcs had
not contributed to cognition or revelation in this regard. Anyway,
personally, one way or another, I consider this belief has and will function
like a crashing misunderstood that you have BOTH gone past.
Frankly (and brutally), the aspiration toward, or pretense of, "upper level
research" by someone who has already gone past such a crashing misunderstood
about "Clear" is rather certainly going to end up in the dark bogs of
squirreldom with ever the weirder ideas and ever the diminished clarity.
Evidence seems to corroborate the above.
Les.
Nick Warren
"Rogers. D.Scn." <The_...@NOSPAMmsn.com> wrote in message
news:435b...@news2.lightlink.com...
> "Ralph Hilton" - talking about Alan Walter - wrote in message
>
>
> Evidence seems to corroborate the above.
>
> Les.
What are you bleating on about man.
That diatribe had about as much to do with anything as my toe nail
clippings.
If can't audit, at least get a life.
Nick
Ball of Fluff
"Nick Warren" <nickw...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> "Rogers. D.Scn." <The_...@NOSPAMmsn.com> wrote in message
> news:435b...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> "Ralph Hilton" - talking about Alan Walter - wrote in message
>>
> > ...blah blah blah
>>
>> Evidence seems to corroborate the above.
>>
>> Les.
>
> What are you bleating on about man.
>
> That diatribe had about as much to do with anything as my toe nail
> clippings.
>
> If can't audit, at least get a life.
>
I don't care if Les wants to audit or not. If he wants tech, he can study
it. Just applying the tone scale in life is a use of the tech. Like most
Scn'ists, he probably does that. Applies concepts he has learned. That's
applying Scn in one's life.
He can get auditing if he wants to. Maybe he has. Maybe he's gonna. That's
between him and his C/S. It's not our business.
I personally have no use for the man because of his electing to target me
and others and write lies and personal attacks about people on this forum,
as he has sometimes done.
But I'm not gonna fault him for posting somewhere. Aren't we all posting?
C
Rogers. D.Scn.
> What are you bleating on about man.
>
> That diatribe had about as much to do with anything as my toe nail
> clippings.
Well, Nick, what part of my assertions regarding the difficulties of trying
to come up with upper level materials PAST a crashing misunderstood didn't
you understand?
Les.
Nick Warren
> trying to come up with upper level materials PAST a crashing misunderstood
> didn't you understand?
>
> Les.
It is what you haven't understood.
For example you asserted that Ralph thinks the CC can't produce a Clear. I
quote: "The way I understand it, neither you, Ralph, nor Alan, believe the
Clearing Course factually produces a Clear".
I didn't hear Ralph ever say any such thing.
If you actually audited, you might know, rather than spout on about it.
Nick
Muldoon
Nick old chap, we'd love to see your OCA test graph. No doubt it's
excellent, unless they've added a section for "prickly."
Brendan K
From now on my mantra is and will be "This is exactly why the Freezone
will never amount to a damned thing!" I repeat - "This is exactly why
the Freezone will never amount to a damned thing!" I am not saying stick
one side of the dichot here but I did not see a single positive process
in the entire outline of this thread.
Perhaps all you gurus and tech saavy gods can extol upon us mere
mortals a glimmer of what it means to be civil as opposed to abusive,
or better still write us a bulletin or find an LRH bulletin that makes
abuse OK. (Damn I'm in for it now). And don't f$%^ quote the Fair Game
reference its old news. I am asking you "you know who you are" to teach
us plebs something other than abuse. Abuse is rife on planet earth and
frankly most people have had enough of it and when it shows it ugly head
on a list thats supposed to be tech based then I get really worried. "I
ofcourse am not innocent in this" because I've done it too "been really
really abusive".
Ralph since you are so technically able, please find the relevant
technical reference and write an instruct or KR on Ethier. Sort out your
differences, get in ethics on the matter and clean up your own lines. Or
let he who is without sin cast the first stone... The junior gurus like
me in this forum respect the knowledge and mastery you have each
attained and it more often than not disrupts our stable datums when you
act in a manner that is unbecomming of an highly trained auditor/processor.
*YOU - THE BASIC CAUSE (Paradigm Matrix - Alan C. Walter)*
Only you know the true quality of your existence; only you
are your true judge.
· When you lie, you know you lied.
· When you do a poor job, you know it.
· When you fail to look up the words you don't understand, you
know it.
· When you waste time, you must pay the price.
· When you pretend to do, or know, you cannot hide that pretense
from yourself.
· When you break a promise and explain and justify your excuses,
you know it.
· When you research and study an area poorly, you know.
· When money, bangles, baubles, and beads seduce you, you know.
· When you do a good job, you know.
· When you master a skill, you know.
· When you work on a liability until it's conquered, you know.
· When you are honest, you know it.
* A basic law of success, then is: BE TRUE TO YOURSELF.*
bb wrote:
>NICK
>I do not think that is the case here. P.E's stated reason for
>distrusting
>the modern OCA is that it is you've only got to get a couple of
>questions
>"wrong" on traits G and H to get a low OCA in those areas. However,
>this
>has been the case for at least the last 30 years to my certain
>knowledge.
>
>It would suggest that, for a significant period, he was not familiar
>with
>how OCAs were marked. Anyone who has ever hand marked an OCA would be
>familiar with the raw score/"centile" conversion charts and know that
>some
>traits are much easier to get a high "centile" score than others.
>
>To blame the results of some supposedly failed past auditing (that he
>of
>course heroically repaired) solely on the OCA smacks of a overly
>simplistic
>analysis of the cases to me. Either the OCAs were falsely marked, or
>the
>error was somewhere else entirely.
>BB
> You may be correct. Why not ask him re his data? Clarify things.
>
>
>
HughH...@aol.com
the way it's delivered. So if they see arcx's in the FZ, thats just as
well.
Hugh
Nick Warren
"Brendan K" <bren...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:435CF97D...@tampabay.rr.com...
> Ralph since you are so technically able, please find the relevant
> technical reference and write an instruct or KR on Ethier.
While Ralph picked on a technical point in his original post, that isn't the
real problem. P.E. may well be a good auditor these days for all I know.
That isn't really the point.
The point is that he has shown and continues to show a tendency to covertly
back stab other folks.
Nick
Ralph Hilton
<435CF97D...@tampabay.rr.com>, :
>Ralph since you are so technically able, please find the relevant
>technical reference and write an instruct or KR on Ethier. Sort out your
>differences, get in ethics on the matter and clean up your own lines. Or
>let he who is without sin cast the first stone... The junior gurus like
>me in this forum respect the knowledge and mastery you have each
>attained and it more often than not disrupts our stable datums when you
>act in a manner that is unbecomming of an highly trained auditor/processor.
I have to agree. It was rather unbecoming. Sometimes there is something in another's
universe that is difficult to pervade and I had difficulty spotting it.
Ethier is such a serene and insouciant being that he could never accept any possibility
that imperfect beings such as myself could find a flaw.
I have noticed a flaw in the tech which is so obvious once seen. It is the introduction of
absolutes. Absolutes are unobtainable in this universe. Standard Tech became an absolute.
It meant that any auditor could be held up to ridicule at any time because of failing to
attain an absolute.
It seems to be the reason for the insidious power of the Helatrobus goals - beings were
implanted with unattainables.
If someone sets themself up in an absolute valence then it is difficult to pervade and
as-is unless its impossibility is spotted.
It means that all auditors always have missed withholds - the withhold of imperfection.
In combination with the premiss that the only reason a person leaves a group is O/W it
violates the right of a being to leave a game as one can find O/W on any auditor at
anytime by holding an absolute as a standard.
Muldoon
In 1963, moving into the phase of "evaluating from on high," Hubbard
came up with the "fact" of "the Helatrobus implants." Notice how, in
the description, the idea of "goals" (which anyone has) is slipped in -
when it is the Hubbard-invented "fact" of an implant/event that does
the "trick" of subtle-overwhelm.
Let the person find out for himself the contents of his own mind.
Unless the person _wants_ to be told the content of his own mind, in
which case he knows where to go.
Ralph Hilton
<435d...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
Exactly.
Here's part of an email of his which someone kindly forwarded to me:
> > Neither Hilton nor [name deleted] ever trained on any Upper Level auditor
> > course. They studied on their own, out of the Church without following a
> > checksheet, without any Supervisor nor any C/S, nor anyone to WC them or
> > correct them. There is a lot of materials they never saw, whicih is only
> > available for those training as AO review Auditors or Solo C/S (which I
> > trained and Interned on)
> > It is a true shame that you are being run on people own alteris/MUs of
> the Tech (and possibly their own case).
> >
> > I have contacted both of them in the past but they both told me loud and
> > clear that they wouldnt hear from me and that
> > they had no interest in receiving correction from anyone.
> >
> > I know of nobody who can help you in Europe. The only reports I have
> heard about auditor skills in Europe are entirely based on PR, rather than
> > facts.
> > The few auditors from Europe, I have had the opportunity to examine the
> > pcs or folders of were not only extremely bad, but refused any form of
> > correction...
Ethier is quite aware that I was supervising Advanced Courses and doing OT reviews at
Flag.
bb
I have noticed a flaw in the tech which is so obvious once seen. It is
the introduction of
absolutes. Absolutes are unobtainable in this universe. Standard Tech
became an absolute.
It meant that any auditor could be held up to ridicule at any time
because of failing to
attain an absolute.
But you yourself are continuing this. Pointing fingers at Pierre
for alledgedly getting a metab reading wrong. Going into agreement with
a class XII being taken of tech lines for this little mistake.
And why was a class XII being scrutinised for his ability to take a
metab reading?
The COS has been terrorising its top tech terminals for some time. And
losing them.
Getting rid of them. It seems more a question of politics than tech.
Of the 8 class XIIs trained by LRH 6 have been declared, one left
COS, Quentin
died. Of the Of the 20 trained on the Appollo 16 were declared. Of the
54 class XIIs
produced only 20 still work in COS.
I would imagine its much the same for class 8s and 6s.
Let he who has achieved absolute perfection cast the first stone.
a...@123.net
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Apparently Mr Muldoon has never had any auditing if he thinks that the
auditor is sitting there telling the pc what to originate.
Also interesting interjection into a thread such as this, an attempt to
invalidate other people.
Finding out the contents of ones mind is what this IS all about, and why
people come to this newsgroup.
Muldoon doesnt want that to occur though.
a...@123.net
Ralph Hilton <ra...@ralphhilton.org> wrote:
Good point!
Ironically current church promo says that golden age of tech is the one
exception to unobtainalbe absoulutes.
bb
In article <bsvpl1hebvclevfc3cnatt27kmohui9...@4ax.com>,
Ralph Hilton <r...@ralphhilton.org> wrote:
[snip]
ABC
Good point!
Ironically current church promo says that golden age of tech is the one
exception to unobtainalbe absoulutes.
BB
Shut UP!!
You've GOT to be kidding!
Did not LRH say that clear was the NEAREST to an absolute?
So Davy upstages him?
Muldoon
The "OT 3 data" is a huge evaluation. The Sea Org was built on it. For
years, people have justified Fair Game because of it.
It, by its very nature - and because of the context in which it is
presented - violates the Auditors Code.
Brendan K
I quite frankly have myself been restimulted by highly trained church
folk who assume because I have not done the checksheet I have less or no
knowledge and am brim filled with MU's. What a joke... Throw away the
clear bracelet, get rid of the OT certs... its a wonderful process :) I
cried when my wife tossed my certs... then I realized how freeing it
was. I could quit thinking and maintaining that level of certification.
Now I have no status except that of "Grasshopper".
Clearly you are eons ahead of Ethier... Remember he has only very
recently left the very tightly controlled COF$ environment, I won't
venture the kinds of programs he is running on self and others and
possible delusions of grandeur. The issue here is "K.I.S.S.", the guy
has his own stable datums "Axiom 53" and you are correct its unshakeable
because were you to shake that stable datum the being who is "PE" would
crumble and theres the obvious but missed out ethics thing from the
church hanging over his head. He's been completely invalidated by a
group to which he has pledged his allegiance and when you get kicked out
the charge is often tremendous "3rd dynamic issues abound after that.
Take a closer look at his behaviour". In other words "LOOK DON'T LISTEN".
Bruce Lee wrote in the Tao of Jeet Kun Do "Life is like water, not like
stone - fluid" making the argument that certain forms of martial arts
were too rigid and from that was born Jeet Kun Do "I know this because
my brother is a JKD master". Lee's supposition was that if you got into
a fight with a very dangerous opponent if you decided to use a rigid
stance or approach you would very often be defeated, "be like water my
friend, water can mold itself to a tea cup or a glass and soft as it is
it can make its way through a rock". Fluidity... not absolutes. Gawd
what a fantastic process it would make to handle absolutes (4 flows)...
Now that would be a power process. Makes me wish I knew enough to write
the process... AGH well maybe someday. For now I remain the humble
grasshopper. Heck ask Ethier to write it - hes a Class 99 or
something...Imagine the cogs :)
Remember the old Source Cog from years ago... I am assuming there are
some that need to rehab that cog and get on with the business of
clearing this shithole planet so we can make it all the way out.
Otherwise we are just kids in a sandbox on the playground... "EARTH".
"The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are
permitted to remain children all our lives." -Albert Einstein
How simple it is to get sucked into these games and go of purpose. The
way you handle Either is with tech "reverse the roles" qual check him,
ask him how its possible that absolutes are obtainable in his universe.
"Never defend always attack" is a nasty and abusive tech... and it reeks
of OSAs valence. I say we show this guy Ethier exactly who he's dealing
with by producing excellent wins.
PS
Walters actually released an excellent lecture on his website on the
Games People Play... brilliant. He refers to a husband and wife arguing
about moving the car... Perhaps a higher harmonic might be "hey you
moved that universe or planet"...
acw --- wis......@cyber
solution to a massive desperate problem.
What is or has been the Perfectionist's massive desperate problem?
Chronic constant long term abuse, including no acknowledgment or
appreciation that has totally convinced the being that nothing they
have been, done or owned or are being, doing or owning is any good.
What is the only massive desperate solution to this abuse, lack of
acknowledgment and no appreciation?
The Perfectionist postulates the precepts:
"Everything I am, I create, I do or I own must be perfect.
That way, no one can say my creations, my actions, my property or I am
no good.
Now I will finally be acknowledged and appreciated."
Mental, physical and spiritual make nothing of's. Constantly and
forcibly being told that they and their creations are no good. No
acknowledgment, no appreciation, no validation, being constantly told
they cannot do anything right. This chronic life condition sets up a
desperate situation as the Perfectionist is encased in hatred, envy,
jealousy and rage that cannot be vented or expressed as it violates the
postulate of "I have to be perfect."
The only way these poor sick Perfectionists can get even a slight
relief from their pain and hatred is to constantly point out others'
imperfections, especially their bosses or seniors.
They cannot really face up to life and people so they have to vent
their hatred of others behind their backs.
The sickest of them will write reports to Government Agencies to remove
anyone who disagrees with them.
They constantly criticize and make nothing of others behind their
backs. They find fault with the most ridiculous things; everything in
life is used to prevent action and results, unless of course you can
make others wrong by pointing out their imperfections.
A Perfectionist is a subtle abuser who destroys everything they come in
contact with.
bb
Perfection or Perfectionism is an absolute; it is a massive desperate
solution to a massive desperate problem.
BB
Right on! and a beautiful post.
Perfectionism is desparate.
Perfection is the light of our lives. It is hard to pin down and
define.
It is not an absolute. Its intimately concerned with aesthetics. It
is widely variable.
Mozart is often taken as an example of perfection. And is a damn
fine example. Yet even this giant dosn't reach, perhaps I should say
duplicate, the alternative perfection of Beethoven and the late
romantics.
Yet they have all reached perfection. Perhaps perfection in
communication?
It is all about considerations
Then Van Gogh and Da Vinci. Totally different. Both able to inspire
and
make one transcend mest.
Then take Portishead. Nominally way down tone. The sound production
deliberately scuzzy. Celebrating death and darkness. But also
celebrating beauty.
So beauty, life, random events, strange considerations, may all have
a
component of perfection.
That which lights up our lives may be considered
perfection. If we so consider. :)
Ralph Hilton
<1130173882....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, :
There are not any.
I warmly and openly welcomed Pierre to our group and he did a big shit in our backyard.
If he humbled himself to say sorry for his fuckup then I'd probably accept it. But he is
such a pompous arrogant shit that he is incapable of it.
If you can get him to confront coming here to communicate then I'll talk to him.
He wants to create a "Council of the Class 12s" to rule the FZ.
Gimme a barf bag!
Ralph Hilton
<abc-F803FE.1...@nntp.charter.net>, :
Quack Quack :-)
Ralph Hilton
<435D3354...@tampabay.rr.com>, :
>Warning - post may veer off topic from time to time. :)
>
>I quite frankly have myself been restimulted by highly trained church
>folk who assume because I have not done the checksheet I have less or no
>knowledge and am brim filled with MU's. What a joke... Throw away the
>clear bracelet, get rid of the OT certs... its a wonderful process :) I
>cried when my wife tossed my certs... then I realized how freeing it
>was. I could quit thinking and maintaining that level of certification.
>Now I have no status except that of "Grasshopper".
Hi Brendan,
I kept my CofS certs in a roll. Many years ago I took the whole lot and just dumped them
in the trash shute without ceremony. That was maybe 15 years ago.
I have no certs either!
>Clearly you are eons ahead of Ethier... Remember he has only very
>recently left the very tightly controlled COF$ environment, I won't
>venture the kinds of programs he is running on self and others and
>possible delusions of grandeur. The issue here is "K.I.S.S.", the guy
>has his own stable datums "Axiom 53" and you are correct its unshakeable
>because were you to shake that stable datum the being who is "PE" would
>crumble and theres the obvious but missed out ethics thing from the
>church hanging over his head. He's been completely invalidated by a
>group to which he has pledged his allegiance and when you get kicked out
>the charge is often tremendous "3rd dynamic issues abound after that.
>Take a closer look at his behaviour". In other words "LOOK DON'T LISTEN".
I did try and help but he had an attack of Verbal Diarrhoea on my list.
>Bruce Lee wrote in the Tao of Jeet Kun Do "Life is like water, not like
>stone - fluid" making the argument that certain forms of martial arts
>were too rigid and from that was born Jeet Kun Do "I know this because
>my brother is a JKD master". Lee's supposition was that if you got into
>a fight with a very dangerous opponent if you decided to use a rigid
>stance or approach you would very often be defeated, "be like water my
>friend, water can mold itself to a tea cup or a glass and soft as it is
>it can make its way through a rock". Fluidity... not absolutes. Gawd
>what a fantastic process it would make to handle absolutes (4 flows)...
>Now that would be a power process. Makes me wish I knew enough to write
>the process... AGH well maybe someday. For now I remain the humble
>grasshopper. Heck ask Ethier to write it - hes a Class 99 or
>something...Imagine the cogs :)
He is welcome to come here and talk. Perhaps you could email him and suggest it?
>Remember the old Source Cog from years ago... I am assuming there are
>some that need to rehab that cog and get on with the business of
>clearing this shithole planet so we can make it all the way out.
>
>Otherwise we are just kids in a sandbox on the playground... "EARTH".
>"The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are
>permitted to remain children all our lives." -Albert Einstein
>
>How simple it is to get sucked into these games and go of purpose. The
>way you handle Either is with tech "reverse the roles" qual check him,
>ask him how its possible that absolutes are obtainable in his universe.
>"Never defend always attack" is a nasty and abusive tech... and it reeks
>of OSAs valence. I say we show this guy Ethier exactly who he's dealing
>with by producing excellent wins.
>
>PS
>
>Walters actually released an excellent lecture on his website on the
>Games People Play... brilliant. He refers to a husband and wife arguing
>about moving the car... Perhaps a higher harmonic might be "hey you
>moved that universe or planet"...
Sometimes when people are stuck on the track then one has to give them a smack to get into
PT.
If Pierre is willing to come here and communicate then I would welcome open and
straightforward communication.
But he only appears to be capable of backchannel backstabbing.
Ralph Hilton
msg <1130183398.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, :
Thanks. That was exactly it.
--
Ralph Hilton
<1130190684....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, :
>ACW
>Perfection or Perfectionism is an absolute; it is a massive desperate
>solution to a massive desperate problem.
> [snip]
>
>BB
> Right on! and a beautiful post.
>
> Perfectionism is desparate.
>
> Perfection is the light of our lives. It is hard to pin down and
>define.
>It is not an absolute. Its intimately concerned with aesthetics. It
>is widely variable.
>
> Mozart is often taken as an example of perfection. And is a damn
> fine example. Yet even this giant dosn't reach, perhaps I should say
> duplicate, the alternative perfection of Beethoven and the late
>romantics.
My girlfriend knew Mozart in times gone by.
The sad agony and despair in his life was horrible. In more enlightened ages he could have
lived longer.
Heidrun Beer
<1130183398.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>A Perfectionist is a subtle abuser who destroys everything they come in
>contact with.
Yet you are an advocate of masterful handling of any activity.
Please define the difference between a perfectionist and a master.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Muldoon
Just read the message from Pierre E. in IVy magazine email.
All this fuss is about little more than a turf war.
I'm not a believer in the Hubbard post-1965/67 hype&scare the PC
theogony/cosmology. I also recognize that e-meters
measure emotional reaction, not truth.
Hubbard was a devious Guru - but that's confusing to the faithful, and
the impulse to regress to a childlike state is too strong in too many.
And many of those have checkbooks and credit cards - and the sellers of
the Hubbardian Bridge have - let's face it - a ready clientele,
preconditioned and eager.
Hubbard, and his organization, already did the selling and hype job.
Such people need to be de-sold and de-hyped, and then, if they wish,
they can be audited.
IMHO.
acw --- wis......@cyber
Perfectionists have no sense of gradients, it is all or nothing.
A Perfectionists solution to handling people is to get rid of them.
Perfectionists uses the innate quality of every being who wants
to be, do and have all they can be, do and have as a weapon of
control and domination by constantly putting the being at effect
by pointing out their wrongnesses and imperfections. Being
cowardly they undermine their "imperfect targets" by talking
behind their back.
We all have areas we are perfectionists in, usually they are areas that
are over-charged.
Most of the power identities and opposing power
identities in a GPM are perfectionist driven.
One of the deadly aspects of an Ascension Experience
is you are often driven into a Perfectionist Power Identity.
Perfectionists will use any means possible to dominate,
they MUST be in charge. Where-as someone seeking
mastery takes a much different gradient approach to leadership.
MASTERY ATTAINMENT
To MASTER ANY SUBJECT you have to master
the pieces or parts. The mastered pieces or parts
meld together to make you a MASTER OF A SUBJECT.
This is the secret that has made every great person
great and has produced masters and masterpieces.
They mastered the pieces or parts and thus were able to master the
whole.
This is accomplished by gradiently getting better
and better at doing each piece or part, re-cycling
over and over again, going through the masses of
stupidities, confusions, blackness, unknowns and
weird ideas until you achieved a clarity and then
you build upon that and now can consistently
demonstrate optimum levels of competence at
what you envisioned and step-by-step set out to do.
INTEGRITY is wholeness; it is caused and
accomplished by mastering all the pieces or
parts. Mediocre people have very little integrity
and destroy themselves by failing to master all the pieces or parts.
The term that defines a great work of art, writing,
music, craft, or superlative action is called a MASTERPIECE.
A MASTER-PIECE is composed of mastered pieces.
So the basic step of mastering anything and
creating masterpieces is to break it down into
its pieces or parts and to master each piece or part.
Take the great master painters of the Renaissance:
Raphael, da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc. These great
artists served long apprenticeships learning to make
their own paints, brushes, and canvases. They did
such arduous and menial tasks as sweeping out the
studios, getting the food and running errands, carrying
out garbage and disposing of excreta.
They learned to market their paintings and get
sponsors as well as learning the skills of their art.
They became masters at their chosen field and
were able to create masterpieces.
So masterful were they at doing all these pieces
that their masterpieces have lasted hundreds of years.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> It is what you haven't understood.
>
> For example you asserted that Ralph thinks the CC can't produce a Clear.
> I quote: "The way I understand it, neither you, Ralph, nor Alan, believe
> the Clearing Course factually produces a Clear".
>
> I didn't hear Ralph ever say any such thing.
>
> If you actually audited, you might know, rather than spout on about it.
Nick, you are not presenting a coherent argument here. How does my auditing
or my not auditing affect what Ralph thinks?
Secondarily, I'm assuming you yourself audit? Your own auditing or not
auditing doesn't have anything to do with what Ralph thinks either. Neither
does whether you've heard him say something or not.
But, feel free to just ask Ralph if you don't believe me.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> P.E. may well be a good auditor these days for all I know. That isn't
> really the point.
>
> The point is that he has shown and continues to show a tendency to
> covertly back stab other folks.
Soooo...Nick, were you the person who relayed Pierre's (cough) "backstabbing
e-mail" to Ralph?
I'm just asking and giving you a chance to explain your reasoning.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
I suppose each and every person has, should have, most confidence in their
own abilities. More reality on them. Pierre seems to have more confidence
in his own abilities than in those of some other auditors. Natural! Now,
perhaps his biographical knowledge of Ralph was deficient or erroneous, but
apparently SOMEBODY asked Pierre for his private OPINION as to where to get
services - just what was he supposed to do?
And then this "somebody" who had asked for the opinion then up and relayed
that stuff to Ralph? Christ!
And what was the context? I myself have heard Ralph is an excellent
auditor, but hey, if a person was to say to me, "I've done OT III and got
horribly stuck on OT IV - should I go to a Class IV auditor or a Class XII?"
Well, geez, what would the predictable answer be? No offense to Ralph - I
mean, there's no guarantees about this sort of thing anymore - I'm just
saying one's advice should probably align with the odds. Class XII versus
Class IV? Well, duh!
Les.
Nick Warren
> any possibility
> that imperfect beings such as myself could find a flaw.
Obsequious was more the word I might have used. But then I noticed such a
valence seems to attract obsequiousness in others.
Good god, was I such a shit. Yuck
Nick
rolan...@hotmail.com
Ralph Hilton wrote:
> For the second time in the last few weeks I have received reports that Ethier is doing a
> rather slimy third party number.
>
> It seems appropriate to publicly make some things known.
>
> Pierre was removed from tech lines after demonstrating on video to the senior C/S
> International that he couldn't read an E-meter.
>
> He was observed to have obscured meter reads on a metab test by fiddling with the TA knob.
Why would anyone be looking for reads during a metab test? Surely a
metab test is just to make sure someone is sessionable. And if not in
session then the auditor is not auditing in any case and has no
business looking for reads.
This has got me puzzled. Can someone clear it up for me?
> In his defense he says that he wouldn't have sent up the video if he had bothered to check
> it first.
>
> A "Class 12" who can't do a metab properly?
>
> On www.robertdam-cos.dk/Class%20XII%20ex%20so%20briefing.rtf
> One can see the following:
>
> "Being highly trained, I read many sessions C/Sed by LRH for XDN, CL VIII, OT III repairs,
> L-10,11,12, when the person had become psychotic, even suicidal. Most of L-11 for instance
> was developed from the case of a staff member who had become intensely and violently
> psychotic on the Apollo. (In C/S 22 LRH mentions that a CL XI has a different approach to
> handle psychosis). After all throughout those materials, LRH boasts that he has the cure
> to insanity. Unfortunately checking into the later track of all those pcs, one finds the
> bulk of them, far from being the Supermen they were made to attest to, were for the most
> part later declared SP, showed very aberrated behavior and failed as execs.
> The original psychotic out of whom L-11 was derived was named Peggy McCall and her auditor
> was Liese Klingsvall. According to the case history she had been found to be raving
> hostile remarks against LRH and had been "violent" (no specifics). LRH invented from the
> top of his head a process later known as C/S series 37R claiming she would be permanently
> cured of her insanity by it. After auditing that action and a few other steps (which is
> textually L-11 as given today) she was made to attest and offloaded. This shows that a
> powerful rundown claimed to cure insanity, was piloted on ONE person beside LRH doing it
> solo on himself before being labeled as "fully researched and vindicated". The name of the
> pc on whom L-11 is based is Peggy McCall who went crazy and was locked up on the Apollo in
> 1971."
>
> Would you really trust an auditor to run you on L11 who posted the above?
I would trust a person who could be honest. Do you have counter
information that refutes what this person has written about L-11? If
not then should you be delivering it?
Heidrun Beer
<1130400057....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Why would anyone be looking for reads during a metab test? Surely a
>metab test is just to make sure someone is sessionable. And if not in
>session then the auditor is not auditing in any case and has no
>business looking for reads.
The metab test looks like a meter read and moving the TA knob
at the same time would interfere with its results.
But how anybody in the FZ can rely on church propaganda
is beyond me.
You should watch for signs of "Black PR" on FZ lines
just as well as on church lines. It is mostly used against
whistleblowers and the really interesting thing is
what they blow the whistle about.
Nick Warren
<rolan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130400057....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I would trust a person who could be honest. Do you have counter
> information that refutes what this person has written about L-11? If
> not then should you be delivering it?
I had L11 from Ralph. Had incredible wins while on it. Ethier's response
on seeing the success story on the net was to invalidate both me and the
auditor. At the time I also had a go at the person who forwarded Ethier's
crap, i.e. Michael from ifa. At least Michael had the guts to put his head
above the parapet.
If that is Ethier's idea of standard tech, I'd rather be audited by a dog.
He certainly isn't a fit person to be telling others what they should and
should not deliver.
Nick
Heidrun Beer
<43616e55$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
What he basically said was that Ralph's L's training was incomplete.
Necessarily so, because the materials are not completely available
in the FZ and Ralph hasn't had L's training in the church.
I think every sane person has been happy to see your wins, and happier
even that you got away without any problems, even if the tech used
was incomplete.
Pierre further stated that the L's are the one exception to the
LRH rule that "any auditing is better than no auditing". I think
this information is very remarkably significant and it is
extremely stupid to try to wipe it out by smearing its originator,
just because it may endanger Ralph's money flows for a while
(after all, he could ask Pierre to fully train him, as others
have done - after doing a good program of ethics conditions
to clean up the past nonsense).
You guys should be grateful that there is one, I repeat ONE person
in the FZ who is technically competent enough to tell you these things.
If he wouldn't bother, and he doesn't have a nanny contract with you,
Ralph's next L's adventure could end very bad.
For giving you the correct information, you keep mudslinging at him.
He is certainly the wrong person to be called a dangerous auditor!
Instead of completing his L's training as fast as possible before
OSA destroys his only chance one way or the other, Ralph keeps
to fight a war against this chance.
Now, instead of writing one of your flame replies, do yourself
a favour, start thinking and do a quiet assessment of how sane
all that is.
Nick Warren
Heidrun Beer wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:02:16 -0400 (EDT), Nick Warren wrote in
> <43616e55$1...@news2.lightlink.com>:
> What he basically said was that Ralph's L's training was incomplete.
> Necessarily so, because the materials are not completely available
> in the FZ and Ralph hasn't had L's training in the church.
Yes, so Ethier says. In fact he stated that he had in excess of 100
pages of write up concerning the Ls containing material nowhere else
available. At one time Ralph was in good comm with him and Ethier sent
his materials. It amounted to a fraction of the supposed 100 pages and
apart from one small point contained nothing new.
As for the rest of your obsequious worshiping of the image that you
think Ethier is coupled with your preconceived ideas of Ralph, a man to
whom you, I hear, owe a whole bunch of money.... Well, what can I say?
If you choose to go on believing your distorted view of life, its up to
you.
Nick
Heidrun Beer
<1130499532.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> coupled with your preconceived ideas of Ralph, a man to
> whom you, I hear, owe a whole bunch of money....
I'll add that to the absurd nonsense list that I have already
compiled. Thanks for letting me know.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> What he basically said was that Ralph's L's training was incomplete.
> Necessarily so, because the materials are not completely available
> in the FZ and Ralph hasn't had L's training in the church.
>
> I think every sane person has been happy to see your wins, and happier
> even that you got away without any problems, even if the tech used
> was incomplete.
>
> Pierre further stated that the L's are the one exception to the
> LRH rule that "any auditing is better than no auditing". I think
> this information is very remarkably significant
Not arguing here, Heidrun, just stimulated.
That last paragraph reminded me of something I just happened across in a
different thread - regarding Ron getting high TA and rather ill from what
appeared to be prodigous Dianetic auditing in 1978. That particular
"auditing" - that turned out NOT to be better than no auditing (in this
case), was just Dianetics. But, that was Dianetics on a pre-OT, eh?
Next. And I'm just talking VERY generally here - no thought to this
particular case. It is one of the fabulously funny testimonies to the
workability of the tech and the genius of LRH that it can be squirreled,
buggered around, done out of sequence and upside down and will still likely
produce "some" gains. Furthermore, gains can be anywhere between five and
ninety-five percent of the ideal attainable and still be accepted as "gains"
by the preclears, and worthy of a success story.
Finally. As far as the L's go, I'm afraid there's something about them that
strikes me as outpointy as the initiation of expanded Dianetics to handle
sickie OTs. And these are both from the same approximate time period.
Doesn't mean they don't work and/or produce tremendous gains, I'm just
pointing out that it may be valuable to re-evaluate the tech in the light of
future developments, like NOTs (Excalibur) and/or the upper bridge
delineated by CBR.
If I'm not mistaken, CBR thought the upper bridge circumvented the need for
the L's. Personally, to me, it looks like CBR's Bridge encompasses
EVERYTHING - so I'm inclined to agree with him. So, it begs the question.
Should a person seek qualification to deliver L's or just put fuel on the
fire along the lines of understanding and applying CBR's Bridge materials?
Les.
Muldoon
Ralph is a big fan of killfiling, and I'm on his killfile list, so he
won't see this, but someone who cares should tell Ralph that Nicky boy
is doing a terrible job representing him on ACT.
Nick Warren
> compiled. Thanks for letting me know.
> Heidrun Beer
Well, you're not very attentive then. It was on this list that I read
it - on a thread on which you were active. An allegation which as I
recall you did not refute at the time.
Nick
Heidrun Beer
<1130513690.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
I am not always reading ACT, and I am not always refuting
every sillyness.
You are certainly aware that harrassment tactics are mainly
meant to distract an enemy's focus and waste his life force.
Why play along with that.
Sandra
EVERYTHING -
Have you done CBR´s Brigde?
"Rogers. D.Scn." <The_...@NOSPAMmsn.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4362...@news2.lightlink.com...
----------------------------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 513 spam-mails.
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: www.spamfighter.dk
Muldoon
> Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
> Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: www.spamfighter.dk
Where is CBR anyway?
Ralph Hilton
<jfo4m1lvm9rfcjl05...@4ax.com>, :
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:06:25 -0400 (EDT), Nick Warren wrote in
><1130513690.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>> I'll add that to the absurd nonsense list that I have already
>>> compiled. Thanks for letting me know.
>>> Heidrun Beer
>>
>>Well, you're not very attentive then. It was on this list that I read
>>it - on a thread on which you were active. An allegation which as I
>>recall you did not refute at the time.
>>
>>Nick
>
>
>I am not always reading ACT, and I am not always refuting
>every sillyness.
>
>You are certainly aware that harrassment tactics are mainly
>meant to distract an enemy's focus and waste his life force.
>Why play along with that.
Heidrun,
Don't pretend innocence.
Do I really have to post your crimes to the newsgroup again?
Pierre is a compulsive liar. You are a criminal and a liar.
I'll post the evidence if you ask nicely.
Muldoon
L. Ron Hubbard's "implant" and "body thetan" infested upper levels -
carried on beyond a short span of time, do not make people saner.
Ralph Hilton
<2vc3m1d57ved4da61...@4ax.com>, :
Such stupidity! How could I possibly further train on the L's with an incompetent liar who
attacks LRH, many of those who trained him and the whole environment in which he was
trained.
He has admitted that he was responsible for the final checks for 3 years on Solo Nots
completions at Flag and that many of them went psycho afterwards. He blames it on the
ethics officers. So these poor OT7s false attest to OT7 , Cause over Life, and cave in
when the ethics officer shouts at them and get carted off to a mental ward. Gimme a break!
The CofS is saner than Pierre by several orders of magnitude.
You live in some insane goo-gaa land.
Muldoon
Hey Ralph - Too bad you can't read this, but you're making my point,
unfortunately.
You, Bill Robertson, L. Ron and the entire fun bunch at the Galactic
Grand Council are candidates for the "happy bus."
Enjoy the ride.
Heidrun Beer
>I'll post the evidence if you ask nicely.
Not before 3:00 AM. It's friday night and you're supposed
to get prepared first.
Then you always show your true colours and that
saves me a lot of 3rd partying time.
H. on her lover's computer
Ralph Hilton
<7j25m1phnip3352e5...@4ax.com>, :
Edith said I shouldn't do it. OSA would pick it up and you already have a suspended
sentence of 4 months so you'd be in jail if they did.
So it will have to be just claws and nails in your favorite style.
Homer Wilson Smith
>Heidrun,
>Don't pretend innocence.
>Do I really have to post your crimes to the newsgroup again?
>Pierre is a compulsive liar. You are a criminal and a liar.
Yo, Ralph and Heidrun, what exactly is it with you two?
I seriously doubt either of you are what you claim about the
other.
Please tell me what is really going on here?
Homer
bb
The CofS is saner than Pierre by several orders of magnitude.
Align that with this below!
Lagniappe Oct 28, 7:23 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Lagniappe <Lagnia...@noemail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Oct 2005 18:23:51 -0000
Local: Fri, Oct 28 2005 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: Specifics about people who have been declared suppressive:
Bob Ve
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original
| Report Abuse
On 27 Oct 2005, "friendship" <friends...@ureach.com> wrote:
>A great report from an "insider" from a couple of years ago:
>Bob Veach, Class 8, NOTs auditor and C/S. Back about 10 years ago or
>so Bob was declared suppressive supposedly because he gave one very
>bad 20 minute session. He had been an auditor and case supervisor
>in the Sea Org for 20 years. His excellent, excellent track record
>during that time was not taken into account. He did the steps he
>needed to do to get back in good standing, but is no longer on staff
>and is no longer auditing. Reports have it that he has been trying to
>get his original declare cancelled, but has had no luck. I think the
>real reason he was declared is because he spoke out for Sea Org
>parents who were having their time with their children eliminated.
>Sea Org members who speak out and who look like they could possibly
>foment mutiny are gotten rid of very quickly. And they are often
>declared because absolute loyalty is demanded by this management and
>it has consistently just gotten rid of people who in any way object to
>anything it does. Dissent, even mild dissent, is not tolerated.
Bob left a long time ago and he is now living a wog life.
>Chris Montgomery, much loved Briefing Course Supervisor at ASHO, was
>declared suppressive about 5 or 6 years ago. She was accused of some
>sort of 'out-tech' in her supervising. She was forced to do many
>degraded things to get back into 'good standing' and it took her 3
>years to finally get back into the good graces of the organization.
>It's rumored that the real reason that Chris was booted out was
>because she wrote up a critique on the Golden Age of Tech.
Chris is now living in Clearwater and kissing ass to DM
because all of her family are still very much in. Her mother who had
been in the SO for many years Phyllis Stevens died last year. An
inside source told me that she was a Class VIII and old time Sea Org
member and has passed away in an old folks home in Clearwater. She was
from Australia. I am sure that a lot of people knew her.
>Diane McDonald wrote some Knowledge Reports (internal Scientology
>report) mentioning some non-optimum situations regarding Sea Org child
>care. She was declared suppressive. Some false charges were trumped up,
>her good deeds were never taken into consideration and, as usual, she
>was found guilty by a panel of Sea Organization members. Diane was a
>Class 6 auditor who had been auditing in the field (though in good
>standing with the Church) for many years. She was about 55 or so when
>she was declared. She lost her livelihood. She went deeply into debt
>and finally lost her home. She wound up in the hospital. Most of her
>friends were forced to shun her. She eventually did get back in good
>standing by some reports.
Diane is still in, she never fully recovered but decided to stay
because she thinks that there's no place to go and she doesn't
want to lose all her friends again.
>Ruth Nadel, Class 8, was declared suppressive a while back. The
>organization actually apologized to her about a year later. But by
>that time she was financially ruined and has not recovered. This
>apology is rare. It happened a long time ago - probably 15 years ago
>before management hardened its stance to anyone even mildly objecting
>to its methods.
I was told that Ruth, has died of breast cancer, every
once in a while she used to go the San Diego Org and volunteered but
she was still ruined. She was all alone, she was about 65 years old
and not in the best of health, after she was declared she had breast
cancer and bad arthritis, she was still poor.
Too bad, she was a very dignified person and a very, very good OT
review auditor in the Solo area at AOLA. I remember her as a well
groomed and very professional. But she was destroyed even though they
cancelled her declare.
>Neil Francis, Class 8, had his Certificates allowing him to provide
>Scientology counselling suspended.
I heard he's doing construction work, I haven't heard
from him in a very long time.
>Andy Seidler, Class 6 auditor and C/S, got into trouble because he was
>helping out by case supervising at the Los Angeles organization when he
>was asked to help so that a staff member could do training. Even though
>he had made no long term agreement to stay there, he was
>attacked heavily when he tried to leave. He was given a Committee of
>Evidence - sort of like a kangaroo court. His auditor and C/S
>certificates were cancelled. He did all the 'amends' he was told to do
>and is currently on course at ASHO. However, he lost his livelihood as
>a professional Scientologist and had to find other work. He is
>completely intimidated by Sea Organization staff members and does
>whatever they say. He has been on the professional metering course now
>for over one year. A course that should take a couple of weeks. The
>powers that be keep failing him. This is a typical thing. There is a
>perverted jealousy/hatred thing that goes on with some Sea Org staff
>members who resent field auditors for whatever crazy reason. Anyway,
>he's sort of trapped there on course. If he leaves he will be kicked
>out of Scientology.
Andy Seidler is the son of George Seidler and a brother of
Melanie Seidler Murray. He is still in still C/Sing at the Beverly
Hills Mission and still doing ridiculous conditions and re-treads
along with his friends Harold Lieberz and Terri Ragan.
He's very much afraid to leave the Church because his family would
disconnect and he doesn't want to lose friends and family. He recently
did conditions in the infamous Vanessa Stoller Comm Ev.
This is one way that the staff 'keep their stats
>up' and their course rooms full.
The rooms are empty as we all know but 'Upper Management"
doesn't care because they are now into real estate.
>Field auditors have to route on course to do the 'Golden Age of Tech.'
>If they don't, they realize that they will be threatened and probably
>kicked out of the Scientology community.
And many left and are also into real estate or other things.
Some just keep a very low
>profile. Some have stopped auditing and have kind of disappeared. Like
>Jervis Johnson, Joe Pinelli, Bob Kosal, John Booth, Fred Filios. Some
>are doing the Golden Age of tech, but very, very slowly as a sort of
>protest.
Those Cl VIIIS seem to be MIA, or in 'exile' as I haven't
heard from them in years either.
>The typical Committee of Evidence goes like this. An order comes down
>from some senior staff member to 'kick someone out' or 'put someone's
>ethics in' or 'handle' someone. The outcome of the committee is known
>before the charade takes place. Someone makes up a list of particulars
>-- alleged 'crimes' the person has committed. They are usually inane
>and silly. Like the person complained about the air conditioning being
>broken or the elevator not working. This is made out to be a 'high
>crime' -- spreading malicious rumors about senior Scientologists. The
>senior management are extremely hyper-sensitive to any criticism. Say
>something negative about David Miscavige or write a report critical of
>management and you will get into a lot of trouble pretty quickly in
>L.A.
Nowdays they don't even bother with CommEvs, they just
declare people and don't even tell them or they send them a letter
informing them they had been declared without even telling them why,
that happened recently to a very prominent Spanish Class VIII named
Aida Thomas.
>As you are getting into trouble you may run in to Lisa Hamilton, the
>Director of Inspections and Reports for the Continental Liaison Office
>Western US. She is about 5' 4", has medium length, medium brown hair.
>Seems very cordial. She is there to extract information from people
>about other people. Often the only way a person can get out of trouble
>with Scientology and avoid being kicked out and shunned is to rat on
>another Scientologist. Lisa is the one who gently urges people to 'give
>the dirt' about their friends. She also likes to have people call other
>people in a very friendly manner while she listens in on the
>conversations.
I think she is no longer on that post, possible promoted
since she was so good at cutting heads. Her husband who was married to
Dick and Lori Coanda's daughter Barbie, and is a dead beat husband who
never ever, paid child support and all of the Coandas are now out and
Dick and Lori who served for the SO all their lives are being shunned
from CCI.
I heard that ex-SO are not allowed to go even to the restaurants or
events, as a matter of fact I heard that all ex -SO are not allowed to
set foot at CCI.
>Griffee Blythe, the Senior C/S of the Advanced Org in L.A. hates to
>get into trouble. She also just gets rid of people who rub her the
>wrong way. She doesn't like sick people, so she often bars them from
>getting services at AOLA. She is one of the people who flunks videos
>of long-time field auditors so that they have to do drills over and
>over and waste their time. She was the one who called in all field
>auditors to do videos. Of course, the result of this was that if you
>went in your certificates where suspended unless you immediately paid
>for a course and got started on the Golden Age of Tech. She would
>always find something wrong with the video. Griffee is one of the
>meanest people in Scientology currently. She is behind a lot of
>intimidation and a lot of the kangaroo comm evs. She is somehow
>related to David Miscavige. His step sister in law or something.
Griffy is now out and got a divorce and lives, I think in
Montana, so she's not harming anybody anymore.
>Many old-time Sea Org staff members are intimidated by her because she
>will not hesitate to off-load (kick out of the Sea Org) a staff member
>who gets in her way. She off-loaded the Chaplain at ASHO, who had been
>a loyal Sea Org member for over 25 years.
You must be refering to Tobi Cantine who was 'fitness
boarded' after 25 years because she had a tumor that was operable but
David Miscavige doesn't pay for hospital bill or gives a damn about
the health of his staff.
Tobi was told to leave and she had no place to go, no money, nothing
and on top of that she was very sick and to make matters worse she was
told that she had a quatrillion dollar debt that was impossible to pay
this lifetime.
Lucky for her that she had compassionate friends that cared, and took
care of her when she was devastated. She stayed at a friend's house
because the SO doesn't provide for illnesses retirement, nothing.
Unfortunately Tobi did not see the truth and she's still in but not
doing well, I heard that she went to Flag later on to get some
auditing but they were not able to handle her. She finally got her
operation and as usual, paid for by us tax paying citizens.
So, there are a number of
>very highly trained Sea Org members in L.A. who are not in the best of
>health who have to do Griffee's bidding or they know they will be
>kicked out and live as absolute paupers because Scientology has never
>made any Social Security payments for their staff. These people
>hanging on a thread include: Rosalind Reeze, juvenile diabetic with
>severe complications, staff auditor at the Continental Office in L.A.,
>Barry Ross, who is a NOTs auditor but doesn't audit currently because
>he has long-term, severe lung problems. But he's a Class 8, so he can
>be on comm. evs of highly trained people and find them guilty at
>Griffee's command. Then there is Bruce Gaines, who has had open heart
>surgery and is partially disabled from heart trouble.
>People in the Religious Technology Center freely state that the 'old
>time' auditors couldn't audit. Even auditors at the Flag organization
>in Florida. Staff members in the RTC like Hansueli have told people
>that many of the auditors just had so much false tech from their
>training that they were almost incorrigible and that it is easier to
>just train new people with the Golden Age of Tech than to correct the
>auditors who were trained before. Many veteran Sea Organization
>auditors have been put on the Rehabilitation Project Force or have been
>demoted. Like Randall Reese at AOLA, Peter Specker, Susan Salaman, etc.
Susan Salaman, she is still in however, she's now dying of
breast cancer.
>Any internal criticism of the Golden Age of Tech is met with harsh
>punishment -- demotions, etc.
Well, I also hgeard that Ronnie Miscaviage and his wife are
out selling real estate in Virginia, I don't know if they are doing
business for his brother or they are simply out. I was told they got
into disagreements with the suppression inside the SO and left.
>Committees of Evidence are invariably kangaroo courts. The staff
>members who are on these committees know that they have to find the
>person guilty or they will wind up being demoted or meeting an even
>more horrible fate. The findings of these committees are almost
>exactly the same. And the recommendations are usually alike with very
>slight variations. You have to A) Do lower conditions (recant) B) Get
>'security checking' at your own expense (pay for being interrogated at
>a cost of between $5,000 and $30,000) C) Do an amends project to make
>up the damage for your 'crimes' (usually invented) D) Pay for and do
>courses to become a fully trained up Golden Age of Tech auditor.
There's a new definition of Comm Ev in Wikipedia. A lot of
people left 'quietly' and are no longer auditing.
>When the Golden Age of Tech came out the Class 8 course in Los Angeles
>was shut down and the students on it were kicked off it. It has not
>opened again yet. Hardly anyone is on the Class 6 course. The few
>students who are on course are on the professional training drills
>course or the professional e-meter course. Of course, many of the
>people on these courses are being forced to do them, which they've
>already done or done the equivalent of, or they will lose their
>livelihood and their friends. So, let's look at the statistics. Zero
>Class 8 course completions in a 5 years. Hardly any one on the Class 6
>course, so very few people are becoming Class 6's. In 4 years there
>have been 4 OT 7 completions and 1 OT 8 completion and aren't these
>people who had already attested before? So, the bottom line is in
>Scientology these days more people are going down the bridge than up
>the bridge.
The stats are still crashed at AOLA, ASHO and LA Orgs
but DM has to keep them as front groups to continue getting free
money as donations for the 'expansion' of Scientology, since we all
know DM has all those buildings mortgaged and when the 'house of
cards' fall apart he'll be long gone with his brethren Spurlock,
Lenske, etc, to Brazil or some other country where they cannot be
extradited.
>A new wrinkle in the lives of field Scientologists has occurred. If
>you left the Sea Org and have not fully paid off your debt, you are no
>longer allowed to engage in any Scientology activities. You can't go to
>events or things like that, if it is known that you still have a debt.
Not only that, you are no allowed to work for any
Scientology owned company as well, 'Upper Management' sent an order to
all the scientology business not to hire ex Sea Orgs members, which
makes it difficult for them because they need those trained staff and
those ex-SO need to find jobs that are compatible with their
abilities, but Miscavige cannot see anybody winning.
>If you have family in the Sea Org you can't communicate to them until
>you pay your debt. And some 17 and 18 year old ex-Sea Org
>members have tens of thousands of dollars in debt.
A lot of the teenagers left the SO and fed up for not
being able to see their parents and being exploited, many are not
paying their debts and are disillusioned with Scientology and the SO.
Most of them are illiterate and doing menial jobs barely making ends
meet.
>Ethics is being used more and more to get people on course. Basically,
>it's 'be on course or get kicked out, lose your job and your friends
>and family members.' It works, too. Especially vulnerable are parents
>who have kids in the Sea Org. More and more, Sea Org members are being
>estranged from their families. You can hardly ever call a Sea Org
>member. Communication is often limited to letters and most of the
>letters are screened.
Yes, I heard a while back that RTC ordered to have all
their cell phones confiscated and were not allowed to watch the news
or anything and they all became totally disconnected from the rest of
the world.
>If you get declared you can't talk to anyone except for Richard Valle,
>the justice chief on the Continental level in the Western U.S. This is
>for the West Coast, anyway. He just parrots off the same lines from
>one or 2 policies. He doesn't follow policy at all. He just rubber
>stamps things. He is about 19 years old. Or you can write to the
>International Justice Chief, Mike Ellis. Mike is about 45. He takes
>orders, too. Never answers questions. If you quote Scientology policy
>in your comm. ev. often the people on it will actually laugh at you.
>It's that blatant. From reports of people who have gone through these
>procedures, the people on them are extremely polite and cordial. They
>even seem like they are on your side. Then you find out that they find
>you guilty of silly things or things you never did. Sometimes they
>will scoff at you. I guess they think that they 'have their TRs in.'
All those people are turned into robots, but a lot of SO
members left and started a chat group at Yahoo and are venting all
their feelings and interesting stories galore.
>David Miscavige seems to have the fixed idea that a perfect auditor is
>one who never flubs an auditing question. He's probably just trying to
>be Tom Cruise and figures that auditors are actors and the worst crime
>for an actor is to flub a line. So an auditor is supposed to have
>perfect form and never flub a line. It makes for very robotic auditors
>who seem pleasant at first, but are so self-conscious and afraid of
>making a mistake that it's hard to talk to them.
DM, doesn't have any idea of what an auditor is, he's
just a partner in crime who gets paid handsomely and likes to be
worshpped like a Jim Jones look-alike.
>Some of the staff members are so far gone that they think that all of
>this is OK because didn't L.Ron Hubbard say "Ethics exists to get
>technology in"? So -- you just use more and more intimidation until
>you get people to pay for and attend courses. And they have to seem
>to be happy while they're on course, too, because Lisa Hamilton and
>other people like her are watching and if you don't look happy, well,
>you might just be expelled.
>That's all for now.
>Scientology Insider
So now, dear OSA reader, ponder on all of the above and leave
as fast as you can and don't forget; gather as many documents as you
can because they will not have mercy on you once you're out.
Lagniappe
Homer Wilson Smith
>Edith said I shouldn't do it. OSA would pick it up and you already have a suspended
>sentence of 4 months so you'd be in jail if they did.
Would somebody *PLEASE* bring me up to speed on what this
is about?
Jail time?
Homer
Heidrun Beer
<2005102821...@adore.lightlink.com>:
Didn't you follow it over the years? Same old OSA tactics.
Discredit a person before they become a danger to you.
But I am not planning to become a danger to Ralph.
I don't want to feed OSA and if I have kept the really
juicy stuff to myself for 8 years, I can continue to do so.
Heidrun Beer
<2005102821...@adore.lightlink.com>:
>Ralph Hilton (ra...@ralphhilton.org) wrote:
>>Edith said I shouldn't do it. OSA would pick it up and you already have a suspended
>>sentence of 4 months so you'd be in jail if they did.
>
> Would somebody *PLEASE* bring me up to speed on what this
>is about?
>
> Jail time?
I was legally responsible for a company that went broke.
At that time you could get convicted to jail time for that.
I got 4 months suspended.
The same situation, if you are not found to have done it
with intention, is no longer considered a crime now
in Austria - laws have been changed.
Sorry I don't know the correct english terms.
Heidrun Beer
<5a35m11j8mf0mfq0q...@4ax.com>:
>Edith said I shouldn't do it.
I am moved by the fact that family still means something to her.
I wish you would allow her an e-mail address, so I could
tell her in person.
>OSA would pick it up and you already have a suspended
>sentence of 4 months so you'd be in jail if they did.
No, it's expired by now.
>So it will have to be just claws and nails in your favorite style.
No time. I've just found another version of the L's materials and
want to check whether it's newer or more complete than the one I have.
When will you get it into your stubborn head that I am not
after you. Disagreeing with somebody on a newsgroup is not
the same as being an enemy.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> Yo, Ralph and Heidrun, what exactly is it with you two?
>
> I seriously doubt either of you are what you claim about the
> other.
>
> Please tell me what is really going on here?
Just butting in (and where I shouldn't, I'm sure).
But Homer, I'd just remind you that if somebody knows exactly what the
situation is, it wouldn't be there.
Anyway, speaking generally, ARC breaks can lead to other out-rud, out-Grade
behaviour that add persistence to the ARC break. Additionally, a person can
make decisions regarding things (Prepcheck Buttons go out) that also adds
persistence.
Of course, an ARC break can be proportional to the prior ARC that existed.
Personally, I'd hazard that the absolute worst sort of ARC break is based on
the perception and experience of (real or imagined) betrayal. (And this is
where the "decisions" can be predictable and inevitable and other out-rud
behaviour can sail in as if on a breeze.)
BTW. It's those "decisions" that bar normal tech handling of ARC breaks.
In the case of decisions, the will has become aligned with the ARC break.
Les.
Les.
Rogers. D.Scn.
> Personally, to me, it looks like CBR's Bridge encompasses
> EVERYTHING -
"Sandra" <Tech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Have you done CBR´s Brigde?
No I haven't. I was just expressing my opinion - based on perusal of the
materials.
But, again this is just my opinion, Sandra, I'd say that whether or not
CBR's upper levels are complete or incomplete is almost a redundant issue
considering they already encompass far MORE than the upper levels extant in
the CofS.
Well, personally, I would say that should be a matter of obnosis - not
really just "opinion." I mean, when faced with two options, and one option
covers, say, issues a, b, and c., and the other covers a, b, c, d, e, f, and
g, it should be obvious that the second one encompasses more.
Les.
Homer Wilson Smith
>Didn't you follow it over the years? Same old OSA tactics.
>Discredit a person before they become a danger to you.
On and off, but I don't read a.c.t regularly.
I doubt either of you are OSA, so what's the game, what's the ARC
break?
It might be useful if both sides wrote up a complete scene
description plus timeline to bring everyone to focus on the two sides.
>I don't want to feed OSA and if I have kept the really
>juicy stuff to myself for 8 years, I can continue to do so.
Kind of covert but ok. Probably shouldn't say you have
cards to put on the table unless you put them there.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
I have a present time betrayal going on from someone who
used to work with us. Now he is a competitor and took a customer
away from me that I brought him to, to do other work.
Now there is complicity with the customer in this, not just the
guy who worked with me. And its also ok with me if a customer wants
to go with another provider, but the secrets each tried to impose on
each other, and also on my other workers who were friends with the
first worker became a problem and eventually pissed off everyone.
Now I don't trust the first worker nor the original customer at
all.
So is there any solution other than to get the offending party to
admit betrayal and covert intention?
Homer
>Les.
>Les.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Heidrun Beer
<2005102917...@adore.lightlink.com>:
>
> It might be useful if both sides wrote up a complete scene
>description plus timeline to bring everyone to focus on the two sides.
That has long been done, behind the scenes, some also in public.
Solo auditors are supposed to run out their charge. I have done so,
I suppose Ralph did so too. If he continues his tirades, he
has another reason. Probably following some special policy
that normal people don't have.
I would prefer to go on with present and future projects
rather than investigating that scene. It has cost me dearly
in the past and that substantial leaking of life force cannot
go on forever.
Ralph Hilton
<68f7m1decle25o8tm...@4ax.com>, :
>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:51:41 -0400 (EDT), Homer Wilson Smith wrote in
><2005102917...@adore.lightlink.com>:
>
>>
>> It might be useful if both sides wrote up a complete scene
>>description plus timeline to bring everyone to focus on the two sides.
>
>
>That has long been done, behind the scenes, some also in public.
>
>Solo auditors are supposed to run out their charge. I have done so,
>I suppose Ralph did so too. If he continues his tirades, he
>has another reason. Probably following some special policy
>that normal people don't have.
>
>I would prefer to go on with present and future projects
>rather than investigating that scene. It has cost me dearly
>in the past and that substantial leaking of life force cannot
>go on forever.
ok. It does look to us as if you genuinely want peace. We have discussed it this evening
and agree that it would be best.
There are 2 things that I would ask for in such an agreement.
Firstly, I have no problem with disagreements about the tech, etc. What I do have
objection to is personal attacks. We have different lifestyles. I like to smoke cigarettes
and realize that it will shorten my life. I like to eat steaks and know that it might
increase the chance of heart disease. I like to drink some beers when I go out with
friends. I won't go into your preferences. We can discuss tech on the newsgroup but the
stuff about lifestyle attacks isn't relevant.
I consider some issues to be in the category of "lifestyle". I won't go into detail.
So, if there are disagreements, then let us keep it clean and free of lifestyle attacks.
I can clarify what I mean further but I think you can get the general idea.
The second matter is that of backchannel attacks. As you know, someone recently forwarded
a mail from you wherein you stated that I had posted his name on the internet. At first I
thought that you were being malicious but when I saw the following interchange then I
realized that you had probably acted as you deemed appropriate in making a friend aware of
some possible danger to him. So I did attack you in response to receiving a copy of your
email to him. I agree that I was quite nasty. Later I saw that I overly responded,
probably due to thinking that you were continuing earlier attacks.
I would be happy to make peace given an agreement to stop silly attacks against each
other.
If the backchannel criticism is ended and the "lifestyle" digs are not present then I see
no need for wars.
Edith agrees.
Is that ok?
Ralph Hilton
<2005102917...@adore.lightlink.com>, :
> OK, this is real to me.
>
> I have a present time betrayal going on from someone who
>used to work with us. Now he is a competitor and took a customer
>away from me that I brought him to, to do other work.
>
> Now there is complicity with the customer in this, not just the
>guy who worked with me. And its also ok with me if a customer wants
>to go with another provider, but the secrets each tried to impose on
>each other, and also on my other workers who were friends with the
>first worker became a problem and eventually pissed off everyone.
>
> Now I don't trust the first worker nor the original customer at
>all.
>
> So is there any solution other than to get the offending party to
>admit betrayal and covert intention?
It probably isn't a matter where one party was the traitor and the other an innocent
victim.
GPMs and wars occur when there is a balance of forces.
It goes back early.
The entrance point is the decision To Be.
How could one think about deciding to be without a "Have" involved?
When we entered the games then we each had a "have" that preceded the decision "To Be".
Those "Haves" and their oppositions led to the Actual GPMs.
Alan posted about it many years ago.
bb
ok. It does look to us as if you genuinely want peace. We have
discussed it this evening
and agree that it would be best.
There are 2 things that I would ask for in such an agreement. .....
BB
Cool initiative.
Can this be extended to yourself and Pierre?
You have both described the other as " Dangerous auditors",
or similar.
Yet by any objective standard, you are both highly skilled.
I know personally that you have both got excellent results with
clients.
In the face of the above any further quarrels are bullshit!
bb
Ralph Hilton
<to36m1t0933sdso5q...@4ax.com>, :
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:04:07 -0400 (EDT), Ralph Hilton wrote in
><5a35m11j8mf0mfq0q...@4ax.com>:
>
>
>>Edith said I shouldn't do it.
>
>
>I am moved by the fact that family still means something to her.
>
>I wish you would allow her an e-mail address, so I could
>tell her in person.
>
>
>>OSA would pick it up and you already have a suspended
>>sentence of 4 months so you'd be in jail if they did.
>
>
>No, it's expired by now.
>
>
>>So it will have to be just claws and nails in your favorite style.
>
>
>No time. I've just found another version of the L's materials and
>want to check whether it's newer or more complete than the one I have.
I sent copies of the 3 versions I have of the Ls to Pierre when good comm was there.
Only one matched the issues that I had read at Flag.
Pierre told me that 2 of the versions were correct.
Around that time he sent me his version of OT8. I posted it later. I put it to one side at
the time thinking that it was ridiculous. I preferred to see his positive contributions to
the FZ rather than criticize it.
He later claimed that he sent it only as a test. So was he lying to me then or lying
later? Either way he is a liar.
Shortly after he attacked several people on my lines accusing them of evil purposes,
invalid Clear attests, unflat grades and ser facs. Then he attacked me on the FZAOINT
list.
I regard Pierre as a dishonest being. He once offered to make peace and suggested that in
return for my good behavior he would cancel his order for 200 C-meters at $25 each from
Bulgaria. I know that such is impossible as the precision components used in the C-meter
are only manufactured in the USA. I told him that he was bullshitting.
Have you seen any of his 200 C-meters at such a low price appear in the FZ 16 months
later? Yet again he lied.
One of the versions of the L's that I have came from a Class 12. That is the one that I
use as it matches the issues I saw at Flag.
If you send me the latest version that you have then I will read it and give you my
opinion.
You are also welcome to the 3 versions that I sent to Pierre.
Ralph Hilton
<1130631658....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, :
If Pierre agrees not to covertly attack me again as he did in a recent email that was
forwarded to me and to desist from attacks on my friends then I see no problem.
The latest Bullshit I heard is that I was Adolf Hitler in a past lifetime! That was
relayed to me on a reliable via yesterday as something that Pierre said to someone who had
been on my lines.
If Pierre were willing to come onto A.C.T. and post then I'll discuss things. While he is
only willing to post on lists moderated by people he is associated with then I remain
skeptical of his intent.
Heidrun Beer
<1938m1ha92on7caqu...@4ax.com>:
>I sent copies of the 3 versions I have of the Ls to Pierre when good comm was there.
>
>Only one matched the issues that I had read at Flag.
>
>Pierre told me that 2 of the versions were correct.
Did he also tell you that they were complete? That not additional
instructions, tapes or PC-folders existed that L's auditors had
to study? That would be the point in question.
>Around that time he sent me his version of OT8. I posted it later. I put it to one side at
>the time thinking that it was ridiculous. I preferred to see his positive contributions to
>the FZ rather than criticize it.
>
>He later claimed that he sent it only as a test. So was he lying to me then or lying
>later? Either way he is a liar.
You cannot label a person as a liar if he does a very specific test
for very specific reasons.
I remember you saying that you have sent test mails to various
people under a fake name to see what they would say about you.
I believe I received at least one such mail myself. Does that
make you a liar?
>Shortly after he attacked several people on my lines accusing them of evil purposes,
>invalid Clear attests, unflat grades and ser facs. Then he attacked me on the FZAOINT
>list.
>
>I regard Pierre as a dishonest being. He once offered to make peace and suggested that in
>return for my good behavior he would cancel his order for 200 C-meters at $25 each from
>Bulgaria. I know that such is impossible as the precision components used in the C-meter
>are only manufactured in the USA. I told him that he was bullshitting.
>
>Have you seen any of his 200 C-meters at such a low price appear in the FZ 16 months
>later? Yet again he lied.
I have no data about this cycle.
>One of the versions of the L's that I have came from a Class 12.
>That is the one that I use as it matches the issues I saw at Flag.
Yes, but how about the additional materials that Pierre mentioned?
>If you send me the latest version that you have then I will read it
>and give you my opinion.
I saw the URL on a list a few days ago, it is
http://www.xenu.net/archive/L-Rundowns/
It may have been there much longer, I cannot tell how long.
>You are also welcome to the 3 versions that I sent to Pierre.
If the above version is the correct one, as is stated on the
introductory page, there will be no need.
Heidrun Beer
<cr48m15scj1oik3ld...@4ax.com>:
>If Pierre agrees not to covertly attack me again as he did
>in a recent email that was forwarded to me and to desist from attacks
>on my friends then I see no problem.
Ralph, as a Scientologist sworn to LRH, you cannot forbid a person
to speak his mind about anything or anybody.
LRH's "Creed" contains a paragraph about free speech. He calls it
"an inalienable right". It cannot be negotiated or traded against
any other desirable actions.
In their free speech, people will reveal themselves. By their
style of speaking, or writing, they will reveal their tone level
and any trained person will then know who they are dealing with.
Asking somebody to sell away a right that is, per LRH, inalienable,
means to ask him to deviate from the LRH framework of life rules.
The church has done it with their various gag orders, like David
Mayo's or Gerry Armstrong's, but it is anti-LRH. Is that what you want?
I believe that it is not desirable for you if Pierre communicates
less or in a different way than he has done so far. If he is
the person that you believe he is, his very communication will
reflect it. In this case, he would even do you a favour by
writing what he wants to write, because every line that he
writes describes more of his character.
If he is really the lowlife vermin that you see in him, it will
show. My perception of him is very different. Some statements
I have seen from him do reflect unhappiness, but with situations
that are not optimum. He can be condemning, but this relates
to people or situations that at least seem to deserve a
condemnation. That would be in line with KSW 1, where LRH states
that to never invalidate anyone is not his idea of teaching.
If Pierre had the authority to more thoroughly investigate before
he condemns, I believe he would do so. Without such authority,
all he can do is speak, or write, his mind and let things
unfold from there.
For me, even if it is misemotion, it is adequate misemotion,
fed by his passion for the subject.
But not all he writes is misemotional. I have seen a great deal
of help to people, both on mailing lists and on his website,
and some really insightful and professionally written articles
in the Ivy magazine. All these things have to be seen
in context if you want a complete picture.
Also, where he was in error, I have seen him apologize
and self-correct on more than one occasion. That is a
powerful plus point. People who can self-correct demonstrate
that they have assimilated the ethics conditions and are
navigating by them - something that I admire a lot.
In his policy letter about the 3 types of people, part of
the ESTO series, LRH has the self-correcting type at the top.
If I see an accusation against somebody whom I have observed
to be self-correcting, I always investigate the accusator
and not his target.
>The latest Bullshit I heard is that I was Adolf Hitler
>in a past lifetime! That was relayed to me on a reliable via
>yesterday as something that Pierre said to someone who had
>been on my lines.
This statement is not correct. It went through substantial
changes on the way from Pierre's e-mail, of which I got a copy,
to your ACT post right here. I cannot say who changed it but
it is no longer representing what Pierre stated.
>If Pierre were willing to come onto A.C.T. and post then
>I'll discuss things. While he is only willing to post on lists
>moderated by people he is associated with then I remain
>skeptical of his intent.
Free speech for you too!