One more ex-scientologist.

4 views
Skip to first unread message

One Scio

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Dear a.r.s.,

I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.

I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.

Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
beings.

Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection. Real caring is often denounced as
1.1. They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
fighting truth.

I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.
Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.
I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.

I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
and the fight!


One (Ex-) Scio

Zinj

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
says...


Glad to have you here OneXScio

Zinj
--
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail


Inducto

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Thanks for your story. Can we call it an arscc "win"?

Here's my question, one that I hope might have some implications for getting
other CoS members to reconsider their continued allegiance to the "church". I
presume, like most of the other individuals of good heart who make up the lower
echelons of CoS, you are an idealistic person with a desire to better yourself,
and contribute to mankind and our future on the planet. It's the motivation
that lures people in, and the justification that CoS uses -- and teaches people
to use -- to discount the organization's questionable activities when they come
to light. Do you have some plan as to how you might continue to express and
work towards such aims outside of CoS, how to satisfy your spiritual
aspirations? Freezone or something else? Or has CoS just left you feeling
like the pursuit of the whole area is pointless?

Best Regards, and Inquiringly,


I.

p/m

SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG

Induct YourSELF into new realities

Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths


ExScio

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Welcome back to the real world One(X)Scio!!

Isn't it great not to have to worry about stats and
being browbeat by registrars and Ethics and being
able to get on with your life?

Best wishes,


<<<<< ExScio (with the emphasis on EX) - St. Louis area SP >>>>>

/\ndroid <at

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

One Scio wrote in message
<199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing
with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for
"not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>

<snip>


>
>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for
myself.
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing
their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa
McPherson.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the
fun
>and the fight!
>
>
>One (Ex-) Scio

Congratulations on making what had to be a very tough decision. You can
probably do quite a lot here. You're Yet Another ARSCCer who was on the
inside, knows what goes on, and most importantly, hopefully knows what the
people still on the inside will listen to without automatically rejecting it
before thinking about it.

For starters, how about the story of what made you leave?

Another mind freed from The Hamster Wheel to Total Freedom!

/\<.


JimDBB

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

>E>Subject: One more ex-scientologist.
>From: one...@aol.com (One Scio)
>Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 14:00

>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing
>with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>

>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last
>week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I
>was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>

Well done and well said. You re going to feel terrific now that you have TOTAL
FREEDOM...from the scientology cult. And you will be free to spend your money
and your time on yourself.
Congraulations and thanks for posting your message.

JimDBB

One Scio

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

ExScio wrote:

\>

></PRE></HTML>

Thank you for your welcome, and Zinjifar too! It's wonderful to be out!! 2 PM
Thursday is now just another houron the clock...
I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.

One (Ex-)Scio


Wulfen

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:

(SNIP

>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!

Which town you in? You could come out and play the next time the local
Org is picketed. My idea for your flyer: The story of why you quit on
one side, and your choice of Xenu/$cientology and the law/medical
quackery/etc on the other.

Have a good, $cientology-free day!

----------------------------------------------------------------
SP, Quake/2 addict, amateur rationalist.

-- http://www.total.net/~wulfen/scn --

"Science is a method, not an ideology."
----------------------------------------------------------------

One Scio

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Inducto wrote:

>Thanks for your story. Can we call it an arscc "win"?
>
>Here's my question, one that I hope might have some implications for getting
>other CoS members to reconsider their continued allegiance to the "church".
>I
>presume, like most of the other individuals of good heart who make up the
>lower
>echelons of CoS, you are an idealistic person with a desire to better
>yourself,
>and contribute to mankind and our future on the planet. It's the motivation
>that lures people in, and the justification that CoS uses -- and teaches
>people
>to use -- to discount the organization's questionable activities when they
>come
>to light. Do you have some plan as to how you might continue to express and
>work towards such aims outside of CoS, how to satisfy your spiritual
>aspirations? Freezone or something else? Or has CoS just left you feeling
>like the pursuit of the whole area is pointless?
>

I am going to look for something. Right now, I'll be content to follow my own
individual spirituality. I don't want the tech right now. If there's something
good in the tech, the freezone's got it, but right now I'm taking a break from
anything Hubbardian.

Otherwise, I think I'll put my energy into the activism I was doing before CoS.
Most Scientologists had valuable and productive and beneficial lives before
CoS. Their energies become diverted into the CoS and its
affiliates.Scientologists are some of the best people I've met. They're
spiritual, active and concerned. If they'll just step back into the real world,
they'll find their old causes, cares and concerns. But they have to be willing
to take a glance at wogdom first.
One (Ex-) Scio

Just Wog

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:

:Dear a.r.s.,

:I left Scientology today--for good.

<snip a moving story of leaving SeaOrg>

:I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
:and the fight!

:One (Ex-) Scio

Hi One-X-Scio,

Welcome to your freedom and we all wait for your stories from your cult
experiences.

Regards,
-Bob, just Wog-
--
From the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

-"competent medical advisors recommended that Hubbard be committed
to a private sanitarium for psychiatric observation and
treatment of a mental ailment known as paranoid schizophrenia."
(105-55601-5)-

One Scio

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Thanks, Android Cat and Jim DBB for your welcomes. I'm delighted to be here.
Basically, I relized I wanted to get out of my Sea Org contract and went to irc
#scientology for help. I chatted with Arnie Lerma, Frank Oliver, Stacy Young,
Rod Keller, Robet Young and other SPs that I used to hate and fear, and I found
out the truth about the Co$. I went to the Dianetics event May 16 and never
came back. I've been dealing with the Ethics officer the last few days, and now
it's almost over and I'm gone and free forever. Scientology is a betrayal of
all the word freedom means.

All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
question # 13:

"13. Should the head of a government rule
a. single-handedly
b. as a member of a council
c. by the will of the people"

A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic".

No wonder the Germans are worried about them. Sounds like fascism to me.

One (Ex-)Scio

Andreas Heldal-Lund

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Welcome "One (Ex-) Scio"! :)

"Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with deeper fangs
than freedom never endangered."
— Cicero


On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:

>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with


>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>

>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
>is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.
>
>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection. Real caring is often denounced as
>1.1. They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
>fighting truth.
>

>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>

>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
>
>
>One (Ex-) Scio


Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________________
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
(One Scio) wrote:

>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!

I would like to know how life was in the last year or so - for example,
was there any pressure do to set up "personal" web pages? What did the
org say about the filter? And how did orgs reacts to p*cketing,
especially when p*cketeers were joking 'n degrading, or saying "X*nu"?

Tilman

PS: Will you join the Knights of X*nu?

WESFAGER

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Welcome to reality oneXscio, glad to have you out.
Wes Fager

Pign...@worldnet.att.net

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

one...@aol.com (One Scio) writes:
> Dear a.r.s.,
>
> I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
> the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
> wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
> disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.

Congratulations on your decision. That's what makes this newsgroup
worthwhile -- when people are helped to break free of this organization
by the info they get here. Enjoy your freedom!

Monica Pignotti


WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

What this looks like to me is yet another troll by a "critic."

No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
warps obvious reality. A.r.s or its snarling denizens "caring"?
Delusion! Or PR, take your pick.

In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,


One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.

Which org? What's the Ethics Officer's name? Post the Declare in writing
when you get it.


>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.

And you were staff for how long?


>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
>is Scientology.

And you take issue with none of the obvious falsehoods and viciousness?


>I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.

What an amazing revelation! Were you deprogrammed or "exit counselled,"
by paid operators? It's that or this is a troll. My money's on the
latter.


>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection.

No Scientologist would say this. Affection (affinity) is PART of ARC.


>Real caring is often denounced as 1.1.

Common a.r.s propaganda, never the observation of a Scientologist.


>They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
>fighting truth.

The usual a.r.s pap. This is SO troll-like.


>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.

Amazing. So you're saying the horrific mental ravages of Scientology are
curable virtually overnight? Just run away and denounce it! Everyone
should try it! This sounds just like the fondest hopes of the Standard
Critic [tm].


>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong.

Yeah, isn't Barwell a sweetie? And Rob Clark! We all know the bomb thing
was just a gentle jest. And Grady? Well, his cute little whizbangs
aren't the sexually-depraved psychotic ravings they seem. And Roland!
And on and on. Such caring souls... it's humbling, isn't it?


>There are so many stories here which inspired me.

Like where Henson got slapped with half a lifetime of debt he can't escape
even with bankruptcy, because he contrived a stupid excuse for an illegal
PR gambit the court didn't buy? Yeah, he's an icon. Every critic should
be so brave.

Hey, Henson... here's lookin' at ya! [wink] Hope your cryo-storage is
all paid up! Wouldn't it be a shame of they refused to freeze your head
for lack of funds?


>I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.

Amazing how much you've learned in a week! What are some of the names of
those good people? I'll gladly inform them of your fine offer.


>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.

Fantastic!! This noble intent and awesome ability would be well applied
to Klemesrud, for one. Get him to tell you *his* lies!


>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!

How long were you in? What's your case level? Your training?


This is a pile of steaming, fly-infested PR if I ever saw such a thing.
My troll-meter is pegged. If this person is for real, it is the first and
only case of its kind, outside a forced deprogramming, I have ever seen.

You people are really shameless.


- Whippersnapper

"Look! A thermos full of phlegm!" -- Calvin

WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>ExScio wrote:
>
>\>
>>Welcome back to the real world One(X)Scio!!
>>
>>Isn't it great not to have to worry about stats and
>>being browbeat by registrars and Ethics and being
>>able to get on with your life?
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>
>
>Thank you for your welcome, and Zinjifar too! It's wonderful to be out!! 2 PM
>Thursday is now just another houron the clock...
>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
>people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
>craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
>org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
>tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
>
>One (Ex-)Scio

Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.

Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?

This person isn't just a troll. It is a STUPID troll.

Must be the work of a committee.


- Whippersnapper

"It certifies you as a grade 'A' nimrod." -- Calvin


WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Android Cat and Jim DBB for your welcomes. I'm delighted to be here.
>Basically, I relized I wanted to get out of my Sea Org contract and went to irc
>#scientology for help. I chatted with Arnie Lerma, Frank Oliver, Stacy Young,
>Rod Keller, Robet Young and other SPs that I used to hate and fear, and I found
>out the truth about the Co$. I went to the Dianetics event May 16 and never
>came back. I've been dealing with the Ethics officer the last few days, and now
>it's almost over and I'm gone and free forever. Scientology is a betrayal of
>all the word freedom means.

Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.

>All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
>"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
>question # 13:
>
>"13. Should the head of a government rule
>a. single-handedly
>b. as a member of a council
>c. by the will of the people"
>
>A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic".

Ah, there is it again! The propaganda angle.


>No wonder the Germans are worried about them. Sounds like fascism to me.

Uh-huh. I'm starting to narrow down who this might be.

Well, the leadership survey thing was attacked here before. But hey! A
new PR lie... the "psychotic answer" thing is real cool!

I've seen the entire test, and I've graded it. There are no "psychotic"
answers. This troll/person is lying.


- Whippersnapper

"I'm off to meet my doom, Mom. See you after school." Calvin

Inducto

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

>I am going to look for something. Right now, I'll be content to follow my own
>individual spirituality. I don't want the tech right now. If there's
>something
>good in the tech, the freezone's got it, but right now I'm taking a break
>from
>anything Hubbardian.

I was just wondering what, if anything, you were going to do in that area of
your life, not necessarily anything organized -- follow your own spirituality
sounds like the answer. I ask that because I've known people who rejected
spirituality entirely after leaving CoS, and because as I said I think it would
make it easier for CoS members to reevaluate their loyalty to an apparently
disfunctional organization if they had more of a sense of spiritual goals and a
humanitarian mission they could pursue on the "outside".

By the way, I found "Whippersnapper"'s post kind of interesting. I think he's
having trouble grasping the concept that someone could decide to walk away from
CoS, though he raises some interesting questions. It's been pointed out before
by CoS' suporters that a.r.s. participants are sometimes all too quick to
become convinced that a new poster is an OSA troll when they are often wrong,
and it would be amusing to see if the shoe is on the other foot this time.
Would you care to give enough more details that we could all be certain about
your story? I would think that you've said enough about your recent departure
that the CoS could figure out who you are if they wanted to, but don't let
yourself be goaded into giving out details if you think they really can't
identify you and you don't want to be identified. You could hopefully convince
anyone with doubts with a good account of your time inside CoS, which would be
very informative in the process, without giving away any more identifying
details.

Best,

Jim Byrd

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
says...

>
>All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
>"psychotically wrong

I would like to see a copy of this test. Has it been posted?

------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com

Alan Barclay

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to
>All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one

It would be a very interesting document to see here, with all the
questions & the various answers.


kwantem mekanik

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <6jvgdq$r...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>What this looks like to me is yet another troll by a "critic."
>
>No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
>warps obvious reality. A.r.s or its snarling denizens "caring"?
>Delusion! Or PR, take your pick.

Whippersnapper, why don't you post the verifiable information about
Hubbard's research related to Dianetics?

We're _still_ waiting...

**********************************************
* The language of truth *
* is unadorned and always simple. *
* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
* http://burtcom.com/kwantem *

One Scio

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

Thanks, Wes, Tilman and Andreas..and yes, Tilman, I'd love to be a Knight of
Xenu (the entheta filter doesn't affect aol).

As for WHIPPERSNAPPER, I have a reference for you: Scientometric Testing. And
talk to a few people who blew your org. They're the people who were there all
the time, and that you suddenly stopped seeing. And look at this
newsgroup--people *do* leave Scientology. I've told several people, most of
whom are on a.r.s, more of my story. I have no interest at this time in getting
CoS after me. Maybe in a few days.


I was in Scn six months. I left *yesterday*. I'd ask everyone who wants
"details" to personally email me.

One (Ex-) Scio

kwantem mekanik

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>
>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>This person isn't just a troll. It is a STUPID troll.
>
>Must be the work of a committee.
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
>


Tsk. tsk, Whippersnapper, I thought your goal was to save the world, not
to save the world in ever-increasing steps.

Martin Hunt

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:

>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.

Good for you on getting out! How long were you in? Take the time
to get well before you jump into battle with Scientology; take the
time to get the weird ideas Scientology instilled into your mind
out, to lose the strange terminology, and get over any other effects
you might be feeling, such as sleeplessness, paranoia toward
psychiatrists, etc.

When you feel you have done the personal work on yourself to
get well and truly over your time in Scientology, carefully
consider if you want to devote any more time to it, or if you'd
rather just chuck it all and move on to something else. People
are often a little vulnerable right after leaving the cult,
and getting involved with ars might be the wrong thing for you
to be doing right now. I know it has caused problems in the past;
it takes a strong, together person to stand up to Scientology
for any length of time, and I wouldn't recommend it as a form
of therapy or for anyone not at their best. :-)

Again, it's great that you got out of the cult (I wonder if you're
the person Stacy was talking about in her exit counselling post?),
and I'm happy you're back into the world of sweet reason and
out of that insane hell-hole of the mind that is Scientology.

>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>

>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that

>is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take


>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.
>

>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their

>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection. Real caring is often denounced as
>1.1. They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting


>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
>fighting truth.
>

>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.

>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really

>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their


>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.

>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>

>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
>

>One (Ex-) Scio

Opposing Scientology can be extremely stressful...I wouldn't be so
quick to call it "fun". :-)

Again, think of yourself first, and saving the world from Scientology
a distant, distant second.

--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"If you mention the Holocaust one more time I'm going to break your
face in." - Scientology whore Sandy Rosen to Graham Berry at the
Keith Henson trial.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Eric Bohlman

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
: In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
: One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
: >I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14

: >people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
: >always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
: >second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
: >craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
: >org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
: >tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
: >
: >One (Ex-)Scio

: Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.

: Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
: just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?

I've never seen such ignorance of the nature of variation. Any process
is subject to random fluctuation. Even recruitment of new members to an
organization. There are statistical techniques that can tell whether a
"downturn" is just a random fluctuation or an actual downward shift of
the process (e.g. drop in effectiveness of recruiting efforts).
Scientology, AFAIK, doesn't use them, AFAIK because Hubbard didn't invent
them.

Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.

Seriously, stop and do some arithmetic. If someone brings in 14 people
one week, and any drop from one week to the next is a "downstat," than if
he sticks it out for a year, in order to avoid "downstats" he'd have to
be bringing in 66 people a week after a year. That means he'd have to
have brought in almost 2200 people in that year in order to be "upstat."
Can the Org even handle that many people? What happens when the market
saturates?


James A. Cherry

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:

>In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:

[snip]


>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if
>>you get 14 people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me
>>is an upstat.

[snip]


>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?

You imply that a downward change from one data point to the immediately
following one is a bad thing.

In my experience with statistics, I have not found this to be so. With
many real-world quantities, one of the _least_ meaningful ways to look
at a set of statistical data is from one individual point to the next.
That is, the variations on such a minute scale are usually difficult to
tell anything from. Means over a time period and/or regression analyses
are but two examples of techniques that give a much more accurate
overall picture.

My understanding of Scientology's view of "stats" is that if it fell
this week compared to last week, it's a downstat, and that's bad. Such
a view is overly simplistic, in my opinion. It might be simple to
calculate, but I don't think it's very helpful for analyzing trends.
--
James A. Cherry (http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~jac/) "Pretty much..."

Podkayne1

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get
14

>>people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>>always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>>second week you'd have a total of 26 new people.
>>

>>One (Ex-)Scio
>
>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>

>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?

Excuse me, but that ___Billion Served stat *is cumulative*. Which is what
OneScio wishes Scn stats were.

Is this Scn reading comprehension study tek at work? I'm not impressed.


--
The sum total of Heinleinism is "Think for yourself"
SP3-lite - got an AOL-TOS complaint rescinded
come on, clams - I want a *real* sp3

WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>,
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:

>WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>: In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>: One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>: >I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
>: >people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>: >always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>: >second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
>: >craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
>: >org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
>: >tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
>: >
>: >One (Ex-)Scio

>
>: Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>
>: Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>: just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>I've never seen such ignorance of the nature of variation. Any process
>is subject to random fluctuation. Even recruitment of new members to an
>organization. There are statistical techniques that can tell whether a
>"downturn" is just a random fluctuation or an actual downward shift of
>the process (e.g. drop in effectiveness of recruiting efforts).
>Scientology, AFAIK, doesn't use them, AFAIK because Hubbard didn't invent
>them.

There are things Hubbard "invented" and things he simply learned and
passed on.

"As far as you know," Eric, isn't very far at all, is it? There is
detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
their trends, long- and short-term.

It includes information on how to scale a graph, the relative
insignificance of brief leaps and dives, and the concept of cumulative
numbers. And much much more.

Every business or other activity of any size, with few exceptions, uses
statistical information to evaluate its progress and performance. I find
it endlessly hilarious that a.r.sers try to use this as a handle for
ridicule. It requires your level of ignorance of the facts to do so,
Eric.


>Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
>peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
>system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
>impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
>"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
>during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
>but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
>next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.

The approximate concept you describe here is known and expressed in Scn.
I myself have seen abuse and misuse of stats in Scn orgs, sometimes more
or less the sort you suggest here. But it is not an example of proper or
intelligent use of the real "tech."

There is also specific policy on the subject of "suppressive targets" and
misuse or misapplication of stats in management.


>Seriously, stop and do some arithmetic. If someone brings in 14 people
>one week, and any drop from one week to the next is a "downstat," than if
>he sticks it out for a year, in order to avoid "downstats" he'd have to
>be bringing in 66 people a week after a year. That means he'd have to
>have brought in almost 2200 people in that year in order to be "upstat."
>Can the Org even handle that many people? What happens when the market
>saturates?

If you look in Scn policy, you will find a sane answer to this. Some
things measured by stats cannot go up endlessly, of course, so one simply
identifies what is possible and sustainable. A stat which reaches and
remains in a high range, regardless of fluctuations, is recognized as an
"up stat."

Still, a person bent on doing well has no business being complacent. If
it's possible to do more and better, a sane person tries to do so. And
it is, virtually always, possible. So it remains workable, usually even
necessary, to operate on a week-to-week or day-to-day basis with the stat
as a major point of reference, regardless that it has a "ceiling".


- Whippersnapper

"I think my cerebellum just fused!" -- Calvin


WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

James, you display the same abysmal ignorance as Eric Bohlman.

See my reply to Eric on this thread.

The failing you two apparently share is that you rely on a.r.s as a source
of accurate information, and neither of you has had the sense it takes to
examine anything directly.

It requires nothing but a mindless robot to criticize something you know
nothing about. If you fancy yourself a rational "critic" who is capable
of actual critical thinking, I invite you to do some personal research
next time before you purport to portray Scientology -- or anything at all
for that matter -- on a public newsgroup.


- Whippersnapper

"I'm fine just the way I am! Why should *I* change?" -- Calvin


In article <6jvlnu$cq7$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,


James A. Cherry <j...@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
>(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:

...
>[snip]


>>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>

Starshadow

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
one...@aol.com says...

> Dear a.r.s.,
>
> I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
> the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
> wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
> disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>

Welcome, ex. Life outside of groupthink isn't always easy but it is
always an adventure. I'd sure be interested to hear your story...take
care...

--
Bright Blessings,


Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
May 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/20/98
to

In a<199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, One Scio writes:
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!

And I'm glad you're out. This is the sort of thing I like to read here
(and the CofS __don't__ like to read here!).


--
<__"-$ <__" <__" <__"
:_ : : :_
''''''''._____'-_....'"...-------''''''_ <__'
'. $CIENTOLOGY: ..''--- :.
; _ . . . - '''
. . ' ': ': ':
: .' the bridge to .~~>~~>:~~>:
:.' total madness ~~> ~~>
'


John C. Randolph

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

WHIPPERSNAPPER may or may not have said:

-> >Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
-> >alive--caring, passionate and strong.
->
-> Yeah, isn't Barwell a sweetie? And Rob Clark! We all know the bomb thing
-> was just a gentle jest. And Grady? Well, his cute little whizbangs
-> aren't the sexually-depraved psychotic ravings they seem. And Roland!
-> And on and on. Such caring souls... it's humbling, isn't it?

Yeah, whip: They really are wonderful people, as you will find out when you
leave the clams and need their emotional support. When you're ready to take
back your sanity, I suggest you call Keith first.

-> >There are so many stories here which inspired me.
->
-> Like where Henson got slapped with half a lifetime of debt he can't escape
-> even with bankruptcy, because he contrived a stupid excuse for an illegal
-> PR gambit the court didn't buy? Yeah, he's an icon. Every critic should
-> be so brave.

That wasn't a PR gambit. That was an act of civil disobedience, and he did
it to save others from Lisa MacPherson's fate. If Keith wanted attention,
he's got less arduous ways to get it (like starting the L-5 society.)

-> Fantastic!! This noble intent and awesome ability would be well applied
-> to Klemesrud, for one. Get him to tell you *his* lies!

Oh, blow it out your arse. (Oh wait: You had a clamette try that already,
didn't you?)

BTW, Why did Hubbard lie about his alleged disablities, whip? You wouldn't
want to base your life on the ravings of a LIAR, would you?

-jcr


Wulfen

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 17:02:50 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

There are parts I'm not responding to from this post, so,

(SNIP)

> If this person is for real, it is the first and only case of its kind, outside a forced
>deprogramming, I have ever seen.

Really? The only person voluntarily leaving $cientology? Then how
about Vaugn and Stacy Young, Roger Gonnet, Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt,
and all the others who have left $cientology? Do you think they were
deprogrammed?

(SNIP)

----------------------------------------------------------------
SP, Quake/2 addict, amateur rationalist.

-- http://www.total.net/~wulfen/scn --

"Science is a method, not an ideology."
----------------------------------------------------------------

NUKEWASTER

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Dear One Scio,

Welcome back to the free world.

Nuke

Zinj

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6jvgdq$r...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...

>
>What this looks like to me is yet another troll by a "critic."
>
>No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
>warps obvious reality. A.r.s or its snarling denizens "caring"?
>Delusion! Or PR, take your pick.
>
>
>
>In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Dear a.r.s.,
>>
>>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing
with
>>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
>Which org? What's the Ethics Officer's name? Post the Declare in writing
>when you get it.

>
>
>>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last
week
>>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I
was
>>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>
>And you were staff for how long?
>
>
>>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will
save
>>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere
that
>>is Scientology.
>
>And you take issue with none of the obvious falsehoods and viciousness?
>
>
>>I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>>beings.
>
>What an amazing revelation! Were you deprogrammed or "exit counselled,"
>by paid operators? It's that or this is a troll. My money's on the
>latter.
>
>
>>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
>>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection.
>
>No Scientologist would say this. Affection (affinity) is PART of ARC.
>
>
>>Real caring is often denounced as 1.1.
>
>Common a.r.s propaganda, never the observation of a Scientologist.
>
>
>>They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
>>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were
really
>>fighting truth.
>
>The usual a.r.s pap. This is SO troll-like.
>
>
>>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for
myself.
>
>Amazing. So you're saying the horrific mental ravages of Scientology are
>curable virtually overnight? Just run away and denounce it! Everyone
>should try it! This sounds just like the fondest hopes of the Standard
>Critic [tm].
>
>
>>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>>alive--caring, passionate and strong.

>
>Yeah, isn't Barwell a sweetie? And Rob Clark! We all know the bomb thing
>was just a gentle jest. And Grady? Well, his cute little whizbangs
>aren't the sexually-depraved psychotic ravings they seem. And Roland!
>And on and on. Such caring souls... it's humbling, isn't it?
>
>
>>There are so many stories here which inspired me.
>
>Like where Henson got slapped with half a lifetime of debt he can't escape
>even with bankruptcy, because he contrived a stupid excuse for an illegal
>PR gambit the court didn't buy? Yeah, he's an icon. Every critic should
>be so brave.
>
>Hey, Henson... here's lookin' at ya! [wink] Hope your cryo-storage is
>all paid up! Wouldn't it be a shame of they refused to freeze your head
>for lack of funds?
>
>
>>I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
>>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa
McPherson.
>
>Amazing how much you've learned in a week! What are some of the names of
>those good people? I'll gladly inform them of your fine offer.
>
>
>>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>
>Fantastic!! This noble intent and awesome ability would be well applied
>to Klemesrud, for one. Get him to tell you *his* lies!
>
>
>>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the
fun
>>and the fight!
>
>How long were you in? What's your case level? Your training?
>
>
>This is a pile of steaming, fly-infested PR if I ever saw such a thing.
>My troll-meter is pegged. If this person is for real, it is the first and

>only case of its kind, outside a forced deprogramming, I have ever seen.
>
>You people are really shameless.
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"Look! A thermos full of phlegm!" -- Calvin


hehe.. isn't it funny how their fangs drool when there's no catch in them?

(Calvin could have said it)

Zinj

--
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail


Pimoty

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Whipper: There are things Hubbard "invented" and things he simply learned and
passed on.>>

"Invented" is the operative word here. From his writings it is obvious that
little was based in physical reality


Whipper: The approximate concept you describe here is known and expressed in


Scn. I myself have seen abuse and misuse of stats in Scn orgs, sometimes more
or less the sort you suggest here. But it is not an example of proper or
intelligent use of the real "tech.">>

How convenient. How come that when it does not work it is not 'proper or
intelligent' use of the 'real' tech ? Perhaps because the "tech" does not work
?

But witholding any pay for not making the 'stats' shows indeed signs of
tyrrany. Not surprising given the fact that the 'teacher' himself did not shy
away from tyrannical behavior.

For additional info:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.entheta.net


Zinj

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6jvib6$3...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...
>
>In article <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Thanks, Android Cat and Jim DBB for your welcomes. I'm delighted to be here.
>>Basically, I relized I wanted to get out of my Sea Org contract and went to
irc
>>#scientology for help. I chatted with Arnie Lerma, Frank Oliver, Stacy
Young,
>>Rod Keller, Robet Young and other SPs that I used to hate and fear, and I
found
>>out the truth about the Co$. I went to the Dianetics event May 16 and never
>>came back. I've been dealing with the Ethics officer the last few days, and
now
>>it's almost over and I'm gone and free forever. Scientology is a betrayal of
>>all the word freedom means.
>
>Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.
>
>
>
>>All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
>>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and
one
>>"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
>>question # 13:
>>
>>"13. Should the head of a government rule
>>a. single-handedly
>>b. as a member of a council
>>c. by the will of the people"
>>
>>A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course,
"psychotic".
>
>Ah, there is it again! The propaganda angle.
>
>
>>No wonder the Germans are worried about them. Sounds like fascism to me.
>
>Uh-huh. I'm starting to narrow down who this might be.
>
>Well, the leadership survey thing was attacked here before. But hey! A
>new PR lie... the "psychotic answer" thing is real cool!
>
>I've seen the entire test, and I've graded it. There are no "psychotic"
>answers. This troll/person is lying.
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"I'm off to meet my doom, Mom. See you after school." Calvin


Poor whip.. so certain that his delusion is reality that it must be the 12
bankers, or the evil psychs or maybe the german OCP..

But never.. never.. a conscious decision to leave the only hope for mankind.

Poor whip

Pimoty

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Whipper: The failing you two apparently share is that you rely on a.r.s as a

source
of accurate information, and neither of you has had the sense it takes to
examine anything directly.>>

Another unsupported accusation that ARS does not contain accurate information
eh Whipper ? Do you follow your own advice and examine things directly ? Like
Hubbard's claims about cancer and auditing ? And yet he failed to deliver as
usual when it came to 'fact' ? Hubbard was a failure as a scientist.


Whipper: It requires nothing but a mindless robot to criticize something you


know
nothing about. If you fancy yourself a rational "critic" who is capable
of actual critical thinking, I invite you to do some personal research
next time before you purport to portray Scientology -- or anything at all
for that matter -- on a public newsgroup.>>

Many have done the research and have come to similar conclusions. It's quite
easy actually. Hubbard was a fraud, a liar and poor scientist.

Pimoty

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Whipper: But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually
seems
to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
family troubles.>>

As far as I know, Hubbard never blew though. I guess unethical behavior is not
a disqualifying factor ?

Pimoty

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Whippersnapper: Unethical behavior>>

Translation: Being critical about scientology. Scieno-speak, so revealing...

Zane Thomas

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 23:53:21 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>James, you display the same abysmal ignorance as Eric Bohlman.

ROFLMAO!

That from someone who believes that an evil space alien chained his
"soul" up in a volcano and nuked it!

Zane


Zane Thomas

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 17:14:59 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.

Oh come on whipper, we all know you've been to an org and seen gross
stupidity up close and personal.

Zane


Zane Thomas

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 23:21:31 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy

So are you telling us that Woody blew?

Zane


Zane Thomas

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 17:14:59 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.

Either you don't know how things work in an org or you're a liar
whipper. My money's on the later. As director of the treasury at
pubs I saw how declines in income resulted in reductions to the
below-survival wages paid to staffers.

Zane


Zane Thomas

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On Thu, 21 May 1998 02:19:58 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:

>You don't even know anything about Scientology.

You don't have to step in dogshit to know that it stinks gertie.

Zane


rgonnet

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to One Scio

One Scio wrote:
>
> Dear a.r.s.,
>
> I left Scientology today--for good.
>
> I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
> and the fight!

Fine, we are proud to get one more out of the scam!

Please, could you write something explaining the actual
temperature of things in orgs, especially, what are the
stats, in yours or elsewhere, how is the discipline, etc...

Roger

Stephen Jones

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6k06jr$r...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:

>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems

>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
>of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
>family troubles.
>

>Just my observations, nothing scientific about them.

Damn illiterate, unethical, debtors from troubled homes! Uncanny pattern
spotting, Keith. With the accuracy and insight you've demonstrated, you
might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good enough for
Hubbard.........

In addition to the sassy comment, I have a question: Why would debt matter?
It is interesting that you list debt as a reason one may have for leaving
the CoS. Don't you think the CoS would be better off by offering their
services for free. They could suport themselves with actual donations
instead of fees called donations. Think how this would expand the reach of
the Tech. Is it a good idea?

curious,
Stephen Jones


>
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"I told her to expect you to deny everything." -- Calvin
>

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
(One Scio) wrote:

>"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
>question # 13:
>
>"13. Should the head of a government rule
>a. single-handedly
>b. as a member of a council
>c. by the will of the people"
>
>A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic".

We should try to get a copy of that (with the solutions) and send it to
a german embassy. The "verfassungsschutz" folks will get an orgasm !!!

LilAlex742

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Er, uh, Dennis...

I may be reading this wrong here, but if you are somehow implying that I am, or
have any relation to, Whippersnapper, you are quite wrong.

If you and whipper have had similar posts on similar subject, my apy-oly-ogies.
Maybe you make a lot of references to Clockwork Orange that I don't know
about. Maybe you have also told Whipper, recently, that he is fos, and that is
why you are asking him if that sounds familiar. If not, let me state for the
record, that I have posted only a few messages under another screen name, and
that was several years ago, when I first started posting here.

If you are accusing me of being either whippersnapper, or not otherwise what I
seem, I won't call you paranoid, because I can understand that the entire
weirdness of this newsgroup, and the weirdness that you have experienced in
your life, might lead to the occasional, shall we say, crossed signal.

I am much too old, and have been through too much of my own shit, to play troll
games for any reason. I don't like it when other people do it to me. And, for
personal reasons, I do my best my best, as I pass through my life, not to lie.
In fact, one of the many things that draws me here is that Scientology is a
religion/cult that, I believe, has codified lying and self-deception into its
structure.

Hope this helps, but if it doesn't--piss off (does that sound familiar?) : )
<----------- I generally hate emoticons, maybe because I can't do them well.
That's supposed to be a smilley face.


Posted and Mailed,

LilAlex

13. Should the head of a government rule
a. single-handedly
b. as a member of a council
c. by the will of the people

A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic"

One Scio, about an org Leadership test


WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6k0fgs$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,

Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <6k06jr$r...@examiner.concentric.net>,
> Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
>>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
>>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
>>of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
>>family troubles.
>>
>>Just my observations, nothing scientific about them.
>
>Damn illiterate, unethical, debtors from troubled homes! Uncanny pattern
>spotting, Keith.

Uncanny spin on my words! I could say "have a nice day" and you'd find
fault, I suspect.

How about "thanks for taking a moment to mention your views"?


>With the accuracy and insight you've demonstrated, you
>might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good enough for
>Hubbard.........

Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
research material as well.

Like so many others, you just latch onto the lies and run with them,
without a moment of actual observation of your own. Speaking of accuracy
and insight...


>In addition to the sassy comment, I have a question: Why would debt matter?

It matters because it places a person in difficulty. It is one example of
"pressures and problems" not the whole tomato.


>It is interesting that you list debt as a reason one may have for leaving
>the CoS.

That's a misstatement and never my intent. Do you still beat your wife?


>Don't you think the CoS would be better off by offering their
>services for free.

No. I don't.


>They could suport themselves with actual donations
>instead of fees called donations.

Possibly. Are you offering?

But in one form or another, the Church requires money to exist. Shall
those who benefit most directly not provide that support?


>Think how this would expand the reach of
>the Tech. Is it a good idea?

No. Exchange is an honorable principle, not merely a requisite of
commerce. One gives in return for what one receives. And one supports
that which one values.

Scientologists and the Church give much of themselves freely, as do people
of good will everywhere.

>curious,

I think not. I think you seek only to invalidate and you're not curious
at all.


- Whippersnapper

"Let's not be vulgar. You're just jealous." -- Hobbes


WHIPPERSNAPPER

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <Pj4Y1Mdl...@islandnet.com>,

Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>In article <6jvib6$3...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
>>Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.
>
>Nah, Keith, it's just your own smegma.

You can't communicate without spewing degraded sexual garbage, can you,
Martin?


I said:

"I've seen the entire test, and I've graded it. There are no "psychotic"
answers. This troll/person is lying."


Martin quoted only:
>>This troll/person is lying.
>
>Prove it. Scan it, web it, post it. Put up or shut up. I've seen
>enough of Tubby Lard's psychotic ramblings against democracy ...

I can't prove a negative, but I can tell you I never once heard or saw any
reference to any answer to the Leadership Survey as being "psychotic" or
indicating psychosis. Just that simple, creep.

As for Hubbard's views of democratic rule as being vulnerable to
irrational "group-think," it is evident to me that his views have been
substantially shared by a good many past and present figures of prominent
historical standing; even some of those we regard as the Founding Fathers
of modern democracy.

He makes many eloquent arguments about the value of individuals and of
individualism; and the broad responsibility of individuals with respect to
their own governance.

By my lights, his views were neither a cozy fit for what most conceive as
the ideal of democracy; *nor* fundamentally anti-democratic.

Hubbard had the courage, even in the paranoid times of McCarthyism, to
voice his opinions. He saw flaws in every political system, and he
pointed them out without fear or hesitation. And he saw in the nature of
humans and their aberrations, pitfalls democracy is incapable of avoiding.

All of which is interesting to debate but is almost irrelevant to
criticism of Scientology itself -- which is avowedly non-political.


- Whippersnapper

"Monsters, Dad. They could be anywhere." -- Calvin

Rebecca Jo McLaughlin

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whip...@cris.com) wrote:

: >might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good enough for
: >Hubbard.........

: Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
: answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
: research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
: research material as well.

Scientific research is a cumulative process. Hubbard comes up with a
theory. Hubbard researches his theory and publishes the results.

OK, so far. We have your word (and most of the secret scriptures) to
prove this initial step of the process.

Next step. Dr. Somethingornother at UCLA sees the publications and goes,
hey, this sounds good, and sets up a double-blind study to see whether or
not Hubbard is on the right track. Three things can happen here: (1) the
research supports Hub's theory, (2) the research shoots down Hub's theory,
(4) research suggests at least part of Hub's theory may be effective.

Step three. Another researcher at, say, University of Bristol in the UK
takes up the study. And so on, and so on, until there is a general
agreement one way or the other about the "science" in Scientology. This
process has successfully given us vaccines, computers, electricity,
sanitation, space travel, etc.

Now - research by one person on a personal theory is fine. Research by
others that confirm that theory lends credence to the original work.

There is, to my knowledge, one study done on Dianetics and it did not
confirm its effectiveness. Why doesn't Scientology attempt to legitimize
its research in this way?

Beck

Rebecca Jo McLaughlin

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whip...@cris.com) wrote:

: No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
: warps obvious reality.


Cute. You've just described the bulk of pro-scientology posters on the
NG.

Beck

Pign...@worldnet.att.net

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) writes: > In article <6k0fgs$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,

> Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
> answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
> research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
> research material as well.

I think you had better word clear the word "research". LRH's tapes
just don't cut it when it comes to proving anything other than his
grandiosity.

Monica Pignotti


Ted Mayett (KOX)

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 22:33:34 GMT, j...@doe.carleton.ca (James A. Cherry)
wrote:


>My understanding of Scientology's view of "stats" is that if it fell
>this week compared to last week, it's a downstat, and that's bad.

One week 10 books are sold. The next week it is 2 books and that is
BAD, Downstat. However, if on the third week 4 books are sold then
Stats are up and they get ecstatic. It is really quite sad to
witness.

A good, short essay on Management by Statistics:
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/essaysandpages/stats.html

> Such
>a view is overly simplistic, in my opinion. It might be simple to
>calculate, but I don't think it's very helpful for analyzing trends.


--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi

David Gerard

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:

: I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take


:my place to expose the Co$ for what it is.


Tell your story, go picketing, require all CoS asking you to rejoin to
first read a Xemu leaflet ...


--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Over two megabytes of news are posted each day. This is a staggering figure"
- Unix System Administration Handbook, 1989

David Gerard

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On 20 May 1998 20:00:16 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:

:Otherwise, I think I'll put my energy into the activism I was doing before CoS.
:Most Scientologists had valuable and productive and beneficial lives before
:CoS. Their energies become diverted into the CoS and its
:affiliates.Scientologists are some of the best people I've met. They're
:spiritual, active and concerned. If they'll just step back into the real world,
:they'll find their old causes, cares and concerns. But they have to be willing
:to take a glance at wogdom first.


A suggestion:

Write a post, suitable for a leaflet, about why YOU left - something that
would quickly get the point through to someone like your CoS self.

A service for those still in.

You can string a sentence together okay - it shouldn't be too hard.

David Gerard

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

On Thu, 21 May 1998 07:49:17 +0200, rgonnet <dictio...@hol.fr> wrote:
:One Scio wrote:

:> I left Scientology today--for good.

:Fine, we are proud to get one more out of the scam!


:Please, could you write something explaining the actual
:temperature of things in orgs, especially, what are the
:stats, in yours or elsewhere, how is the discipline, etc...


Oooooh. Yes please. How do things actually feel in the Orgs right now?

James A. Cherry

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <6k08fh$5...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:

>See my reply to Eric on this thread.

Done. You wrote (article <6k080a$3...@examiner.concentric.net>):

> There is
>detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
>It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
>their trends, long- and short-term.

I'd be interested in reading these; is there a specific place you can
refer me to? Nothing I search on the web seems to turn anything up.
I don't recall reading anything that contradicts my original impression
(Scn stats are point to point only), but if I'm wrong, I'd like to read
the truth in Scn policy.

If Scientology really does have detailed info on evaluating statistics,
then this is at odds with what you wrote earlier. OneScio wrote
(article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>):

>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if
>you get 14 people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me
>is an upstat.

You responded (article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>);

>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?

You yourself called an instantaneous change downward a "downstat" in a
very derogatory way. Yet your response to Eric Bohlman said:

["It" = Scn policy]
>It includes information on how to scale a graph, the relative
>insignificance of brief leaps and dives, and the concept of cumulative
>numbers.

Why didn't you apply the Scn policy about "the relative insignificance
of brief leaps and dives" to the 14/12 example? To me, 14 one week
to 12 the next is a "brief dive" -- in fact, not even something I'd
go so far as to call a "dive" since it only changes by two people in a
small sample size of 14. Why did you call that a "downstat" so
negatively?
--
James A. Cherry (http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~jac/) "Pretty much..."

Geoffrey V. Bronner

unread,
May 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/21/98
to

In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
<eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
>peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
>system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
>impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
>"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
>during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
>but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
>next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.
>

I heard a story once during the cold war that a Soviet weight lifter was
told he would get a reward every time he set or beat a world record.

So he did, over and over again, in 1 pound increments. If he needed a new
car, he added a pound, etc. etc. etc.

No idea if it is true but it sounds like a good racket.

-Geoff
--
Internet Systems Developer / Administrator
The Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>