Disconnection
Claire Swazey
I am writing this from my perspective and based on my experiences, and
no one else's. I have noticed a great deal of coverage and concern on
the subject of disconnection and Scientologists. Here's what I know
about it:
Disconnection would be primarily used when someone one is associated
with is antagonistic to the individual Scientologist. Maybe because of
his involvement in Scn, or it could be for any other reason in which the
Scn'ologist is being given a very bad time to the point where they are
absolutely miserable. The individual is encouraged to work things out
and communicate with whoever it is he isn't getting along with. That's
where the biggest emphasis is. Disconnection should only be used as a
last resort where nothing else is going to work.
I have seen postings here where you folks have recounted things you
heard where people were disconnected from where the implications were
that this was being used as emotional blackmail (as in: if you don't
believe what I believe and be a member of the group I'm a member of,I'm
going to have nothing to do with you) A particularly poignant example
was one Andreas quoted from, I believe, the Op Clambake guestbook, where
a woman told him that her husband had disconnected from their two young
children because they weren't scn'ologists. 3 possibilities arise that
I can see:
1) Didn't happen.
2) Did happen,but there were missing facts.
3) Happened exactly as purported.
For the purposes of this posting, I will go with possibility #3. If this
is the case, then Daddy is an absolute creep,using emotional blackmail
and/or an excuse to not see his kids. (I have known so many divorced
parents where once the divorce and custody hearing were over the mom who
got custody & her child(ren)never heard from daddy dearest again.Utterly
amazing to me that some people do not want to see their kids, and I know
this does not happen all the time, but it apparently does happen) Maybe
Daddy dearest was trying to hurt his exwife by hurting the kids.This
makes him even more of a creep. He probably was a creep before he ever
became a Scn'ologist.
In my own case, I have one parent that has gotten his money back frm
scn, and who was, for a time, involved in a "squirrel" group operated by
a friend. I have another parent who has made her dislike of scn no
secret as she prefers traditional medicine,preachers,etc. I have a
relative who had ect and heavy psychiatric drugs/institutionalization,
and is on the meds to this day, although not the other two things.I have
NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
Some of you may know of situations where people disconnected from a
family member when such action was entirely unnecessary.
All I can say to you is that people who disconnect from family when no
one is trying to stop them from doing what they want to do, where the
motive is purely manipulative, well, those people are wrong and they are
not practicing scientology. An analogy would be with other religions,
where you have a Christian, Moslem or Jewish person who uses his or her
religion to make other people feel like dirt. Not all members of these
religions do that, in fact most of the ones I met were pretty nice. But
one DOES run across people who use their religious beliefs to try to
hurt and control others. What is that quote from Twain-- something to
the effect that Christianity would be a good idea if only the Christians
would practice it? Well, I say the same about Scientology.
End of sermon.
Claire
Zinj
In article <35967D59...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
Thanks for the sermon Claire. I do know abuses of the 'disconnection' policy.
And to tell you the truth that's what first got me interested enough in
Scientology to make me an opponent.
I've been aware of Scientology since the 60s, along with a lot of other cults
(and yes, I do mean it's a cult)
I didn't mind. I like people who are non-standard.
When I came back from Germany in the early 80s (after having gotten my
instruction from #11 of the evil psych-lords who rule the planet) I happened to
read a book by Norman Spinrad, 'The Mind Game', which while science fiction was
about a cult that was a thinly disguised copy of Scientology.
This book predated such fun stuff as Operation Snow White and Xenu and all of
the other horrors that are now well known.
It was even fairly sympathetic. But after 10 years or more it is still a very
good description of what I consider why I have to oppose Scientology.
I think that 'The Mind Game' and '1984' should be required reading for all, and
scientologists in particular.
If you have read '1984' then I'd ask you to reflect on it, and while you
haven't seen the horrors that scientology has and continues to perpetrate,
believe me.. they did happen and continue to happen.
Especially consider 'Newspeak' and what purpose it served.
regards
Zinj
--
I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a
megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released.
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Tashback
In article <35967D59...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> In my own case, I have one parent that has gotten his money back frm
> scn, and who was, for a time, involved in a "squirrel" group operated by
> a friend. I have another parent who has made her dislike of scn no
> secret as she prefers traditional medicine,preachers,etc. I have a
> relative who had ect and heavy psychiatric drugs/institutionalization,
> and is on the meds to this day, although not the other two things.I have
> NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
> different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
> Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
> with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
> proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of CoS's disconnection policy.
Your implication, though, is that if your family were antagonistic toward
CoS, the church would require that you choose between leaving your faith
and disconnecting from your family (after the obligatory efforts to try to
turn your family around). That's been my understanding of the
disconnection policy; please tell me if I'm wrong.
Forcing an individual to make such a choice seems horrible. If the person
actually believes that his spiritual future -- or salvation -- or whatever
it is that's so vitally important to him -- is at stake, and the
organization providing that much-valued service demands disconnection from
family ... well, you can see how the policy creeps some of us out.
Scientology does have a reputation for ripping families apart. If indeed
it forces parishioners to disconnect from their families when the family
remains antagonistic to the church, that reputation is well-earned.
> Some of you may know of situations where people disconnected from a
> family member when such action was entirely unnecessary.
>
> All I can say to you is that people who disconnect from family when no
> one is trying to stop them from doing what they want to do, where the
> motive is purely manipulative, well, those people are wrong and they are
> not practicing scientology. An analogy would be with other religions,
> where you have a Christian, Moslem or Jewish person who uses his or her
> religion to make other people feel like dirt. Not all members of these
> religions do that, in fact most of the ones I met were pretty nice. But
> one DOES run across people who use their religious beliefs to try to
> hurt and control others. What is that quote from Twain-- something to
> the effect that Christianity would be a good idea if only the Christians
> would practice it? Well, I say the same about Scientology.
But the disconnection policy, even as you describe it in its proper
implementation, doesn't sound like a good idea. It sounds like a very sad
thing.
Tash
LRonsScam
>From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 14:22 EDT
>Message-id: <35967D59...@home.com>
>scn, and who was, for a time, involved in a "squirrel" group operated by
>a friend. I have another parent who has made her dislike of scn no
>secret as she prefers traditional medicine,preachers,etc. I have a
>relative who had ect and heavy psychiatric drugs/institutionalization,
>and is on the meds to this day, although not the other two things.I have
>NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
>different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
>Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
>with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
>proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
>
>family member when such action was entirely unnecessary.
>
> All I can say to you is that people who disconnect from family when no
>one is trying to stop them from doing what they want to do, where the
>motive is purely manipulative, well, those people are wrong and they are
>not practicing scientology. An analogy would be with other religions,
>where you have a Christian, Moslem or Jewish person who uses his or her
>religion to make other people feel like dirt. Not all members of these
>religions do that, in fact most of the ones I met were pretty nice. But
>one DOES run across people who use their religious beliefs to try to
>hurt and control others. What is that quote from Twain-- something to
>the effect that Christianity would be a good idea if only the Christians
>would practice it? Well, I say the same about Scientology.
>
>
>Claire
></PRE></HTML>
Your Ideas of disconnection are silly. Why do you think that Hubbard called the
person PTS or Potential Trouble Source if they didn't disconnect from an SP?
Because the entheta or truth they learned from that SP might influence them
away from Hubbard and his beliefs and cause problems for Scientology.
Hubbard's maxim, of a third unknown person can only start an argument amongst
two people is a case in point. If Hubbard took you by the arm and told you his
side of the story, as long as you never heard the other guys story you would
believe Hubbard right? So this PTS and Disconnection and almost every thing
else I have seen in Hubbard's jargon has to do with separating the individual
from other people's ideas and that my friend is what makes Scientology
brainwashing and a cult.
.
.
__
In Xenu We Trust.....
A does equal A, does equal A, does equal A. What was Hubbie trying to
say?.....
." Life is a cartoon." Howard Stern while referring to Lisa Marie Presley's
involvement with Co$.
Zinj
In article <tashback-280...@ip-20-024.phx.primenet.com>,
tash...@primenet.com says...
>> scn, and who was, for a time, involved in a "squirrel" group operated by
>> a friend. I have another parent who has made her dislike of scn no
>> secret as she prefers traditional medicine,preachers,etc. I have a
>> relative who had ect and heavy psychiatric drugs/institutionalization,
>> and is on the meds to this day, although not the other two things.I have
>> NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
>> different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
>> Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
>> with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
>> proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
>
>
>Your implication, though, is that if your family were antagonistic toward
>CoS, the church would require that you choose between leaving your faith
>and disconnecting from your family (after the obligatory efforts to try to
>turn your family around). That's been my understanding of the
>disconnection policy; please tell me if I'm wrong.
>
>Forcing an individual to make such a choice seems horrible. If the person
>actually believes that his spiritual future -- or salvation -- or whatever
>it is that's so vitally important to him -- is at stake, and the
>organization providing that much-valued service demands disconnection from
>family ... well, you can see how the policy creeps some of us out.
>
>Scientology does have a reputation for ripping families apart. If indeed
>it forces parishioners to disconnect from their families when the family
>remains antagonistic to the church, that reputation is well-earned.
>
>> family member when such action was entirely unnecessary.
>>
>> All I can say to you is that people who disconnect from family when no
>> one is trying to stop them from doing what they want to do, where the
>> motive is purely manipulative, well, those people are wrong and they are
>> not practicing scientology. An analogy would be with other religions,
>> where you have a Christian, Moslem or Jewish person who uses his or her
>> religion to make other people feel like dirt. Not all members of these
>> religions do that, in fact most of the ones I met were pretty nice. But
>> one DOES run across people who use their religious beliefs to try to
>> hurt and control others. What is that quote from Twain-- something to
>> the effect that Christianity would be a good idea if only the Christians
>> would practice it? Well, I say the same about Scientology.
>
>implementation, doesn't sound like a good idea. It sounds like a very sad
>thing.
>
>Tash
Actually Tash.. I think that the disconnection policy is fairly common in all
cults.. and they became religions.
It's certainly why I began disliking scientology.. but I also had a problem
when my kid brought back his books from school, one of which was 'Come Follow
Me'
This was a parochial school.. and when I saw the title I did a double take.
and I made a joke about it.. my mom.. who at that point was doing double duty
as grandmother/mom of a son who lives at home with his kid didn't understand
my joke
My father did.. for a straight arrow he always had an evil sense of humor
the full quote is this
Leave your wife and your family, and come follow me
Inducto
CoS' theoretical ideals sound nice, and are certainly sometimes practiced in
members' experience, but here is a repost of an interesting case of forced
disconnection for only the flimsiest of connections -- and possibly simply for
the purpose of punishing non-CoS outsiders designated SPs, by causing them to
suffer family disruptions -- apparently ordered at some of the highest levels
of CoS.
[REPOST FROM DEJANEWS]
Subject: Relative of CBS-Mike Wallace ordered by Co$ to disconnect
From: Martin Ottmann <martin...@yahoo.com>
Date: 1998/05/19
Message-ID: <19980519115254....@send1c.yahoomail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to alt.religion.scientology]
The following is the content of a letter which was sent to Mary
Voegeding, Senior Executive of the "Flag Service Organization" in
Clearwater. The grammar and language shows that being a Scientologist
doesn't give you automatically better "communication skills".
If anyone wants to forward a xerox-copy of this letter to Mike
Wallace, please send me your snail mail adress and you'll get one.
Here it comes:
Feb. 1, '98
To: President, Mary Vogstin (sic) [Voegeding]
CC: MAA, Re: Rondi Leonard
CC: OSA
From: Gloria Tinney
Re: Rondi Leonard, Solo NOTS Certainty auditor, being told that she
must disconnect from her mother-in-Iaw, Kappy Leonard because Kappy was
once married to Mike Wallace, CBS news "60 minutes" news correspondent.
Dear Mary,
The re is a potential flap going on concerning the above, Rondi
Leonard is my ex-husband's wife and is my daughter's step mother.
The situation, because Rondi has been at Flag now for 4 weeks at the
MAA and has not been able to continue her 6 months refresher and as a
result this has gotten onto my daughter Noelle's lines who I have been
handling and it violates KSW -ie. There is a misapplication of the
tech going on here re: this situation in my opinion.
I'll explain why:
Kappy Leonard, Rondi's "step" mother-in-law and her husband Ardy's
step mother, has not spoken to Mike Wallace in years. She had a son by
him, Chris Wallace who she sees regularly but she hasn't and does
not wish to be in comm with Mike Wallace at all. Rondi never has any
contacts with Mike Wallace at all and has maybe seen Chris Wallace his
son twice in 20 yrs. Chris Wallace is _not_ in any way antagonistic to
Rondi or Ardy about Scientology. Kappy is "interested" in Scientology
and has asked Rondi about the meter as
well as offering to take Rondi to the founding church to see the
renovations (Kappy lives in Washington, DC). Rondi and Kappy are in
good"_ARC_".
Rondi should not be asked to disconnect from a family member this
violates PTS tech of what LRH says about family disconnection.
If Rondi disconnects from her step mother-in-law this is sure to
create antagonism and bring attention to the fact that she is doing
so. It could create a vacuum effect which all manner of A=A=A be
filled into
the vacuum by family members such as Kappy or Chris Wallace. It can
make matters worse for us as a group as for Rondi and her family. They
cd (sic) [could] think that Rondi is being forced into this
=brainwashing= occults, etc. etc. This would make the church look
"bad." Rondi has been on the Solo NOTS Certainty level now for a year
and is setting a good example for the family as an in ethics
Scientologist. It does _not_ make any sense to cause her to disconnect
and create antagonism as well. It is out "PR" someone who is saying
that Rondi should disconnect. The person who is making this decision
is mis-duplicating the situation here and as a result mis-applying the
tech. I hope that you will be able to see me re:
this matter before I leave.
Rondi can be reached at 813-446-[XXXX] - she has been held up at the MAA
this cycle now for 4 weeks and taken off her lines. This situation has
gotten onto my daughters lines already and Noelle my daughter is
looking at this, this is not good PR for her as you know. I'm handling
her and want to get her moving on the bridge and this situation does
not help at all. She, (Noelle) has been really helpful to Rondi and
has encouraged Rondi to get the data communicated more clearly and
precisely re: this matter. But Rondi has been too upset by this and
unable to really get this communicated to the proper lines and
terminals. Someone is misinterpreting this family situation and making
Rondi the brunt of it. I can be reached at 813-441-[XXXX]. I'm here for
only a few days more so please do get back to me or let me see you? If
so what day and what time before Tuesday of next week?
Thanks for your consideration.
ARC, Gloria Tinney
LA phone # 310-392-[XXXX]
==
Martin Ottmann, Scharnhauser Str. 19
73760 Ostfildern/Ruit, Germany
"And you, you gonna get glasses!"
David Miscavige towards Martin Ottmann, Clearwater 1992
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
[END REPOST]
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
Ydrrisil
Clare writes:>>Disconnection would be primarily used when someone one is
associated
with is antagonistic to the individual Scientologist. Maybe because of
his involvement in Scn, or it could be for any other reason in which the
Scn'ologist is being given a very bad time to the point where they are
absolutely miserable. The individual is encouraged to work things out
and communicate with whoever it is he isn't getting along with. That's
where the biggest emphasis is. Disconnection should only be used as a
last resort where nothing else is going to work.>>
I realize that you prefaced your posting with the caveat "in my experience"
which is fair enough. However your communication leaves out the greatest single
source of disconnection - declare.
If the church declares someone who is a friend of yours or who is family then
you will, sooner or later, be forced to disconnect from them. And yes this has
happened to me - both friends and family.
You agreement to it is not required - should you refuse you will, ultimately,
be declared yourself for adherence to a suppressive person.
This is one of the most evil aspects of this thuggish cult (and yes I know
full well where the word Thug comes from and it applies to this cult as well)
is that it forces disconnection to suit its own ends.
++++++++++++
Cavaliers - wrong but wromantic
Roundheads - right but repulsive
Tashback
Claire, you're not responding to my post, although you seem to think you
are. Certainly incest and abuse are reasons to disconnect from folks.
Impedence of spiritual progress is another matter.
We're not talking about abusers. We're talking about folks antagonistic to
your church. And, as ydrrisil pointed out, we're also talking about family
members and friends who have been declared by the church.
You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
Tash
In article <35983681...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is
> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
> person and restore harmony. And the idea is also that this is not
> necessarily permanent. I have (non-Scientology) friends who
> disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
> them.Naturally the friends objected to this and tried to get Daddy
> dearest to stop.Wouldn't stop. (here's a charming direct quote from one
> of the afore-mentioned Daddies: "I made 'em,I can touch 'em") And
> here's a big surprise, my friend "disconnected".And so would I have
> (after pouring a pound of sugar in the f**kers gastank). This is the
> type of thing disconnection is for. It would much sadder to stay in
> contact with such a creep. And the idea is also there that if said
> creep somehow managed to straighten up and fly right, his daughter might
> un-disconnect (reconnect?) and re-establish communication with him.
> Well,that's a pretty strong example, but it's only in really drastic
> cases that anyone should ever need to even consider disconnecting from
> family.
>
> In all the Scn centers I've ever been a part of, communication and love
> are stressed in re family relationships.
>
> Claire
Claire Swazey
LRonsScam wrote:
>
> >From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
> >Date: Sun, Jun 28, 1998 14:22 EDT
> >Message-id: <35967D59...@home.com>
> >
> >I am writing this from my perspective and based on my experiences, and
> >no one else's. I have noticed a great deal of coverage and concern on
> >the subject of disconnection and Scientologists. Here's what I know
> >about it:
> >
> >with is antagonistic to the individual Scientologist. Maybe because of
> >his involvement in Scn, or it could be for any other reason in which the
> >Scn'ologist is being given a very bad time to the point where they are
> >absolutely miserable. The individual is encouraged to work things out
> >and communicate with whoever it is he isn't getting along with. That's
> >where the biggest emphasis is. Disconnection should only be used as a
> >last resort where nothing else is going to work.
> >
> >heard where people were disconnected from where the implications were
> >that this was being used as emotional blackmail (as in: if you don't
> >believe what I believe and be a member of the group I'm a member of,I'm
> >going to have nothing to do with you) A particularly poignant example
> >was one Andreas quoted from, I believe, the Op Clambake guestbook, where
> >a woman told him that her husband had disconnected from their two young
> >children because they weren't scn'ologists. 3 possibilities arise that
> >I can see:
> >
> >1) Didn't happen.
> >2) Did happen,but there were missing facts.
> >3) Happened exactly as purported.
> >
> >For the purposes of this posting, I will go with possibility #3. If this
> >is the case, then Daddy is an absolute creep,using emotional blackmail
> >and/or an excuse to not see his kids. (I have known so many divorced
> >parents where once the divorce and custody hearing were over the mom who
> >got custody & her child(ren)never heard from daddy dearest again.Utterly
> >amazing to me that some people do not want to see their kids, and I know
> >this does not happen all the time, but it apparently does happen) Maybe
> >Daddy dearest was trying to hurt his exwife by hurting the kids.This
> >makes him even more of a creep. He probably was a creep before he ever
> >became a Scn'ologist.
> >
> >scn, and who was, for a time, involved in a "squirrel" group operated by
> >a friend. I have another parent who has made her dislike of scn no
> >secret as she prefers traditional medicine,preachers,etc. I have a
> >relative who had ect and heavy psychiatric drugs/institutionalization,
> >and is on the meds to this day, although not the other two things.I have
> >NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
> >different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
> >Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
> >with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
> >proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
> >
> >family member when such action was entirely unnecessary.
> >
> > All I can say to you is that people who disconnect from family when no
> >one is trying to stop them from doing what they want to do, where the
> >motive is purely manipulative, well, those people are wrong and they are
> >not practicing scientology. An analogy would be with other religions,
> >where you have a Christian, Moslem or Jewish person who uses his or her
> >religion to make other people feel like dirt. Not all members of these
> >religions do that, in fact most of the ones I met were pretty nice. But
> >one DOES run across people who use their religious beliefs to try to
> >hurt and control others. What is that quote from Twain-- something to
> >the effect that Christianity would be a good idea if only the Christians
> >would practice it? Well, I say the same about Scientology.
> >
> >
> >Claire
> ></PRE></HTML>
>
> Your Ideas of disconnection are silly.
No. Just informed.
> Why do you think that Hubbard called the
> person PTS or Potential Trouble Source if they didn't disconnect from an SP?
> Because the entheta or truth they learned from that SP might influence them
> away from Hubbard and his beliefs and cause problems for Scientology.
>
> Hubbard's maxim, of a third unknown person can only start an argument amongst
> two people is a case in point. If Hubbard took you by the arm and told you his
> side of the story, as long as you never heard the other guys story you would
> believe Hubbard right?
Not necessarily so.
>So this PTS and Disconnection and almost every thing
> else I have seen in Hubbard's jargon has to do with separating the individual
> from other people's ideas and that my friend is what makes Scientology
> brainwashing and a cult.
just not true. My own family life is a case in point and far more
typical of Scn disconnection policy than you obviously think...
Claire Swazey
Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is
making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
person and restore harmony. And the idea is also that this is not
necessarily permanent. I have (non-Scientology) friends who
disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
them.Naturally the friends objected to this and tried to get Daddy
dearest to stop.Wouldn't stop. (here's a charming direct quote from one
of the afore-mentioned Daddies: "I made 'em,I can touch 'em") And
here's a big surprise, my friend "disconnected".And so would I have
(after pouring a pound of sugar in the f**kers gastank). This is the
type of thing disconnection is for. It would much sadder to stay in
contact with such a creep. And the idea is also there that if said
creep somehow managed to straighten up and fly right, his daughter might
un-disconnect (reconnect?) and re-establish communication with him.
Well,that's a pretty strong example, but it's only in really drastic
cases that anyone should ever need to even consider disconnecting from
family.
In all the Scn centers I've ever been a part of, communication and love
are stressed in re family relationships.
Claire
Tashback wrote:
>
> In article <35967D59...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > In my own case, I have one parent that has gotten his money back frm
> > scn, and who was, for a time, involved in a "squirrel" group operated by
> > a friend. I have another parent who has made her dislike of scn no
> > secret as she prefers traditional medicine,preachers,etc. I have a
> > relative who had ect and heavy psychiatric drugs/institutionalization,
> > and is on the meds to this day, although not the other two things.I have
> > NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
> > different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
> > Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
> > with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
> > proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of CoS's disconnection policy.
>
> Your implication, though, is that if your family were antagonistic toward
> CoS, the church would require that you choose between leaving your faith
> and disconnecting from your family (after the obligatory efforts to try to
> turn your family around). That's been my understanding of the
> disconnection policy; please tell me if I'm wrong.
>
> Forcing an individual to make such a choice seems horrible. If the person
> actually believes that his spiritual future -- or salvation -- or whatever
> it is that's so vitally important to him -- is at stake, and the
> organization providing that much-valued service demands disconnection from
> family ... well, you can see how the policy creeps some of us out.
>
> Scientology does have a reputation for ripping families apart. If indeed
> it forces parishioners to disconnect from their families when the family
> remains antagonistic to the church, that reputation is well-earned.
>
> > Some of you may know of situations where people disconnected from a
> > family member when such action was entirely unnecessary.
> >
> > All I can say to you is that people who disconnect from family when no
> > one is trying to stop them from doing what they want to do, where the
> > motive is purely manipulative, well, those people are wrong and they are
> > not practicing scientology. An analogy would be with other religions,
> > where you have a Christian, Moslem or Jewish person who uses his or her
> > religion to make other people feel like dirt. Not all members of these
> > religions do that, in fact most of the ones I met were pretty nice. But
> > one DOES run across people who use their religious beliefs to try to
> > hurt and control others. What is that quote from Twain-- something to
> > the effect that Christianity would be a good idea if only the Christians
> > would practice it? Well, I say the same about Scientology.
>
Claire Swazey
Tashback wrote:
>
> Claire, you're not responding to my post, although you seem to think you
> are. Certainly incest and abuse are reasons to disconnect from folks.
> Impedence of spiritual progress is another matter.
>
> We're not talking about abusers. We're talking about folks antagonistic to
> your church. And, as ydrrisil pointed out, we're also talking about family
> members and friends who have been declared by the church.
>
> You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
> and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
> Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
>
> Tash
I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
disconnect from them. I have been around in alot of orgs & missions and
I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection.
And, one of the points I DID make in the afore-mentioned post is that
when people DO disconnect when they should not have,when they could have
just live and let live, that this is not Scn policy.As a former staff
member and a course supervisor I know whereof I speak. Please have the
goodness to not attribute "knowledge" to me that I do not possess.
Claire
Inducto
I posted:
>CoS' theoretical ideals sound nice, and are certainly sometimes practiced in
>members' experience, but here is a repost of an interesting case of forced
>disconnection for only the flimsiest of connections -- and possibly simply
>for
>the purpose of punishing non-CoS outsiders designated SPs, by causing them to
>suffer family disruptions -- apparently ordered at some of the highest
>levels
>of CoS.
Interesting, Claire seems to have responded to other posts, but not this one.
I personally know of situations where a family member was no more antagonistic
towards CoS than her family, less actually, but because someone had been
declared "SP" for things that happened years ago, family members who joined CoS
were forced to disconnect automatically as a matter of policy.
I.
H Alan Montgomery
In article <359870B3...@home.com>
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> writes:
>Tashback wrote:
>>
>> Claire, you're not responding to my post, although you seem to think you
>> are. Certainly incest and abuse are reasons to disconnect from folks.
>> Impedence of spiritual progress is another matter.
>>
>> We're not talking about abusers. We're talking about folks antagonistic to
>> your church. And, as ydrrisil pointed out, we're also talking about family
>> members and friends who have been declared by the church.
>>
>> You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
>> and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
>> Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
>>
>> Tash
>
>I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
>my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
>disconnect from them. I have been around in alot of orgs & missions and
>I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection.
>And, one of the points I DID make in the afore-mentioned post is that
>when people DO disconnect when they should not have,when they could have
>just live and let live, that this is not Scn policy.As a former staff
>member and a course supervisor I know whereof I speak. Please have the
>goodness to not attribute "knowledge" to me that I do not possess.
>
from the 1960's and the disconnection policy is tearing families
apart. I see the mention of it in Bare Faced Messiah and it is
tearing families apart. I see a post on this NG about a girl who had
a sister that disconnect from her when she had not even SAID
anything about Co$. Then Claire comes along and and says, "I
personally have not experieneced this. I have been in alot of orgs
and it was not mentioned there. It thus follows that the
disconnection policy is as I perceive it, not as how the external
world perceives."
The problem with that type of analysis is that you can NEVER
disprove an assertion. It always comes back to "What is true for me,
is true." Claire, if you choose to believe that the disconnection
policy is as you describe, that is fine, but other people have had
different experiences. By saying that you have the final word you
invalidate their experiences by saying that they are wrong or
misguided or just plain lying. Have you considered that the reason
you have no conflicting information is because people at the orgs
you were with would be frightened or ashamed of talking about their
disconnection experiences? The only way you could defend you
position is to say, "Hey! At every org I was in I asked around and
the disconnection policy was applied in an evenhanded, fair way."
Even then it would not adequately invalidate the experiences of
other people.
As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS
abused, but that it can easily be abused. ALl a member of the
management of an org would have to do is demand that you disconnect
from someone. If you refused, they could send you to ethics. If the
management was adament about sending you to ethics and would not
allow you receive auditing until you disconnected, what would you
do? Appeal their decision? How? Overe and over again it has been
shown that the justice system within Co$ does not actually provide
justice.
Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire. Objective reality
conflicts with your experiences. You could if you wanted test what I
have said by asking around current members at your org, but it would
be rather dangerous to do so.
Mike O'Connor
> Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is
> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
> person and restore harmony.
[...]
Here is an excerpt from THE ROAD TO XENU by Margery Wakefield. Is this
what you mean, swazey?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Your mother and I have been reading about this Scientology," he told me.
He took some newspaper clippings from his briefcase. "Here. I want
you to read these."
I picked up one of the clippings. It was from Time Magazine. The writer
was obviously biased against Scientology. In the article Scientology
was called a cult.
"Scientology's not a cult," I informed my father. "It's just a group of
people trying to make a difference in the world. This writer obviously
didn't talk to anyone in Scientology or he wouldn't have written these
things." I handed the article back to him.
"Well, there are other articles," he handed me several other articles. I
looked through them. The orientation of the writers was obvious.
"Dad, this is just entheta," I told him, remembering what Hubbard had
taught about this kind of journalism on one of his tapes. "That means
it is against theta, or goodness. We're not supposed to read this
stuff," I told him coldly, pushing the articles back to his side of the
table.
"But just read some of them," he pleaded with me.
"I don't need to read them. I know what they say without reading them.
They are written by the suppressive press. These writers are paid by
their bosses to write this stuff. They want to destroy Scientology
because it works.
There are vested interests in this country who don't want to see
Scientology expand. It is a threat to them because they want to enslave
people and Scientology is in the business of freeing people." Out of my
mouth were coming the phrases I had heard over and over on Hubbard's
training tapes.
"You are in a dangerous cult," my father argued with me. "We want you to
quit this foolishness and come home. That's why I am here. I have come
to get you and to take you home."
I looked at my dad with disbelief. He was beginning to sound like a
Suppressive Person. A very unpleasant thought began to form in my mind.
Could it be possible that my dad was an SP? "How does mom feel about
this?" I asked him.
"She totally agrees. We both want you home. You can go back to the
university. If you come back now, you can still enroll for the spring
semester." He was looking at me hopefully.
"I don't want to come back. I don't want to go back to school. This is
where I belong. I have a job here. I am helping to Clear the planet.
There is nothing on this whole planet more important than Scientology.
These writers are wrong about Scientology. Scientology is the only hope
on this planet that any of us have." I was beginning to get desperate.
Could my father force me to go back with him?
"No, you are wrong," my father said, beginning to sound angry. "This
Scientology is nonsense. You are in a cult. And I am going to take you
home. I want you to get your things and come with me. I have a ticket
for you to come back with me to Michigan." He pulled the ticket from
his pocket. It was made out in my name.
I started to cry. "Dad, I can't come back with you. I don't care what
you think about Scientology, you just don't understand. You can't tell
me what to do anymore. I'm eighteen. Scientology is my life. I've
signed a contract to work here and I'm not leaving."
"What kind of contract?" he asked suspiciously.
"A Sea Org contract. I signed a contract to work for the Sea Org for a
billion years. We're going to clear the planet. Then we're going to
clear all the other planets in the universe. Scientology is the first
chance in millions of years for us to be free. And I'm not going to
mess it up. There's nothing in the world out there that I want to do.
How could I go back to music school when I have a chance here to help
with something really important?"
He looked at me with a combination of exasperation and disbelief. "How
can I get you to see the truth about what you are involved in?" he asked
me. "Can't you see the absurdity of what you are saying? A billion year
contract? Clearing the planet? This is nonsense. You need to come to
your senses." Now he was really sounding angry.
"Dad, I'm not coming back with you. I'll have dinner with you and talk
to you, but I'm not coming back to Michigan. And you can't make me." I
was not about to give in.
He stared helplessly out the window. Then he turned to me and started
speaking in a kinder, less angry voice.
"Look, I know we have never shown much affection in our family. But you
know that we love you. We care about you. Why do you think I came all
the way out here to see you? We all care. Your brothers and sister
miss you too. We all want you back home."
"And what will you do if I don't come?" I asked him.
"We'll try something to get you back. Legally. We'll fight. We'll sue
this cult if we have to. We're not going to give to up to some
harebrained cult," he threatened.
Now I knew the truth. My father was an SP. Hubbard had made it clear. I
had read all the teachings on the Suppressive Person on the course. The
basic crime of Suppressive Persons was to attack Scientology, the only
force for good and reason on the planet.
I had read about this in the Ethics book. The Suppressive Person was
also called the "anti-social personality," or the "anti-Scientologist."
"There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause
about 20% of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or
group," Hubbard had written. Such people, he said, cause untold trouble
for betterment groups such as Scientology. "The anti-social personality
supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any
constructive or betterment group." Of course, I thought. My father
works for the government. According to Hubbard, the government is
completely suppressive. I had listened to tapes where he had told us
all about the suppressive agencies in the federal government: the IRS,
the FDA, the FBI, the National Institute for Mental Health. The
government, explained Hubbard, was a suppressive organization that
controlled this country. But the real truth was that behind this
government was an invisible govenrnment that most people didn't know
about. It consisted of a secret group of twelve extremely powerful men
who were the real source of power in the world. They were particularly
connected with the World Health Organization in Europe. And they pulled
the strings that ran this country. And the people who worked for the
government, like my father, were just minor suppressives that were
attracted to this kind of work because it was consistent with their real
inner evil natures.
I stared at my father with amazement. My eyes were being opened. Now I
understood why there had been so much trouble in our family. My father
was, as Hubbard put it, a "blazing SP."
"Look, I'm not coming home. And I don't want you to cause any trouble
for Scientology. That would just get us both in trouble." I looked at
him coldly. I got up from the table. "I'm going back to the center. I
can't stay here with you. I'm sorry you wasted your trip but you did
that on your own determinism, and I can't take responsibility for it
(more Scientology-talk)."
I walked out the door, not looking back at him.
I ran back to the center, and burst into Aileen's office. "Aileen, my
dad is threatening to sue Scientology. He says it's a cult. He wanted
me to go back home with him," I said, obviously upset.
She looked at me, concerned. "Why? What happened? Tell me exactly what
happened and what he said."
I related the whole event to her. She looked troubled.
"I'm afraid I'll have to write up a knowledge report about this," she
told me. "It seems that your father could be a source of trouble for us.
You'll have to work this out with Ethics. And until it's handled, I'm
afraid you won't be able to go back on course. But the first thing that
you need to do is to go and report everything that has happened to the
MAA."
She pulled a routing form out of her top drawer. At the top it said,
"Ethics Routing Form."
Several minutes later, I sat in the chair opposite the teenage Ethics
Officer, telling him the same story I had told Aileen.
"I would like to indicate that your father is a Suppressive Person," he
looked across the desk at me as if I were infected with a deadly virus,
"and the policy on suppressives is very clear." He handed me a policy
letter written by Hubbard. I read through it carefully. The policy on
suppressives, according to Hubbard, was to "handle" or "disconnect."
"What does that mean?" I asked the young boy sitting across from me.
Wrong question. "What word don't you understand?" he looked at me with
emotionless eyes.
"I understand the words. I just don't understand what I'm supposed to
do," I said.
"Very simple. Either you handle your father. That means to the point
where he is willing that you continue in the Sea Org, or you will have
to disconnect from him. You will have to send him a disconnect letter."
"Disconnect letter?" It sounded ominous.
"Yes. I can help you write it. You will tell him that you want no
contact with him or with the rest of your family now or at any point in
the future. You will formally disconnect from your suppressive family.
And until you handle the situation in one way or the other, you won't be
allowed back on course. That's policy. I'm going to give you twenty
four hours to make your decision. You are to report back to me at this
same time tomorrow." The policy, I realized, was black and white. Like
everything else in Scientology. There was no room for feeling. Not
that I minded the lack of emotion with which this and similar situations
were handled in Scientology. I had already done enough TR 0 bullbaited
to not feel much about anything. But to tell your parents goodbye
forever... I squirmed inwardly at the thought. Yet I believed in the
policy. I was already conditioned to believe that if Hubbard said it,
it must be right. I knew that Hubbard's way would always be the best
and most rational solution because he was "Source." In just a few short
weeks, Hubbard had already assumed occupancy of the place in my mind
allocated to Father, or Dad. He loved me, I believed, even more than my
own father did. He was father to us all.
I walked back to the house, having been barred from the course until this
problem was resolved. I thought of my dad. He'll be home in a couple
of hours, I thought. I'll call him and maybe he'll be more reasonable.
Maybe he can be "handled."
But in my mind the decision had already been made. My father had taken
on the color of the enemy. I no longer thought of him as father. All
these years, I thought, I had been living with an SP and not known it.
This explained all the conflict in my family. And by virtue of being
married to an SP, my mother was by (Scientology) definition a "PTS," or
Potential Trouble Source. And both of them were now endangering my
Scientology career.
If they didn't agree to back off, I thought, I will have to disconnect. I
have to get back on course. Already my stats for the week are crashed,
I thought dismally, wondering what ethics condition I would be assigned
for the week.
I lay on my bed, thinking back over all the years with my father. I
thought of the twelve characteristics Hubbard lists in the Ethics book
as being characteristic of an SP.
"1. He or she speaks only in broad generalities." Yeah, I thought, my
dad is always talking about "they this" and "they that."
"2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical remarks,
invalidation and general suppression." Bulls eye, I thought. My father
had a definite tendency to be critical. I thought of all the times he
came home complaining about his co-workers, criticizing what they had
done during the day.
"3. The anti-social personality alters, to worsen communication...
passes on `bad news.'" Again I thought of times when my dad told us
less than flattering stories about the "imbeciles" he worked with.
"4. He does not respond to treatment or psychotherapy." Once, I
remembered, my mother had tried to get my dad into counseling to work on
their marriage and he refused to go.
"5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or
friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a
crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding." My mother is always
sick, I thought, and what about my problems. And my sister is always
having trouble in school. I didn't need to read any further. There was
no doubt in my mind. My dad was an SP. And now he was trying to
interfere with me trying to help Scientology clear the planet. I began
to feel angry. I'm not going to let him do this to me, I thought. I'm
going to get ethics in on my family. If I have to disconnect, then
that's what I'll do.
I waited for the hours to pass. I was dreading the call. Finally I
walked down to the convenience store a couple of blocks away and placed
the call. My mother answered the phone. She sounded cheerful. "Hi,
dear. We were just thinking about you."
"Is dad there?" I asked her coldly. I knew what I was up against. My
mother had no idea of the situation she was in, that she was PTS to a
deadly SP. "Yes, he just got in. I'm so disappointed that you didn't
come back with him. But you need to know that we love you and we'll
always be here for you." "Could I just talk to dad?"
He came on the line. "Margery, we're not going to give up without a
fight. You tell Scientology that they will hear from my lawyer. I'm not
going to stand for this nonsense."
"OK, dad. I'm sorry you feel that way. Tell mom goodbye for me," I
said, then quickly hung up the phone.
There's no going back now, I thought. I went back to the house and spent
a sleepless night tossing to and fro, my sleep haunted with nightmares
about my father. In one dream, he had a gun and was standing outside
the center shooting through the windows.
The next morning I walked over to center and went directly to the Ethics
office.
"I need to disconnect from my family," I stated calmly. "There's no hope
of ever dealing rationally with my father. He's insane on the subject
of Scientology. Hubbard was sure right about SP's. They hate what we
are doing to save this planet."
"So what do I have to do?" I looked across at the teenage Master at
Arms. "Here's what you have to write," he replied, handing me a blank
sheet of paper and a pen. He began to dictate. "I am writing to notify
you that I hereby disconnect from you." He paused as I wrote. "I want
no further contact with you at any time or under any circumstances.
This decision is irrevocable." I wrote down exactly what he said.
"Now sign it," he commanded. Then he handed me an envelope. "You can
make this out and we will mail it for you."
I addressed the envelope.
"That's all there is to it," he said matter of factly. "I will give you
a form to get you back on course. You're going to have to push to get
your stats back up."
"I know," I answered. "But I'll do it. Thursday is still three days
away." I walked back to the courseroom. Just like that, I thought. I
tried to comprehend the fact that I would never see or write to my
parents ever again. Somehow, it didn't seem real. I couldn't quite
imagine life without mom and dad to fall back on.
"Well, I guess I'm on my own now," I thought. "I know I did the right
thing. I just wish I felt better about it."
For a moment I had a fleeting thought to run back up the street to the
store to call my dad and ask him for the ticket back home.
But I quickly pushed the thought from my mind. "Family," I thought to
myself, "is the second dynamic. The Sea Org is the third dynamic."
Then I repeated to myself the phrase I was to hear many times in the
coming years. "The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics,"
I thought. "Scientology must survive. My relationship with my family is
not important. All that is important is clearing the planet."
I can't think about them any more, I told myself as I approached the
center. They are no longer my family. Scientology is my family. And
this is my real home.
I walked resolutely into the courseroom. I was more determined than ever
to do well in Scientology.
I didn't think about my family again for a long time. I read the letters
from my mother that would arrive periodically at the center, but I would
throw them in the trash, feeling no emotion whatsoever.
I had passed my first initiation.
I was now a real Scientologist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Mike
DeoMorto
Claire Swazey wrote:>> I have (non-Scientology) friends who
> > disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
> > them.Naturally the friends objected to this and tried to get Daddy
> > dearest to stop.Wouldn't stop. (here's a charming direct quote from one
> > of the afore-mentioned Daddies: "I made 'em,I can touch 'em") And
> > here's a big surprise, my friend "disconnected".And so would I have
> > (after pouring a pound of sugar in the f**kers gastank). This is the
> > type of thing disconnection is for. It would much sadder to stay in
> > contact with such a creep.
I had refrained from posting on this until this disingenuous posting of
yours.
You are equating disconnection with the handling of sexual abuse - the two
are neither similar nor even in the same category of thing and your attempt to
try and draw a parallel is odious in the extreme.
My step son disconnected from his mother on new years day - he did it by
phoning to her and telling her that because I was delcared, he was
disconnecting from her as part of a "handling" from an ethics office.
Notwithstanding the fact that my has not been declared - the other fact is
that as a family we have never objected to his being involved in scientology -
and in fact I kept communication at a bare minimum between us so that his
progress would not be impeded.
So you posting is a fabrication - this is not the way it works at all.
What it takes if for the church to decide that someone is a suppressive and
thus enforec the disconnection - there is no doubt about it Clare and your
attempts to make it appear as if it is only used when there is some desperate
situation are obfuscation and attempts to disguise this malevolent practice as
something other than the controlling manipulation that it is.
How would you descriobe an organization that labels people for its own ends
and then enforces communication or non-communication upon its own members based
on diktat?
A NAZI organization - and that would be being charitable.
You are shilling for scum
"He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put
it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
DeoMorto
Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person
is
making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
person and restore harmony>>
This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the
Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing to do
with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
What you wrote is a lie - pure and simple. It is not "from your personal
knowledge" it is a PR line that has been fed to you.
Either you have had so little to do with scientology that you really have not
had anything to do with its odious nature - inwhich case you are in no position
at all to talk about disconnection for or against or you are running a PR line
on behalf of OSA.
Disconnection is used by the CofS to force people to conform. It was used to
break up my family - when there was no situation to handle - I had made no
objection at all to my stepson following his own path as he saw fit. He was, at
the time of disconnection - living over 4,000 miles from my wife and I and we
had not physically met in the past twelve months.
So, pray tell how does your paragraph cover this?
Cat O'Blivion
Claire Swazey wrote:
> Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is
> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
<snip>
> I have (non-Scientology) friends who
> disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
> them.
Excuse me, Claire? Are you attempting to equate disagreement
with the "church" of scientology and incest???
Here's a clue, Claire: incest, just like all other forms
of child sexual abuse is illegal, not to mention
profoundly psychologically damaging (although apparently
L. Ron Hubbard didn't seem to think it was that traumatic,
so you may not, either). A person disagreeing with the
official teachings of a particular "church" is, at the
worst, merely annoying.
Refusing to have any contact with someone because of their
history of abusive and/or exploitative behaviour is not the
same as refusing to have any contact with someone because
your "church" says so.
Let's not confuse the issue, here. It trivializes the
experiences of survivors of sexual abuse and only proves
your insensitivity and inability to evaluate data.
Cat
SP4, KoX
heretic-at-large
"Marble-heavy, a bag full of God,
Ghastly statue with one grey toe
Big as a Frisco seal"
Tashback
In article <359870B3...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> Tashback wrote:
<snip>
> > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
> > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
> > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> >
> > Tash
>
> I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
> my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
> disconnect from them.
I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people
who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents,
and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand
disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family
is unusual?
Yes, I saw what you said:
> I have
> NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
> different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
> Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
> with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
> proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
Because your family has a live-and-let-live attitude about your
involvement, CoS has not demanded that you make a them-or-us choice. But
what if your family didn't have a live-and-let-live attitude about it?
What if your family were actively trying to convince you to leave CoS?
Would the organization then demand that you make a choice between
remaining in the church and continuing to communicate with your family?
You seem to regard the disconnections reported by others as violation of
proper application of the disconnection policy. That may or may not be so;
I'm not familiar enough with it to know. But even you say, if I understand
you correctly, that the reason you haven't been advised to disconnect from
your family is that your family isn't hassling you about your involvement.
Claire, families hassle other family members about their involvement in
religions/organizations/whatever all the time. The idea that said
religion/organization/whatever would demand disconnection from family for
that reason is creepy. And *that* seems to be the disconnection policy
you're defending.
Tash
Tashback
In article <359AE2B0...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and
> trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a
> problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted
> to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have
> to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I
> could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look
> long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or
> not.
Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to
which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
> Tashback wrote:
> >
> > In article <359870B3...@home.com>, Claire Swazey
<swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Tashback wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
> > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
> > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> > > >
> > > > Tash
> > >
> > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
> > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
> > > disconnect from them.
> >
> > I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people
> > who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents,
> > and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand
> > disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family
> > is unusual?
>
> let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his
> money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her
> opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather
> sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with
> slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I
> was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the
> family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual
> about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact
> same history. Sure,ok.
That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it *outside of
Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who
disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to
have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to
support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship
(and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is
nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a
*Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's
not unusual outside of Scientology.
<snip>
> I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another
> example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
OK. I look forward to reading your posts. I hope you will respond to DeoMorto.
Tash
Claire Swazey
Hi:
H Alan Montgomery wrote:
>
> In article <359870B3...@home.com>
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> writes:
>
> >Tashback wrote:
> >>
> >> Claire, you're not responding to my post, although you seem to think you
> >> are. Certainly incest and abuse are reasons to disconnect from folks.
> >> Impedence of spiritual progress is another matter.
> >>
> >> We're not talking about abusers. We're talking about folks antagonistic to
> >> your church. And, as ydrrisil pointed out, we're also talking about family
> >> members and friends who have been declared by the church.
> >>
> >> You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
> >> and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
> >> Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> >>
> >> Tash
> >
> >I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
> >my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
> >disconnect from them. I have been around in alot of orgs & missions and
> >I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection.
> >And, one of the points I DID make in the afore-mentioned post is that
> >when people DO disconnect when they should not have,when they could have
> >just live and let live, that this is not Scn policy.As a former staff
> >member and a course supervisor I know whereof I speak. Please have the
> >goodness to not attribute "knowledge" to me that I do not possess.
> >
> This is a really strange concept to me. I read the Anderson Report
> from the 1960's and the disconnection policy is tearing families
> apart. I see the mention of it in Bare Faced Messiah and it is
> tearing families apart. I see a post on this NG about a girl who had
> a sister that disconnect from her when she had not even SAID
> anything about Co$. Then Claire comes along and and says, "I
> personally have not experieneced this. I have been in alot of orgs
> and it was not mentioned there. It thus follows that the
> disconnection policy is as I perceive it, not as how the external
> world perceives."
>
> The problem with that type of analysis is that you can NEVER
> disprove an assertion. It always comes back to "What is true for me,
> is true." Claire, if you choose to believe that the disconnection
> policy is as you describe, that is fine, but other people have had
> different experiences. By saying that you have the final word you
> invalidate their experiences by saying that they are wrong or
> misguided or just plain lying. Have you considered that the reason
> you have no conflicting information is because people at the orgs
> you were with would be frightened or ashamed of talking about their
> disconnection experiences? The only way you could defend you
> position is to say, "Hey! At every org I was in I asked around and
> the disconnection policy was applied in an evenhanded, fair way."
> Even then it would not adequately invalidate the experiences of
> other people.
I don't ask around all that much, I keep my eyes and ears open. I find
out alot more that way, truly.
If management habitually in an arbitrary manner told people to
disconnect from family when all that was needed was a little
communications- if that *really* was common, it certainly would have
happened to me. Yet out of 7 orgs and missions where I've been on
lines- 0 asked or told me to do so. I think that says something.
I realize that abuses may happen and I have seen some accounts of
improper disconnection posted here and webbed as well. All I can say is
that when such things occur, (improperly, I mean) that this is not
right. It is not Scientology. I think we have all seen people and
organizations who did not act in accordance with
policies,beliefs,creeds,standards,mores, etc, that they supposedly
subscribed to, both in and outside Scientology. But I do not think that
the majority of people and organizations betray their standards as a
regular course of events. But it does happen, both in the
non-Scientology world and in Scientology. But I believe,based on my
experiences and knowing the people I know and have known, that abuse of
disconnection is not encouraged or wanted in Scientology. I know a man
whose wife is a non-Scientologist. The man is a dyed in the wool
Scientologist. The wife has trouble seeing the attraction. For a while
there was some disharmony on the home front. Even then, the Org did not
order the guy to disconnect from his wife. They suggested better
communication. I think this must have worked as they are still
together. She is still a non-Scientologist but they are happy together
and no one's pressuring them to split up.
As far as being sent to Ethics, that, in my opinion is really not a big
deal. (shall I get my flame suit ready?) Really. In the occasions I
have seen an Ethics Officer, the first thing (s)he did was just to ask
me what was going on. I have found the experience to be generally
painless. In fact, I know of someone (my husband) who has been told a
certain thing by an Ethics Officer (this has happened to John a couple
times) and given a certain indication and John explained that this was
not the case. And he was *listened* to seriously.
Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to
Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member
did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the
person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation
cleared up. The person can then explain to the Ethics Officer what did
happen. I know at my Org, the Ethics Officer takes such things
seriously and listens to the person. The treatment is fair.
>
> As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS
> abused, but that it can easily be abused. ALl a member of the
> management of an org would have to do is demand that you disconnect
> from someone. If you refused, they could send you to ethics. If the
> management was adament about sending you to ethics and would not
> allow you receive auditing until you disconnected, what would you
> do? Appeal their decision? How? Overe and over again it has been
> shown that the justice system within Co$ does not actually provide
> justice.
See prev paragraph- I forgot I wasn't at the bottom of the posting and
put everything up there...
>
> Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
Objective reality
> conflicts with your experiences. You could if you wanted test what I
> have said by asking around current members at your org, but it would
> be rather dangerous to do so.
Regards,
Claire
Claire Swazey
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> Claire Swazey wrote:>> I have (non-Scientology) friends who
> > > disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
> > > them.Naturally the friends objected to this and tried to get Daddy
> > > dearest to stop.Wouldn't stop. (here's a charming direct quote from one
> > > of the afore-mentioned Daddies: "I made 'em,I can touch 'em") And
> > > here's a big surprise, my friend "disconnected".And so would I have
> > > (after pouring a pound of sugar in the f**kers gastank). This is the
> > > type of thing disconnection is for. It would much sadder to stay in
> > > contact with such a creep.
>
> yours.
> You are equating disconnection with the handling of sexual abuse - the two
> are neither similar nor even in the same category of thing and your attempt to
> try and draw a parallel is odious in the extreme.
> My step son disconnected from his mother on new years day - he did it by
> phoning to her and telling her that because I was delcared, he was
> disconnecting from her as part of a "handling" from an ethics office.
> Notwithstanding the fact that my has not been declared - the other fact is
> that as a family we have never objected to his being involved in scientology -
> and in fact I kept communication at a bare minimum between us so that his
> progress would not be impeded.
> So you posting is a fabrication - this is not the way it works at all.
No, is not a fabrication. This is the way it works in general. I have
been around enough and been a student and staff member at enough centers
to know this. But this is not to say abuses do not happen. People are
not perfect, people do not always do what is right.
> What it takes if for the church to decide that someone is a suppressive and
> thus enforec the disconnection - there is no doubt about it Clare and your
> attempts to make it appear as if it is only used when there is some desperate
> situation are obfuscation and attempts to disguise this malevolent practice as
> something other than the controlling manipulation that it is.
> How would you descriobe an organization that labels people for
>its own ends
No obfuscation here. Look at my own unusual family history. This was
not exaggerated. In fact it (the family history,I mean) was even worse
than that-- 7 Scn Ctrs did not find it necessary to ask me to
disconnect.That is fact,not fiction.
> and then enforces communication or non-communication upon its own members based
> on diktat?
> A NAZI organization - and that would be being charitable.
> You are shilling for scum
I am not shilling.I am a person putting in her two cents via usenet,as
you are doing.
I am sorry we are not in accord, and obviously your experiences have
been very different from mine and I am more sorry than I can possibly
say about that.
> "He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put
> it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
Best wishes,
Claire Swazey
Claire Swazey
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person
> is
> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
>
> This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the
> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing to do
> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
Not true.
>
> What you wrote is a lie - pure and simple.
I do not lie to this newsgroup and I do not PR,either. No one's feeding
me anything.I post on my own.
> It is not "from your personal
> knowledge" it is a PR line that has been fed to you.
>
> Either you have had so little to do with scientology that you really have not
> had anything to do with its odious nature - inwhich case you are in no position
> at all to talk about disconnection for or against or you are running a PR line
> on behalf of OSA.
neither is true.
>
> Disconnection is used by the CofS to force people to conform. It was used to
> break up my family - when there was no situation to handle - I had made no
> objection at all to my stepson following his own path as he saw fit. He was, at
> the time of disconnection - living over 4,000 miles from my wife and I and we
> had not physically met in the past twelve months.
>
> So, pray tell how does your paragraph cover this?
See previous postings.
>
>
Claire Swazey
Not confusing or trivializing anything. I just was giving an example of
an appropriate cause for disconnection.
Cat O'Blivion wrote:
>
> Claire Swazey wrote:
>
> > Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is
> > making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
> > person and restore harmony.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I have (non-Scientology) friends who
> > disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
Claire Swazey
If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and
trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a
problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted
to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have
to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I
could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look
long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or
not.
Tashback wrote:
>
> In article <359870B3...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Tashback wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
> > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
> > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> > >
> > > Tash
> >
> > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
> > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
> > disconnect from them.
>
> I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people
> who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents,
> and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand
> disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family
> is unusual?
let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his
money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her
opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather
sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with
slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I
was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the
family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual
about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact
same history. Sure,ok.
>
> Yes, I saw what you said:
>
> > I have
> > NEVER been advised, by ANY of the several orgs and missions in the
> > different parts of the country, to disconnect from my family. Why?
> > Because my family has a live and let live attitude about my involvement
> > with Scn and I am on good terms with them, and they love me and are
> > proud of me, so there's no problem, real or imagined.
>
> Because your family has a live-and-let-live attitude about your
> involvement, CoS has not demanded that you make a them-or-us choice. But
> what if your family didn't have a live-and-let-live attitude about it?
Well,they didn't always.And even then I was not told to dump 'em.
> What if your family were actively trying to convince you to leave CoS?
> Would the organization then demand that you make a choice between
> remaining in the church and continuing to communicate with your family?
>
> You seem to regard the disconnections reported by others as violation of
> proper application of the disconnection policy. That may or may not be so;
> I'm not familiar enough with it to know. But even you say, if I understand
> you correctly, that the reason you haven't been advised to disconnect from
> your family is that your family isn't hassling you about your involvement.
>
> Claire, families hassle other family members about their involvement in
> religions/organizations/whatever all the time. The idea that said
> religion/organization/whatever would demand disconnection from family for
> that reason is creepy. And *that* seems to be the disconnection policy
> you're defending.
>
> Tash
I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another
example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
Claire
Claire Swazey
Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
> In article <35967D59...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >I am writing this from my perspective and based on my experiences, and
> >no one else's.
>
>
> You can't base your entire perception of reality on your own personal
> first-hand experiences.
Yes,actually I can, but I know that you do not think this is a good
idea.
> In fact, if you examine your own beliefs (about
> anything, not just scientology) carefully and honestly, you'll find that
> you accept a lot of information that comes to you through book education
> and common lore.
No,I think I will not find that. I keep my eyes and ears open.
>
> I have noticed a great deal of coverage and concern on
> >the subject of disconnection and Scientologists. Here's what I know
> >about it:
>
> Your own personal experiences are of value to yourself, of course.
> Still, you seem to presenting this as if I (as one of many you are
> addressing) should violate your own precept of believing only what
> one experiences for oneself, which means I should not believe a word
> you say so long as anyone I know, or trust, or believe, has a contrary
> first-hand story to tell.
>
> Since I do not, in fact, accept that, I am willing to conditionally
> believe that you yourself have never experienced, nor have you known
> anyone who has experienced, the more disgusting forms of disconnection.
>
> So if I accept your word for your own experiences, I will also accept
> the word of those who have directly experienced the more repugnant
> forms of disconnection.
Well,as you undoubtedly know, I have covered this already.
>
> Fair enough?
>
> --Barbara
Claire Swazey
Tashback wrote:
>
> In article <359AE2B0...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and
> > trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a
> > problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted
> > to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have
> > to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I
> > could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look
> > long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or
> > not.
>
> which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or
told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted
to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has
come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists
(and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what
anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with
them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly
believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS
all the time,for sure.
Claire
>
> > Tashback wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <359870B3...@home.com>, Claire Swazey
> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tashback wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers
> > > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
> > > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tash
> > > >
> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
> > > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
> > > > disconnect from them.
> > >
> > > I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people
> > > who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents,
> > > and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand
> > > disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family
> > > is unusual?
> >
> > let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his
> > money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her
> > opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather
> > sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with
> > slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I
> > was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the
> > family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual
> > about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact
> > same history. Sure,ok.
>
> That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it *outside of
> Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who
> disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to
> have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to
> support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship
> (and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is
> nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a
> *Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's
> not unusual outside of Scientology.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another
> > example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
>
Claire Swazey
Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
But seriously, I apologize for not answering.
All I can say is sometimes the tech and policy are not applied
correctly. As my bias is toward the CofS, I believe this does not often
occur. But that does not mean never.
It is the responsibility of any Scientologist or any non-Scn'ologist for
that matter to only do what they think is right regardless of what
anyone may feel. If a proposed ethics action is incorrect and the
person believes or knows this to be the case, then that person has not
only the right but the duty to let the Ethics Officer know what the
facts are.
Claire
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: Ceon Ramon wrote:
: > How very medieval of you.
: >
: > You can't base your entire perception of reality on your own personal
: > first-hand experiences.
: Yes,actually I can, but I know that you do not think this is a good
: idea.
Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full
advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to
take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others,
she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal
experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of
Scientology.
Beck
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to
: Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member
: did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the
: person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation
: cleared up.
So - guilty until proven innocent, eh?
: > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS
: > Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
: Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember?
That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
Beck
Zinj
Dear Claire.. I probably would not be in opposition to Scientology now if not
for the disconnection policies it used while it thought noboby was looking
Zinj
In article <359B0C58...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
>
>Tashback wrote:
>>
>> In article <359AE2B0...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
>>
>> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and
>> > trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a
>> > problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted
>> > to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have
>> > to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I
>> > could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look
>> > long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or
>> > not.
>>
>> Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to
>> which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
>
>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or
>told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted
>to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has
>come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists
>(and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what
>anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with
>them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly
>believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS
>all the time,for sure.
>
>Claire
>>
>> > Tashback wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <359870B3...@home.com>, Claire Swazey
>> <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Tashback wrote:
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from
abusers
>> > > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what
>> > > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Tash
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I
described
>> > > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
>> > > > disconnect from them.
>> > >
--
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[posted/mailed]
Welcome aboard, Claire (and John), I hope you manage to stick it out
here for a while. You're exactly what the COS's usenet image needs
right now...
In Message-ID: <359B1642...@home.com>,
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
Yep. Welcome to the fray. :>
>But seriously, I apologize for not answering.
>
>All I can say is sometimes the tech and policy are not applied
>correctly. As my bias is toward the CofS, I believe this does not often
>occur. But that does not mean never.
>
>It is the responsibility of any Scientologist or any non-Scn'ologist for
>that matter to only do what they think is right regardless of what
>anyone may feel. If a proposed ethics action is incorrect and the
>person believes or knows this to be the case, then that person has not
>only the right but the duty to let the Ethics Officer know what the
>facts are.
Okay, a question - what "terminal" is available to non-Scientologists
who've been mistreated by the COS? Examples:
In late 1994/early 1995 someone began canceling (deleting) ARS posts
that were critical of Scientology. They deleted many posts containing
secret materials, but also many that did not (including one of mine).
Was this right? Who do I complain to to get this resolved?
Also in early 1995, COS lawyer Helena Kobrin issued a usenet control
message designed to delete the entire ARS newsgroup. It failed, but
was this right? Who do we complain to to get this resolved?
About the same time COS employees Andrew Milne and "Vera Wallace"
(not her real name) contacted pseudonymous ARS poster TarlaStar's
internet service provider and fraudulently obtained her real name,
address and phone number and posted them to ARS. This is called
"outing" on usenet and is *strongly* frowned upon. Was this right?
Who should Tarla complain to to get this resolved?
In 1996 the COS began "spamming" ARS with thousands of repetitive
"theta" messages trying to drown out discussion. This went of for
months before it stopped - it wasn't working, but it made ARS
difficult to read for many and impossible for some. Was this right?
Who do we complain to to get this resolved?
And that's not all. Peaceful picketers have been assaulted on
numerous occasions - sometimes by just having their leaflets
forcefully grabbed, once by being spit at, once by having a picket
sign spray-painted, several times by having outside sprinklers turned
on to get them wet, once by having their candles blown out at a
candlelight vigil, and several times by actually being physically
struck. Is this right? Who should they complain to to get this
resolved?
There's more, lots and LOTS more. Illegal raids, spurious lawsuits,
unsupportable legal threats, attempts (sometimes successful) to get
web pages and usenet accounts closed, the whole "if possible, destroy
them utterly" ball of wax.
Is their an ethics officer non-Scientologists can bring their
complaints to? Somewhere I can send a knowledge report where it
wouldn't be ignored? I have a long, long list I'd like to bring to
SOMEBODY'S attention. What do I do?
>Claire
Again, glad to see someone thoughtful and non-robotic in the COS camp
for a change,
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNZvt0oCmc8kif9MJAQHjbwP9G3Dgqe1VRkGFBXXKw6w0tDt7PY0nyhvb
6KTmN5vZA9awHqoHyRM4oeVPlvyfb35QhKtfHJBTHdXT8P3iDU9gPD5Gbt/xytTr
a4C30IvWjsdM1VTvfB+nR6gxCh++NbkE3+yz2aMcD7H4JJ720p2HwO6iCoD35cDh
Ec5FUoHkJv4=
=J50q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tilman Hausherr
>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or
>told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted
>to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church"
because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change
your mind?
Many other people did.
In <359B1642...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one
post only.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Arbe
*** FWIW- my 2 cents -- I vote on the side of Tilman --
So far, this thread has been a reasonably refreshing change from the
on-going flame wars --
***I strongly urge everyone to back off for a few days and let Claire
adsorb the previous 3 or 4 posts/questions.
I'm sure it would be a help to include specific references or sites that
in **SHORT** form sum up the events referred to. Give claire a Chance to
look at them.. She may not have the answers, or may not give ones that
some like-- but give her a chance to respond before unloading additional "
yea-buts"
*****
In article <35d4f099...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
<+In <359B0C58...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
<+
<+>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or
<+>told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted
<+>to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
<+
<+What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church"
<+because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change
<+your mind?
<+
<+Many other people did.
<+
<+In <359B1642...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
<+
<+>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
<+
<+Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one
<+post only.
<+
<+
<+
<+--
<+Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
<+til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
<+
<+ Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
<+
<+Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
<+Annoy scientology by buying books:
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
--
--ARBE-- remove arbe from e-mail
Warrior
>> Barbara wrote, correctly:
>> > Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
>> > to do with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
Clare wrote:
>> > >Not true.
Barbara wrote:
>> > Yes. It is true.
>> >
>> > --Barbara
Claire wrote:
>>>>No,it is not.
>DeoMorto wrote:
>> OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to
>> disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
>>
>> In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was
>> declared - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
>>
>> I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I
>> was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
>>
>> Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me -
>> after some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..."
>> they ended up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to
>> disconnect.
>>
>> That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with
>> four different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
>>
>> The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
>>
>> To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I
>> suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
>>
>> Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to
>> enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to
>> do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
>>
>> You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the
>> face of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy.
In article <359C4FB6...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>
>No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do
>many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience)
>I realize your experience was different from what is standard Scn
>practice and nothing can make it right. But this was atypical.
>
>I am truly sorry for what happened to you. But that does not change the
>fact that the general experience and Scn policies are different from
>what you believe.
Atypical?!?!?!
Claire, you are either *clueless* about Scientology "ethics" policies
with regards to disconnection or a flat-out, bald-faced liar.
I have the experience, the "tech" and policies. You are a bleedin' liar,
I say!
Every time a person is declared and an "ethics order" is published
declaring the person "SP", *ALL* Scienos everywhere (except for the
"Justice Chief") are *forbidden* to associate or have communication
with the "SP". Anyone violating the "SP Order" is guilty of committing
a "suppressive act" which is a "high crime" in Scientology. It can and
does get individuals who violate the order, declared "SP".
What do your materials state?????? (Clue: Look in OEC Volume One.)
Does this "SP" need to cite policy *for* you?????
By the way, if you did not receive permission from Scientology to
read and post to this newsgroup, you have committed an "ethics
offense"!! Have you not seen OSA Int's order on ars? If you have
not, I suggest you check it out. You clearly have "know-best" in
the "area" of "ethics" policies.
Warrior (who is a "PTS/SP Course" Graduate, by the way)
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Claire Swazey
Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
> In article <359ADEEF...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >H Alan Montgomery wrote:
> [...]
>
> >> >I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described
> >> >my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to
> >> >disconnect from them. I have been around in alot of orgs & missions and
> >> >I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection.
> >>
> >> The problem with that type of analysis is that you can NEVER
> >> disprove an assertion. It always comes back to "What is true for me,
> >> is true." Claire, if you choose to believe that the disconnection
> >> policy is as you describe, that is fine, but other people have had
> >> different experiences. By saying that you have the final word you
> >> invalidate their experiences by saying that they are wrong or
> >> misguided or just plain lying. Have you considered that the reason
> >
> >If management habitually in an arbitrary manner told people to
> >disconnect from family when all that was needed was a little
> >communications- if that *really* was common, it certainly would have
> >happened to me. Yet out of 7 orgs and missions where I've been on
> >lines- 0 asked or told me to do so. I think that says something.
>
> scientology. What all the rest of your posts say to me is that
> whenever an issue is raised to challenge your understanding of
> scientology, you are going to reply that you haven't experienced
> it and no one you know has ever experienced it.
I have said plenty of other things.Perhaps you were not paying
attention.
>
> You're too smart to go so far as to assert that therefore such
> abuses don't occur.
>
> However, your personal testimony does absolutely nothing to invalidate
> the hundreds of personal stories that have been posted and webbed
> by those who have experienced scientology in significantly different
> ways. Sorry, I don't mean to be reductive or dismissive, but I can't
> quite grasp why you're here -- I mean, after you've said a dozen times
> that your involvement with scientology has satisfied you and you never
> saw, experienced, or even heard of any of the abuses that have been so
> well documented here and elsewhere, I don't see what else you have to
> offer. You reply to every post that your personal experiences with
> scientology have been completely satisfactory.
Would you rather I came from a vantage point of no experience whatsoever
and just promoted hearsay? That is a tactic I have seen here on
occasion. (And,no, I don't mean everybody on a.r.s)
>
> Good. I'm glad for you. But, and excuse me if this is an
> impertinent question, what are you doing here?
Same thing everyone else is doing here.Putting in my two cents.This *is*
usenet,after all.
>
> Once you have "witnessed" for your religion,
I do not "witness"
>once you've told
> us that you have found a way to happiness and fulfillment in it,
> once you've said that you've never personally experienced any
> of the abuses that have been documented in first-hand testimony
> and affidavits and books and posts, what else do you have to share
> with us?
I have never claimed that there are no abuses or that CofS is a perfect
organization. It is plain to see that you either have not read all my
posts or that you have but did not really pay attention to what was in
them.
>
> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,
Thank you.
> or a thoughtful defense of practices that are commonly
> misunderstood or misinterpreted. All I see you doing is
> meeting every question, objection, or issue with a post
> that reduced to its basic component is, "I never experienced
> that."
Not every question. Not even close.
>
> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.
>
> --Barbara
No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to
you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no
offense when clearly such is intended?
Claire Swazey
Ceon Ramon wrote:
>
> In article <359AE33D...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >DeoMorto wrote:
> >>
> >> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person
> >> is
> >> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
> >> person and restore harmony>>
> >>
> >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing to do
> >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> >
>
> Yes. It is true.
>
> --Barbara
No,it is not.
DeoMorto
Clare writes >>
> >>(My repsonse) This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to
enforce the
> >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
to do
> >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> >
>
> Yes. It is true.
>
> --Barbara
Clare>>No,it is not.
OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to
disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was declared
- notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I
was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me - after
some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..." they ended
up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to disconnect.
That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with four
different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I
suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to
enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to
do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the face
of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy.
Zinj
<snip>
>>
>> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,
>
>Thank you.
>
Sometimes the most insightful analysis is the comm method itself.
In this case 'the medium IS the message'
<snip>
>> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.
>>
>> --Barbara
>
>No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to
>you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no
>offense when clearly such is intended?
I agree Claire. While I think you are weaseling around some questions, I also
think you are doing a much better job of representing your religion than the
staff hatted sneaks who think the way to deal with us suppressives is to
intimidate them.. which has a fairly checkered success history at best.
If Scientology could show 200 such people I think it might survive. So far I'd
grant it about 10.
(and yes Russ and Whip and even Gail you are already included there.. so don't
ask for entrance)
Zinj
Zinj
In article <359C256C...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
>
>Ceon Ramon wrote:
>>
>> In article <359AE33D...@home.com>,
>> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>> >DeoMorto wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other
person
>> >> is
>> >> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
>> >> person and restore harmony>>
>> >>
>> >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
to do
>> >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. It is true.
>>
>> --Barbara
>
Disconnection is the IRL version of the Clam Nanny.
Blinders on, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes (or human damage)
Claire Swazey
Wei getz (did I spell that right??)
One of the things that is generally neglected on this newsgroup in
regard to Scientology philosophy is the expectation of a high level of
integrity in a church member. One is expected to inform one's family of
what one is attempting to accomplish in Scn and in this manner bring
about an understanding of that person's actions.
If one were to determine truly and correctly that some individual with
whom one was in contact was actually covertly or overtly destructive to
them then in that case it would only make sense to take steps to remedy
this. In my opinion, the need to disconnect would be rare.
The major question here would be: "is this the actual situation?" Any
individual in Scientology is expected to determine this for themselves.
If someone else were to tell a person to take any action which was
onerous to the individual then he would be obliged to not take the
action.
Using disconnection as an example; if the disconnection was mistakenly
suggested as the proper course of action to someone and he were to carry
it out he would cause more problems for himself and also for the church
by doing so. If disconnection is a proper course of action and the
individual carries it out he will cause fewer problems for himself and
for the church.
As with all things in Scn, the desired results are the yardstick by
which things are measured. Not just theory for theory's sake.
John and Claire
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>
> In <359B0C58...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or
> >told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted
> >to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
>
> What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church"
> because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change
> your mind?
>
> Many other people did.
>
> In <359B1642...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
>
> Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one
> post only.
>
> --
> Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
> til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
>
> Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
>
> Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Claire Swazey
Actually I did write the other post and press enter more quickly than I
meant to,being somewhat of a novice to usenet,still. So let me
clarify: I do mainly go by my experiences because they are broad and
varied. However, (and this did not come out right in my last posting on
this) I do study history,take courses,watch the news,read the
papers,etc. I do think to some degree anyway that one must listen to
data and opinions collated by others and combine these things with
experience. I would not advocate an ivory tower existence in which one
never got out and experienced things but I would also say that one's
studies are important as well, as well as enjoyable,too. But you are
right in that this is not what I said in the previous post,because what
happened was I went typitty type,clickety click, send- oops!
I have just recently finished some interesting books on the integration
of moslems into european society and some books on paleoanthropology, in
fact. Nice change from murder mysteries. :-)
Do not be too quick to attribute my own failings (which are not in short
supply) to the CofS.
C
Claire Swazey
Claire Swazey
Zinj;
Honest to god, no weaseling intended.
Claire
Zinj wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
>
> Sometimes the most insightful analysis is the comm method itself.
>
> In this case 'the medium IS the message'
>
> <snip>
>
> >> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.
> >>
> >> --Barbara
> >
> >No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to
> >you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no
> >offense when clearly such is intended?
>
> I agree Claire. While I think you are weaseling around some questions, I also
> think you are doing a much better job of representing your religion than the
> staff hatted sneaks who think the way to deal with us suppressives is to
> intimidate them.. which has a fairly checkered success history at best.
>
> If Scientology could show 200 such people I think it might survive. So far I'd
> grant it about 10.
>
> (and yes Russ and Whip and even Gail you are already included there.. so don't
> ask for entrance)
>
Claire Swazey
DeoMorto wrote:
>
> Clare writes >>
> > >>(My repsonse) This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to
> enforce the
> > >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
> to do
> > >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. It is true.
> >
> > --Barbara
>
>
> OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to
> disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
>
> In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was declared
> - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
>
> I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I
> was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
>
> Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me - after
> some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..." they ended
> up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to disconnect.
>
> That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with four
> different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
>
> The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
>
> To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I
> suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
>
> Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to
> enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to
> do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
>
> You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the face
> of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy.
No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do
many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience)
I realize your experience was different from what is standard Scn
practice and nothing can make it right. But this was atypical.
I am truly sorry for what happened to you. But that does not change the
fact that the general experience and Scn policies are different from
what you believe.
>
Claire Swazey
Zinj wrote:
>
> In article <359C256C...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
> >
> >Ceon Ramon wrote:
> >>
> >> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >DeoMorto wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Clare writes:>>Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other
> person
> >> >> is
> >> >> making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
> >> >> person and restore harmony>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
> to do
> >> >> with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes. It is true.
> >>
> >> --Barbara
> >
>
> Disconnection is the IRL version of the Clam Nanny.
>
> Blinders on, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes (or human damage)
>
>
> --
> I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a
> megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released.
> Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
NO,it is not. If disconnection is not the correct action then a
responsible Scientologist would be expected not to take such an action.
There really is not much of it that goes on but I do know that it does
take place sometimes. And abuses occur,I do not doubt. But they are
rarer than you believe them to be.
I also have some stuff on this in a prev posting to Tilman you may want
to look at.
And here is a quick example of NOT disconnecting- I know someone who is
very involved in CofS whose relative gives her children psychiatric
drugs. She has not disconnected from her relative.
I gave an earlier example of someone I know who is married to a
non-Scn'ologist who really does not see the attraction her spouse has to
Scn. No pressure was put on the guy to disconnect from his wife and
they have stayed together.
Warrior
In article <359C50CF...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>NO,it is not. If disconnection is not the correct action then a
>responsible Scientologist would be expected not to take such an action.
>There really is not much of it that goes on but I do know that it does
>take place sometimes. And abuses occur,I do not doubt. But they are
>rarer than you believe them to be.
Not rare at all. Look at Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992. It has a list
of hundreds of "SPs" and "SP" groups. Scienos are *not* to communicate
nor associate with the individuals and groups listed in that ED.
>I also have some stuff on this in a prev posting to Tilman you may want
>to look at.
Seen it. You'd better get your "false data stripped", Claire! Or get a
"disagreement check" or find your "MU", because you are spreading
"verbal tech". Not only that, but much is false as well!!
You might fool the "wogs", but you can't fool people like Deo, Dennis
and me.
>And here is a quick example of NOT disconnecting- I know someone who is
>very involved in CofS whose relative gives her children psychiatric
>drugs. She has not disconnected from her relative.
Not yet anyway. After the "handling" *fails*, _then_ the disconnection
comes.
>I gave an earlier example of someone I know who is married to a
>non-Scn'ologist who really does not see the attraction her spouse has to
>Scn. No pressure was put on the guy to disconnect from his wife and
>they have stayed together.
As long as she is not "antago", then the "handling" will be to do
"good roads, fair weather" while doimg the "dissem drill" on the wife.
Just out of curiosity, how long has the man been in $cienoland?
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
Warrior
Claire wrote:
>>No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to
>>you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no
>>offense when clearly such is intended?
>
>I agree Claire. While I think you are weaseling around some questions, I also
>think you are doing a much better job of representing your religion than the
>staff hatted sneaks who think the way to deal with us suppressives is to
>intimidate them.. which has a fairly checkered success history at best.
The trouble is, Claire is grossly misrepresenting Scientology's policies
on "ethics" and disconnection.
Claire's ~interpretation~ of ElWrong's "tech" is called "suppressive
reasonableness" in $cientology. She is already guilty of committing
a number of "suppressive acts", including "verbal tech", "verbal policy",
"associating with a known suppressive group" (ars) and "out-KSW".
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: > She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember?
: > That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
: >
: > Beck
:
: Would you rather I disbelieve my own experiences and just go by hearsay?
Hon, I don't care what *you* do. Stay in your cocoon...it is much safer
there. Nothing to challenge your comforting beliefs. No facts to distort
your complacency. No need to acknowledge the experiences of others unless
they reinforce that ironclad bulwark you've constructed. Fortunately, not
everyone is willing to wear a blindfold through life. This is the
downfall of every totalitarian system - someone, somewhere will point out
that the emperor has no clothes.
Beck
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: Rebecca Jo McLaughlin wrote:
: > Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full
: > advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to
: > take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others,
: > she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal
: > experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of
: > Scientology.
: >
: > Beck
: I do think to some degree anyway that one must listen to
: data and opinions collated by others and combine these things with
: experience. I would not advocate an ivory tower existence in which one
: never got out and experienced things but I would also say that one's
: studies are important as well, as well as enjoyable,too. But you are
: right in that this is not what I said in the previous post,because what
: happened was I went typitty type,clickety click, send- oops!
Relieved to hear it.
[snip library list]
There are many, many personal stories from people who have suffered from
Scientology's bullying. There are books and articles written about
Scientology's very dark side - books challenged by the cult in court over
their veracity. The cult lost. The press has poked their noses in
(sometimes getting them burned by the cult's litigation behemoth) and
pointed out clear abuses in human rights and general, decent, social
behavior. The internet has managed to pull all of it together and the
picture it paints is ugly, indeed.
The management insulates itself with happy, well-meaning folk (like
yourself, I assume). "What's true for you," is in my opinion, one of the
best methods of stopping critical thinking. My experience is wonderful -
all else is lies.
How far into the Lisa McPherson and Strawn cases have you investigated?
*Do* you know what has happened to the "minister" who warned the girls'
mother not to go to the police? If you wanted to know, could you send a
query uplines and get the answer? Have you read the logs written by the
people who watched over Lisa McPherson's nightmarish, extended dying?
What happened to the people who let her die, Claire? And the people who
supervised them? Do you know? Would you be willing to investigate and
find out?
And, if you did find out, if you did see an outpoint in the way these
cases were/are being handled, what would you do? What *could* you do?
I suggest that you and other responsible Scientologists take a
good hard look at what management is doing to your religion. The internet
has been pulling away the rocks that shelter DM and his band
of thugs. There are a *lot* of people looking at what is exposed.
Beck
Keith Henson
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
: Wei getz (did I spell that right??)
: One of the things that is generally neglected on this newsgroup in
: regard to Scientology philosophy is the expectation of a high level of
: integrity in a church member.
"Integrity" of course is completely redefined by scientology to mean
that which puts money into CoS. Like one example I know about where
the husband ran up very high credit card debts without telling his wife
he was spending many tens of thousands on scientology;
snip
: The major question here would be: "is this the actual situation?" Any
: individual in Scientology is expected to determine this for themselves.
: If someone else were to tell a person to take any action which was
: onerous to the individual then he would be obliged to not take the
: action.
How about you read and comment on robin's recently posted story.
"Disconnecting" from your six year old son under orders or not seems
excessive any way I can imagine it.
Keith Henson
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <359C4933...@home.com>, Claire Swazey writes:
>> : > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS
>> : > Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
>>
>> : Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
>>
>> That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
>>
>> Beck
>
>Would you rather I disbelieve my own experiences and just go by hearsay?
(1) Do you smoke?
(2) Have you had lung cancer yet?
(3) Do you therefore believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?
Same fallacy.
Just because you haven't experienced the bad aspects of something in
the samll corner you've seen, doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere
outside your experience. And you could only jusge that by listening to
the testimony of other people with broader experiences.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Michael Reuss
>Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>no one else's. I have noticed a great deal of coverage and concern on
>the subject of disconnection and Scientologists. Here's what I know
>about it:
Thanks for your insights. Here's yet another data point about Co$
attempts to manipulate families, and it's right from the horse's mouth.
I particularly like the final item in the family "handling" which calls
for Dora to be "reprogrammed" after making a manipulative series of
disgraceful lies to her family.
Enjoy, Claire.
======================================================================
SEA ORGANISATION
SNR HCO EU ETHICS ORDER # 1324 22nd May 1995
CLO EU
AOSH EU
OSA INT/EU
DSA GREECE
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE TYPE C DECLARE
THEODORA APOSTOLOPOULOU
A Potential Trouble Source Type Declare is hereby placed on former
AOSH EU staff member. Theodora Apostolopoulou.
Per HCO PL 27 October 1964R. "POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING. INSANITY
AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE". Theodora falls under the definition of a
Potential Trouble Source Type C.
The parents and brother of Theodora are publicly attacking the Church of
Scientology in Greece. Furthermore. The parents are connected to an SP
that has established an anti-religious group which has a history of
attacks against the Church.
Theodora is not to be accepted on any service lines in any Church of
Scientology or Scientology Mission until she has fully handled her
situation.
In order to get the PTS Type C declare lifted, Theodora needs to
complete her Type C handling. Once the handling is done, she is to
submit a full CSW TO OSA EU enclosing all evidence showing that this
situation is handled.
PO 3 Sasha Ernst
Continental Justice Chief EU
Approved and
Authorized by
LRH COMM EUROPE
for
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (R)
AOSH EU&AF, CLO EU BRANCH
CASOSHEU&AF:KP:SE:wh
(c) CSAOSEU&AF 1995
All Rights Reserved
SCIENTOLOGY and HCO are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious
Technology Center and are used with its permission. Printed in DK.
============================================================================
TQ : DORA
VIA: DSA GREECE
**************************
INVEST HANDLING CHF OSA EU
CC: CHIEF MAA AOSH EU & AF
CC: LC AOSH EU
CC: STAFF SECURITY OFF OSA EU
DEAR DORA,
THANK YOU FOR YR REPORT. I HAVE ALSO SINCE RECIEVIED THE REPORT FROM
ILLIAS ON THE COURT HEARING WHERE YOUR FATHER APPEARED AND CONTINUED
HIS ATTACK ON SCN. YOU HAVE A CLEAR TYPE C SITUATION. THIS NEEDS TO BE
HANDLED BY YOU IN CO-ORDINATION WITH HCO ATHENS AND THE DSA ATHENS.
ATTACHED IS YOUR REVISED HANDLING PGM. IMMEDIATELY LET ME KNOW IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PROGRAM, SO THAT WE ARE BOTH FULLY IN
AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS THE HANDLING YOU WILL EXECUTE ON YOUR PARENTS TO
HANDLE YOUR TYPE C SITUATION. SOME MINUTES AGC I RECIEVED THE DATA THAT
YOUR FATHER IS IN HOSPITIAL, THUS I HAVE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL TARGET AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE PROGRAM WHICH SHOULD BE IMMEDIATLY EXECUTED (IF
YOUR FATHER IS STILL IN HOSPITAL.)
23.5.95
DORA TYPE C HANDLING PROGRAM
PGM INFO:
*********
DORA HAS A PTS SITUATION WITH HER PARENTS. THIS IS NOW
CLASSIFIED AS A TYPE C SITUATION DUE TO THE FACT THE PARENTS ARE
CONNECTED TO SP (ALEV) AND HAVE ATTACKED THE C OF S IN THE MEDIA.
THIS SITUATION NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADDRESSED. THIS PROGRAM DOES NOT
REPLACE THE HANDLING AS PER HCOB OUTLINE ON PTS HANDLING. IT IS ONLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING AN IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HANDLING
IMPLEMENTED. DORA HAS NOW COMPLETED AN EDUCATION PROGRAM AND O/W S AND
RUDIMENTS CLEAN UP IN RELATION TO THE ANTAGONISTIC TERMINALS. WHICH ARE
THE MOTHER, FATHER AND BROTHER.
*NOTE:
TO GET THE PARENTS OF DORA TO DISCONNECT FROM L AND HANDLE THE
ANTAGONISM OF THE PARENTS AGAINST DORA BEING A SCIENTOLOGIST. THUS
RESOLVING THE TYPE C SITUATION OF DORA.
PGM PURPOSE:
************
TO GET THE PARENTS OF DORA TO DISCONNECT FROM L AND HANDLE THE
ANTAGONISM OF THE PARENTS AGAINST DORA BEING A SCIENTOLOGIST. THUS
RESOLVING THE TYPE C SITUATION OF DORA.
MAJOR TARGETS:
**************
1. PARENTS DISCONNECTED FROM L.
2. PARENTS ANTAGONISM HANDLED ON DORA BEING IN SCIENTOLOGY.
PRIMARY TARGETS:
****************
1. CLEAR THE DEFINITION OF TYPE C AS PER HCOPL 27.10.64 POLICIES ON
PHYSICAL HEALING. INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE.
2. RE-STUDY HCOPL PTS TYPE A HANDLING.
3. WORDCLEAR YOUR TYPE C DECLARE.
VITAL TARGET:
*************
1. A PTS/SP TRAINED TERMINAL IS TO MONITOR THIS HANDLING ON A WEEKLY
BASIS
2. SEND REPORTS ON THIS TO STAFF SECURITY OFF OSA EU WEEKLY.
3. THE MESSAGE TO TR3 TO YR PARENTS IS THAT AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN
CONNECTED TO L YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A NORMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEM. THIS IS YOUR REASON FOR NOT LIVING WITH THEM. THE DISCONNECTION
FROM L IS TO BE STRESSED, AS THEY WILL DISCONNECT ONCE THEY SEE THAT
THERE IS NO PRODUCT TO REMAIN CONNECTED TO HIM, AS THE COST OF
CONTINUING THIS CONNECTION IS THEY LOOSE THEIR DAUGHTER. THUS GET THEM
TO WEAR THEIR HAT AS YOUR PARENTS, GET THEM TO BE PARENTS AND NOT
ATTACKERS AGAINST YOUR BELIEF, YOU WILL ACHIEVE THIS BY GETTING THEM TO
DISCONNECT FROM THE SP.
OPERATING TARGETS:
******************
1. TYPE C DECLARE ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON.
1 (A) PER ALERT FROM THE DSA DORA'S FATHER IS IN HOSPITIAL. IF THIS
IS THE CASE, GET THE FOLLOWING DONE:
(B) GO TO SEE HIM
(C) IF HE EXPRESSES THAT YOU ARE THE CAUSE OF HIS CONDITION, OR
IF THE MOTHER SAYS SIMILAR, JUST STATE THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER ON CHURCH
LINES AND ARE NOW LIVING IN GREECE. THERE IS NO MORE TO TALK ABOUT THAN
THAT. DO NOT GO INTO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, OTHER THAN TR3'ING THAT
YOU ARE NOW IN GREECE AND ALL YOU WANT IS FOR HIM TO GET BETTER. IF HE
WANTS TO TARGET SOMEONE FOR HIS BODY TROUBLE. THEN TELL HIM THAT SINCE
ALEV CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE FAMILY THERE HAVE BEEN TROUBLES AND
THAT THE FAMILY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME UNTIL THE FAMILY LEAVE THIS
FANATIC.
(D) ASSIST YOUR FATHER TO GET BETTER IN ANY WAY YOU CAN. GIVE HIM
THETA COMM, TELL HIM HOW MUCH YOU LOVE HIM ETC AND WANT HIM TO GET
BETTER AND JUST GET BACK TO LIVING A NORMAL LIFE AGAIN.
(E) IF HE REMAINS IN HOSPITAL, GO SEE HIM REGULARLY. TAKE FRUIT OR
WHATEVER IS APPLICABLE, BUILD UP COMM ON A GOOD ROADS FAIR WHETHER
COMM LEVEL WITH HIM.
(F) IF THE OPPORTURITY ARISES TELL YOUR FATHER THAT YOU LOVE HIM
DESPITE HIS VICIOUS ATTACKS AGAINST YOUR BELIEFS. MAKE HIM SEE THAT
YOUR LOVE FOR HIM IS SUPERIOR AND STRONGER. MAKE HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR
HIS ACTIONS AND TO SEE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE FAMILY.
2. ON AN IMMEDIATE BASIS DORA SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO HER MOTHER
WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING POINTS: SHE WOULD FOLLOW UP FROM THE
MEETING WITH HER MOTHER AND COVER THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
- IT WAS GOOD TO JUST SEE THE MOTHER AND BE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH HER
AND SEE HER.
- DORA SHOULD SAY THAT THE MOTHER LOOKED STRESSED. SHE SHOULD SAY THAT
SHE WAS NEVER THAT WAY BEFORE. AND THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT ALEV ON THEIR
LINES. TROUBLING THEM AND GIVING THEM FALSE DATA. DORA SHOULD STATE
THAT IT IS NOT OK THAT HE IS DOING THAT AND FEEDING YOU HORROR STORIES.
DORA SHOULD STATE "I HAVE BEEN IN SCIENTOLOGY AND I KNOW IT BEST AS I
HAVE STUDIED DATA IN IT. I KNOW THE PERSONS WORKING IN IT.I KNOW THE
PROGRESS I HAVE MADE (GIVE EXAMPLES: BETTER AT STUDYING, UNDERSTANDING
THE IMPORTANCE OF HONESTY AND TRUTH. YOU SHOULD NOTE ANY PERSONAL RUIN
YOU HANDLED). TELL YOUR MOTHER, THAT YOU ARE UPSET AT HER ORIGINATIONS
STATING THAT YOU ARE BRAINWASHED. TELL THEM YOU MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS
IN LIFE AND TELL THEM THAT ALL YOU WANT IS THAT THEY CAN RESPECT THAT.
-DORA MUST STRESS THAT SHE FEELS UPSET AT HOW A WHOLE FAMILY COULD BE
BROKEN UP AND TURN AGAINST EACH OTHER. JUST BASED ON UNFACTUAL AND FALSE
DATA FROM ALEVIZOPLOUS.
-ALEV IS CRIMINAL IN WHAT HE IS DOING. HE USES PARENTS TO FIGHT HIS
OWN PERSONAL BATTLE. DORA SHOULD STATE THAT AS LONG AS HER PARENTS
MAINTAIN THEIR CONNECTION TO HIM SHE WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER TO COME
BACK TO THE HOME.
-DORA SHOULD TELL HER MOTHER, THAT AS SHE THREATENS TO DESTROY KEFE
AS STATED IN THEIR MEETING), SHE HAS DECIDED TO NOT REMAIN IN CONNECTION
WITH THE MISSION AND WILL INSTEAD START TO LOOK FOR AN APARTMENT IN
GREECE AND GET A JOB. DORA MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SHE HAS DECIDED TO
DO THIS HERSELF AS SHE DOES NOT WANT HER FRIENDS HURT OR FRIGHTENED,
DUE TO THE CURRENT THREATS THE FAMILY HAVE MADE. DORA SHOULD STATE THAT
SHE WILL NOT RETURN TO COPENHAGEN AS SHE FEELS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE
RIGHT THAT SHE CONTINUES DOING THAT, WHILE MEANWHILE HER PARENTS ATTACK
THE VERY CORE OF WHAT SEH BELIEVES IN. IT WOULD UPSET HER TOO MUCH.
THUS FOR NOW SHE HAS DECIDED TO STAY IN GREECE.
-DORA SHOULD INCLUDE THE POINT THAT SHE WILL NOT LIVE AT THE HOME OF
THE MOTHER AS SHE WANTS TO BE ON HER OWN AND CREATE HER OWN LIFE
WITHOUT THE PARENTS INTERFERING AND JUDGING EVERY ACTION SHE DOES. SHE
SHOULD SAY THAT THE DAY I WOULD CONSIDER COMING HOME WILL BE WHEN YOU
SIMPLY ACCEPT ME FOR BEING DORA YOUR DAUGHTER AND NOT ATTACK WHAT I
DO IN LIFE.
-DORA SHOULD STATE THAT IF THE MOTHER DOES REALLY LOVE HER, THEN SHE
KNOWS THAT SOME DAY THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BE TOGETHER AND FRIENDS LIKE
BEFORE. AS AT SOME POINT THE MOTHER WILL SEE THAT DORA HAS NOT CHANGED.
DORA IS THE SAME DAUGHTER SHE HAS LOVED AND BROUGHT UP FROM BEFORE
SCIENTOLOGY.
3. DORA SHOULD ALSO SEND A COPY OF THE LETTER TO HER FATHER. TELLING
HIM THAT ITS A COPY OF THE LETTER SHE SENT TO HER MOTHER WHICH SHE
WANTS HIM TO ALSO SEE AS SHE JUST WANTS HIM TO TAKE A MINUTE TO
UNDERSTAND HOW DORA FEELS ABOUT WHAT HE IS DOING. DORA SHOULD STATE
THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR HER IS FOR THEM TO BE THE FAMILY THAT
TRUSTED EACH OTHER, LIKE BEFORE. SHE SHOULD ASK HER FATHER TO TELL ALEV
TO LEAVE THE FAMILY ALONE AS, AS LONG A SHER PARENTS ARE CONNECTED UP TO
HIM SHE WILL NOT COME BACK HOME TO THE FAMILY. SHE SHOULD TELL HIM THAT
IF HE WANTS TO CONTACT HER HE CAN AND THAT SHE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM
HIM. .....THE LETTER SHOULD GIVE A RETURN ADDRESS OF A NEUTRAL (NOT
STAFF) FRIEND OR POST OFFICE BOX (IF DORA CAN SET THIS UP) WHERE A
RESPONDING LETTER OF THE PARENTS CAN BE SENT TO FOR RELAY TO DORA.
OBVIOUSLY THIS WILL NOT BE THE ADDRESS OF THE PLACE IN WHICH DORA IS
LOCATED, BUT ANOTHER LOCATION. THAT SHOULD ALSO BE THE PERSON WHO DORA
GIVES THE NUMBER OF HER PARENTS.
4. ONCE YOU HAVE CHECKED THE LETTER AND ENSURED IT IS OK FROM A
VIEWPOINT THAT THE PARENTS MAY ALSO USE THIS PUBLICALLY. SO IT SHOULD BE
IN A STYLE THAT IS IN REALITY FOR THE PARENTS AND REAL THAT THEIR
DAUGHTER DORA WROTE IT (NOT WRITTEN AS THOUGH A CHURCH OFFICIAL DICTATED
FROM WHERE SHE IS ACTUALLY BASED (THIS IS SO THAT SHE DOES NOT GIVE A
CLUE AS TO HER LOCATION).
5. DORA SHOULD INDIVIDUALLY WRITE TO HER BROTHER. SHE SHOLD SAY THAT AT
THIS POINT DUE TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED SHE ONLY FEELS SAFE IN WRITING TO
HIM AS HE HAS SHOWN THAT HE DOES NOT TRUST HER AS HIS SISTER ANYMORE
THROUGH HIS ACTIONS. SHE SHOULD SAY THAT I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD
TRUST AN OUTSIDER MORE THAN YOUR OWN SISTER AND ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN WHAT
HAPPENED. SHE SHOLD STATE THAT SHE IS AN ADULT AND CON MAKE UP HER OWN
MIND. DORA SHOLD TELL HIM THAT FOR NOW SHE HAS DECIDED NOT TO GO BACK TO
COPENHAGEN OR TO GO TO THE MISSION AS SHE IS UPSET THAT HER FRIENDS GET
HURT. DUE THAT HER FRIENDS GET HURT, DUE TO HER FAMILY ATTACK ON HER.
THIS UPSETS HER. DORA SHOULD STATE THAT SHE LOVES HER FAMILY MORE THAN
ANYTHING. AND IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW ALEV TO SPLIT THEM UP. SHE SHOULD
STATE THAT SHE IS CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR AN APARTMENT AND WILL LET HIM
KNOW WHERE SHE LIVES IN THE NEXT WEEKS. SHE SHOULD TELL HIM THAT SHE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND HIS ANGER AS SHE NEVER WOULD DREAM OF TELLING HIM HOW
TO LIVE HIS LIFE OR WHAT TO DO AS SHE KNOWS THAT HE WOULD KNOW WHAT IS
RIGHT AND ME UNDERSTAND THAT, AND END OF THE LETTER GIVING A RETURN
ADDRESS OF A FRIEND AT THE OTHER LOCATION (SAME FOR THE PARENTS LETTER).
6. CHECK THE LETTER, MAKE SURE ITS OK IN THE CASE IT WOULD GET USED
PUBLICALLY, ONCE YOU HAVE CLEARED IT, GET THE LETTER SENT FROM A CENTRAL
POST OFFICE (SO AS TO NOT REVEAL LOCATION OF DORA).
7. DORA IS TO GET A JOB SO AS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT HERSELF.
8. DORA IS TO MOVE TO A NEW APPARTMENT, WHERE SHE CAN BE INDEPENDENT AND
DISCONNECTED FROM THE MISSION (THIS INCLUDES MISSION STAFF AND ACTIVE
PUBLICS).
9. DORA IS TO SET UP A POST OFFICE BOX OR GIVE HER NEW ADDRESS (ONCE
RE-LOCATED) TO HER PARENTS, SO THEY KNOW WHERE THEY CAN CONTACT DORA.
10. DORA IS TO APPLY A FULL PTS TYPE A HANDLING ON HER PARENTS AS PER
HCOPL PTS TYPE A HANDLING. THIS MEANS THAT SHE IS TO REGULARLY EXECUTE
THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
A) PHONE THE MOTHER AND ALSO THE FATHER TO SPEAK WITH THEM AT LEAST ONCE
A WEEK, LETTING THEM KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND GIVING THEM GOOD NEWS.
CARE ABOUT THEM ASK THEM ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITIES.
B) CONDITIONAL: IF THEY ASK YOU TO COME HOME AND STAY WITH THEM. STATE
THAT YOU WILL NOT DO THIS, NOT UNTIL THEY DISCONNECT FROM ALEV AND START
TO ACCEPT YOU AS THEIR DAUGHTER AND ACCEPT YOUR DECISIONS IN LIFE. USE
THIS R-FACTOR EVERYTIME WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT GETTING YOU HOME OR WHY
YOU DO NOT STAY WITH THEM ETC. THIS MUST BE TR3'ED SO THEY BEGIN TO SEE
THAT THEY DO NEED TO DISCONNECT FROM ALEV.
C) IF THE PARENTS ASK YOU TO VISIT THEM, TELL THEM THAT YOU WILL ONLY DO
THIS IF THEY ENSURE THAT ALEV IS NOT THERE. DO NOT GIVE THEM AN EXACT
TIME, BUT STATE THAT YOU WILL POP BY FOR DINNER AS SOON AS YOU GET THE
TIME. YOUR VISIT SHOULD BE TOGETHER WITH A FRIEND (NON-MISSION STAFF OR
A NOT A KNOWN SCIENTOLOGIST), YOU SHOULD NOT NOTIFY THEM BEFOREHAND OF
THE VISIT (AS THIS GIVES THEM TIME TO PLAN. JUST TURN UP AND BRING FRUIT
OR WHATEVER IS IN ETHNICS AND JUST LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE HAPPY TO
SEE THEM ETC. IF THEY BRING UP THE TOPIC OF SCIENTOLOGY, TELL THEM THAT
YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DISCUSS IT AND RATHER USE THE TIME TO TALK OF THE
FAMILY, WHAT THEY ARE DOING. WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO IN THE SUMMER
OR FOR CHRISTMAS OR WHATEVER. IT IS A GOOD ROADS WEATHER MEETING.
D) MAINTAIN YOUR LETTER WRITING EVERY FEW WEEKS, GOOD ROADS-GOOD
WEATHER, TELL THEM ABOUT HOW GOOD THINGS YOU ARE DOING AND LET THEM KNOW
YOU ARE DOING WILL. TO YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER. SEND PHOTOS.
E) AT A GRADIENT DURING YOUR PHONE COMM LET TEH MOTHER KNOW THAT YOU ARE
ALWAYS THERE AND IF SHE NEEDS HELP ON ANYTHING SHE SHOULD LET YOU KNOW
(COOKING FOR A BIG FAMILY EVENT OR SHOPPING OR WHATEVER - THIS OF
DEPENDS ON YOUR DISTANCE FROM WHERE THEY ARE BASED). THIS IS TO INCREASE
YOUR FAMILY INTERACTIO.
F) START TO CREATE MORE 2D ACTIVITIES SUCH AS INVITING BOTH YOUR PARENTS
OUT TO A MEAL IN A RESTAURANT TO CELEBRATE AN EVENT OR JUST SO YOU CAN
SEE THEM. THIS IS PART OF YOUR BUILDING UP OF ARC. FROM THERE YOUR
SHOULD ELEVATE THE ACTIVITY TO SPENDING A DAY OUT WITH THEM (BEACH OR
WHATEVER).
11. REPROGRAM HANDLING AT OSA EU.
PRODUCTION TARGET: 2 MONTHS
=======================================================================
What say you to this damning document, Claire?
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid
Michael Reuss
>ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
>> Claire Swayze wrote:
>Do you take as evidence only what you can see or feel?
An excellent question. Barbara cuts to the chase, as usual.
>> I keep my eyes and ears open.
Here's another good (IMO) question. Claire, are you capable of
discerning every possible trick, illusion or deceit that could possibly
be tried against you? What are the implications for you, if you accept
that someone (who may or may not have your best interests at heart)
might successfully deceive or trick you?
Warrior
In article <359DBA29...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>Three different orgs know I am posting here and have not instructed me
>to not do so. They said they have heard nothing to the effect that I
>cannot do so.
You didn't answer all my questions.
Have you seen OSA Int's order on ars?
Please tell me at which orgs "they" are aware of your posting here.
Please give names and/or the "terminals' posts" (positions) so I may verify.
Did you tell the EOs that you also read this newsgroup?
If you do not have explicit permission to read and post to ars, then
you are in violation of Scientology policies written by Hubbard.
You skirt my questions, Claire.
Why?
Warrior
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> >> Barbara wrote, correctly:
>> >> > This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the
>>>> > Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing
>> >> > to do with lives being made good, bad or hellish.
>>
>> Clare wrote:
>> >> > >Not true.
>>
>> Barbara wrote:
>> >> > Yes. It is true.
>> >> >
>> >> > --Barbara
>>
>> Claire wrote:
>> >>>>No,it is not.
>>
>> >DeoMorto wrote:
>> >> OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to
>> >> disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
>> >>
>> >> In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was
>> >> declared - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
>> >>
>>>> I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I
>> >> was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
>> >>
>> >> Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me -
>> >> after some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..."
>> >> they ended up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to
>> >> disconnect.
>> >>
>> >> That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with
>> >> four different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
>> >>
>> >> The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
>> >>
>> >> To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I
>> >> suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
>> >>
>> >> Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to
>>>> enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to
>> >> do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
>> >>
>> >> You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the
>> >> face of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy.
>>
>> In article <359C4FB6...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>> >
>> >No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do
>> >many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience)
>> >I realize your experience was different from what is standard Scn
>> >practice and nothing can make it right. But this was atypical.
>> >
>> >I am truly sorry for what happened to you. But that does not change the
>> >fact that the general experience and Scn policies are different from
>> >what you believe.
>>
Warrior
>Michael Reuss wrote:
>>
>> Here's another good (IMO) question. Claire, are you capable of
>> discerning every possible trick, illusion or deceit that could possibly
>> be tried against you? What are the implications for you, if you accept
>> that someone (who may or may not have your best interests at heart)
>> might successfully deceive or trick you?
In article <359DBB06...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>Yes,I could be fooled. I just don't think I could be fooled for years on
>end.
Funny... That's what I once thought too. Then I realized I had incorrectly
agreed with "source" to forbid myself to see certain facts. The Scientology
organization, specifically through its Sea Org cult, continually enforced
"ethics tech" and "executive directives" on me (and other SO members) in an
attempt to control the accessability and dissemination of "entheta"
information, even if said "entheta" was true.
Then I woke up from the lie.
The betrayal ran deep.
Are you a "public" Scientologist, Claire?
Are you an "FSM"?
Lafayette Ron Hubbard was and is a false messiah.
Claire Swazey
Wow. Thanks for the post. My answer may strike you (and anyone else) as
unsatisfactory and evasive. And this may very well be the case. As I
have said before, I do not have all the answers.
The things you write about are things that,from your side of the issue,
are things that were done to you and your group (ok,its not a real
group,all the anti-Scn'ologists, I mean, I know arscc doesnt exist,but
still there is a type of movement of sorts out there,etc) by Scn. And
they *were*.
Well, I think that it could be said that a number of people are at war
against CofS. Of course, you realize that in that case, it's quite
mutual. Although the fair game policy letter was canceled, the Church
does go on defending itself, sometimes taking the offensive,such as the
examples you have given me. Personally, I think that if the CofS did
not do these things they would be long gone. I know from reading the ng
that a number of people would like that to be so. I also know their
reasons,both the ones stated (which sometimes are as stated and
sometimes are other than stated,depending on the person posting) and
those not stated. The CofS is never going to sit still for that.
Rightly or wrongly, they will not. They will do and continue to do
things that you may deplore.
However, there is one thing I can think of that may or may not work. I
think that,even though what I said about knowledge reports was regarding
communication lines within the organization, that still perhaps you may
have a contact within the CofS. Remember the Dateline show about Bob
Minton and CofS--Mr Minton and Mr Rinder did meet a couple times. I am
not sure that anything came of this or not but these meetings did take
place which indicates to me that such communication between the two
camps is possible. I do not know if this particular communication line
is the best one, but we used it once and received a speedy reply. It's
in...@scientology.net. I would suggest letting them know you were not
trying to give them a bad time or anything but wanted to handle a
grievance in a civilized fashion. Perhaps this would work out. Other
than that, I have no other ideas to give on this.
Claire
Paper Tiger wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> [posted/mailed]
>
> Welcome aboard, Claire (and John), I hope you manage to stick it out
> here for a while. You're exactly what the COS's usenet image needs
> right now...
>
> In Message-ID: <359B1642...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> >Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
>
Claire Swazey
Three different orgs know I am posting here and have not instructed me
to not do so. They said they have heard nothing to the effect that I
cannot do so.
Warrior wrote:
Claire Swazey
Actually,what I said earlier, was that she was somewhat antagonistic for
a time. Even then the husband was not advised to dump her.
Claire Swazey
Michael Reuss wrote:
>
> >ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
> >> Claire Swayze wrote:
>
> >Do you take as evidence only what you can see or feel?
>
> An excellent question. Barbara cuts to the chase, as usual.
>
> >> I keep my eyes and ears open.
>
> discerning every possible trick, illusion or deceit that could possibly
> be tried against you? What are the implications for you, if you accept
> that someone (who may or may not have your best interests at heart)
> might successfully deceive or trick you?
>
> Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
> Honorary Kid
Yes,I could be fooled. I just don't think I could be fooled for years on
end.
Claire Swazey
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>
> In article <359C4933...@home.com>, Claire Swazey writes:
> >> : > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS
> >> : > Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
> >>
> >> : Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
> >>
> >> She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember?
> >> That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
> >>
> >> Beck
> >
> >Would you rather I disbelieve my own experiences and just go by hearsay?
>
> (1) Do you smoke?
> (2) Have you had lung cancer yet?
> (3) Do you therefore believe smoking doesn't cause cancer?
>
> Same fallacy.
>
> Just because you haven't experienced the bad aspects of something in
> the samll corner you've seen, doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere
> outside your experience. And you could only jusge that by listening to
> the testimony of other people with broader experiences.
I have already said that I do this.
Claire Swazey
Thank you for keeping me in mind.
Claire Swazey
> >to not do so. They said they have heard nothing to the effect that I
> >cannot do so.
>
>
As I have said before, I do not view a.r.s. as an authorized source of
information regarding CofS policy.
>
> Please tell me at which orgs "they" are aware of your posting here.
> Please give names and/or the "terminals' posts" (positions) so I may verify.
Have talked to EOs,EDs and DSAs at orgs on North American continent.
>
> Did you tell the EOs that you also read this newsgroup?
Yes.
>
> If you do not have explicit permission to read and post to ars, then
> you are in violation of Scientology policies written by Hubbard.
I communicate with whomever I please.
>
> You skirt my questions, Claire.
Sorry,didn't mean to. The thing is that my answers are not always going
to give satisfaction to some of a.r.s'ers. The reason I am sure has to
do with the fact that the two camps have entirely different viewpoints
and experiences on which to draw.
>
> Why?
>
> Warrior
Thank you for your honesty. I am not being sarcastic when I say this.
Claire
and from John:
I also don't feel that it's necessary to list the Organizations which
are aware that we have been posting here. I am quite sure that the
Church is aware we are posting here,and by extension,reading a.r.s.
postings as well.
I don't know this for certain, but I am quite sure that officials within
CofS monitor this ng.
I would like to point out that Scientology is composed of a group of
free people who make choices on their own.
John S.
Warrior
In article <359DBA7D...@home.com>, Claire says...
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how long has the man been in $cienoland?
>>
>> Warrior
>> See http://www.xenu.net
>
>Actually,what I said earlier, was that she was somewhat antagonistic for
>a time. Even then the husband was not advised to dump her.
So, what you have not said, is that she got "handled", right? Please tell
me if my observation is correct, OK? Did she get "handled"
Also, you didn't answer my question, which was:
How long has the man been in Scientology?
Warrior (good at the "TR3" game) :-)
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Claire Swazey
I would say the situation was resolved,certainly ,as they are still
together and the dude looks happy.
>
> Also, you didn't answer my question, which was:
>
> How long has the man been in Scientology?
I know it is over 10 years but not sure if it's like 11 or 12 or what.
Hope this helps elucidate...
>
> Warrior (good at the "TR3" game) :-)
You certainly kept me on track. :-)
Claire
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> >Michael Reuss wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's another good (IMO) question. Claire, are you capable of
> >> discerning every possible trick, illusion or deceit that could possibly
> >> be tried against you? What are the implications for you, if you accept
> >> that someone (who may or may not have your best interests at heart)
> >> might successfully deceive or trick you?
>
> >end.
>
> agreed with "source" to forbid myself to see certain facts. The Scientology
> organization, specifically through its Sea Org cult, continually enforced
> "ethics tech" and "executive directives" on me (and other SO members) in an
> attempt to control the accessability and dissemination of "entheta"
> information, even if said "entheta" was true.
>
> Then I woke up from the lie.
>
> The betrayal ran deep.
>
> Are you a "public" Scientologist, Claire?
Yes, I am public but am former staff.
>
> Are you an "FSM"?
No, I am not.
>
> Lafayette Ron Hubbard was and is a false messiah.
I can certainly see why you would feel that way. I would never urge
anyone to be in a group that they could not in conscience endorse. But
then again, making converts was never my thing.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Regards,
Claire
Warrior
>> >> In article <359C50CF...@home.com>, Claire says...
>> >> >
>> >> >NO,it is not. If disconnection is not the correct action then a
>> >> >responsible Scientologist would be expected not to take such an action.
>> >> >There really is not much of it that goes on but I do know that it does
>> >> >take place sometimes. And abuses occur,I do not doubt. But they are
>> >> >rarer than you believe them to be.
>> >Warrior wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not rare at all. Look at Flag ED 2830RB of 25 July 1992. It has a list
>> >> of hundreds of "SPs" and "SP" groups. Scienos are *not* to communicate
>> >> nor associate with the individuals and groups listed in that ED.
I note you failed to address my point. Do you disagree with my
statements in the paragraph immediately above this one?
>> >> >I also have some stuff on this in a prev posting to Tilman you may want
>> >> >to look at.
>> >> Seen it. You'd better get your "false data stripped", Claire! Or get a
>> >> "disagreement check" or find your "MU", because you are spreading
>> >> "verbal tech". Not only that, but much is false as well!!
>> >> You might fool the "wogs", but you can't fool people like Deo, Dennis
>> >> and me.
>> >> >And here is a quick example of NOT disconnecting- I know someone who is
>> >> >very involved in CofS whose relative gives her children psychiatric
>> >> >drugs. She has not disconnected from her relative.
>> >> Not yet anyway. After the "handling" *fails*, _then_ the disconnection
>> >> comes.
>> >> >I gave an earlier example of someone I know who is married to a
>> >> >non-Scn'ologist who really does not see the attraction her spouse has to
>> >> >Scn. No pressure was put on the guy to disconnect from his wife and
>> >> >they have stayed together.
>> >> As long as she is not "antago", then the "handling" will be to do
>> >> "good roads, fair weather" while doing the "dissem drill" on the wife.
>> >>
>> >> Just out of curiosity, how long has the man been in $cienoland?
>> >>
>> >> Warrior
>> >> See http://www.xenu.net
>> In article <359DBA7D...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>> >
>> >Actually,what I said earlier, was that she was somewhat antagonistic for
>> >a time. Even then the husband was not advised to dump her.
So did she eventually become a Scientologist too?
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> So, what you have not said, is that she got "handled", right? Please tell
>> me if my observation is correct, OK? Did she get "handled"?
In article <359DD339...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>I would say the situation was resolved,certainly ,as they are still
>together and the dude looks happy.
If the situation was "resolved", it was *"handled"*. Do I need to
quote Hubbard's definition to you?!?!
I will point out that I am speaking Scienospeak out of the explicit
intention to communicate with you on *your* level!!
>> Also, you didn't answer my question, which was:
>>
>> How long has the man been in Scientology?
>I know it is over 10 years but not sure if it's like 11 or 12 or what.
>Hope this helps elucidate...
>> Warrior (good at the "TR3" game) :-)
>You certainly kept me on track. :-)
>
>Claire
Yes. I do try to keep you on track. Your response indicates you are
aware of my attempts to keep you on track. By that, I mean that I am
attempting to get answers from you on specific questions.
But you are a slimy Q&A artist.
I think you know what I mean.
Let me ask this: do you own or have access to an OEC Volume One?
If you do, then I will cite exact dates and titles of HCO PLs
you are violating.
But again, I think you know what I am driving at, and I believe you
are doing your best NOT to answer questions which I have asked ==
questions, which, if answered by you, will demonstrate your failure to
apply HCO PL "Keeping Scientology Working".
Warrior
>> In article <359DBA29...@home.com>, Claire says...
>> >
>> >Three different orgs know I am posting here and have not instructed me
>> >to not do so. They said they have heard nothing to the effect that I
>> >cannot do so.
>>
>> You didn't answer all my questions.
>>
>> Have you seen OSA Int's order on ars?
In article <359DD11C...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>As I have said before, I do not view a.r.s. as an authorized source of
>information regarding CofS policy.
I understand. You still did not answer my question. Have you seen OSA Int's
order on the subject of reading and posting to ars? Either you have read it
or you have not read it.
>> Please tell me at which orgs "they" are aware of your posting here.
>> Please give names and/or the "terminals' posts" (positions) so I may verify.
> Have talked to EOs,EDs and DSAs at orgs on North American continent.
>> Did you tell the EOs that you also read this newsgroup?
> Yes.
Sounds like these EOs need a retrain on the HEJSC. They are all
squirrels. You have knowingly and intentionally violated many Vol One
policies on "ethics". And these EOs did no "ethics action" on you.
Not even the first "ethics gradient"??? Weird!!!
Are all the above-mentioned EOs, EDs and DSAs newbies or "unhatted"?
If you do not have explicit permission to read and post to ars, then
you are in violation of Scientology policies written by Hubbard.
> I communicate with whomever I please.
Then you selectively apply Hubbard's policies on "SPs" and "SP groups".
Are you a freezoner or slightly disaffected Scientologist, Claire?
>> You skirt my questions, Claire.
>Sorry,didn't mean to. The thing is that my answers are not always going
>to give satisfaction to some of a.r.s'ers. The reason I am sure has to
>do with the fact that the two camps have entirely different viewpoints
>and experiences on which to draw.
I'm just trying to figure out if you are:
a) truthful,
b) a troll, or
c) a freezoner
I have asked very specific questions in an attempt to understand *your*
understanding and application of (or failure to apply) Scientology policy.
> Thank you for your honesty. I am not being sarcastic when I say this.
>
>Claire
>
>and from John:
>
>I also don't feel that it's necessary to list the Organizations which
>are aware that we have been posting here.
Well then this demonstrates your unwillingness to answer certain
questions.
>I am quite sure that the Church is aware we are posting here,and by
>extension,reading a.r.s.postings as well.
>
>I don't know this for certain, but I am quite sure that officials within
>CofS monitor this ng.
>
>I would like to point out that Scientology is composed of a group of
>free people who make choices on their own.
>
>John S.
John, you are playing with words. I will grant that you are making choices
on your own. But you and Claire are violating numerous policies in OEC
Vol One just by posting here.
You *do* at least admit you are aware of certain HCO PLs pertaining to
"maintaining a willing connection" and communicating with "SPs", etc.
-- do you not?
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
>> >> Clare wrote:
>> >> >> > >Not true.
Warrior
>> In article <359DBB06...@home.com>, Claire says...
>> >
>> >Yes,I could be fooled. I just don't think I could be fooled for years on
>> >end.
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> Funny... That's what I once thought too. Then I realized I had incorrectly
>> agreed with "source" to forbid myself to see certain facts. The Scientology
>> organization, specifically through its Sea Org cult, continually enforced
>> "ethics tech" and "executive directives" on me (and other SO members) in an
>> attempt to control the accessability and dissemination of "entheta"
>> information, even if said "entheta" was true.
>>
>> Then I woke up from the lie.
>>
>> The betrayal ran deep.
>>
>> Are you a "public" Scientologist, Claire?
In article <359DD3EA...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>Yes, I am public but am former staff.
Why did you leave staff?
>> Are you an "FSM"?
>No, I am not.
>> Lafayette Ron Hubbard was and is a false messiah.
>I can certainly see why you would feel that way. I would never urge
>anyone to be in a group that they could not in conscience endorse.
That's why I left. I got sick of being and seeing others be betrayed.
And I destest dishonesty, manipulation and betrayal (on *all* "flows").
>But then again, making converts was never my thing.
>
>Regards,
>Claire
Are you a freezoner now?
ats...@swbell.net
Claire Swazey wrote:
> Yes,I could be fooled. I just don't think I could be fooled for years on
> end.
Claire, there are many here who *were* fooled for years on end.
Intelligence doesn't make you cult-proof.
Tommy
--
'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'
-- Hubbard, 1967 letter to his wife submitted to the court in the
Armstrong
case, authenticity unchallenged by LRH/CoS lawyers
Tilman Hausherr
>> Are you a "public" Scientologist, Claire?
>
>Yes, I am public but am former staff.
Did you have to pay a freeloader bill? And if yes, what were you
thoughts about it - did you think it is fair, considering you worked for
very low money?
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[posted/mailed - it's customary, btw, to mention that when doing it so
that the recipient knows it's not meant as a private communication]
In Message-ID: <359D73E9...@home.com>,
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Wow. Thanks for the post. My answer may strike you (and anyone else) as
>unsatisfactory and evasive. And this may very well be the case. As I
>have said before, I do not have all the answers.
That's okay, I'm only expecting you to do the best you can. You're
already head-and-shoulders above the pro-Scn folks we've had the past
few years.
>The things you write about are things that,from your side of the issue,
>are things that were done to you and your group (ok,its not a real
>group,all the anti-Scn'ologists, I mean, I know arscc doesnt exist,
"We do not exist". A damn fine motto, but I wonder how many people
in the COS collective think it's some deep comment on the Scientologese
state of "non-Existence". :>
>but
>still there is a type of movement of sorts out there,etc) by Scn. And
>they *were*.
>
>Well, I think that it could be said that a number of people are at war
>against CofS. Of course, you realize that in that case, it's quite
>mutual. Although the fair game policy letter was canceled,
In name only, I'm afraid. Read the "cancellation". The handling of
SPs was not to be changed in any way. Lying, tricking, suing and
destroying is all still a-okay.
That brings up a question, btw. Do you and/or John think that the
"fair game" order was being misinterpreted by over-zealous Scns, and
that all it was SUPPOSED to mean was that SPs couldn't take advantage
of the COS's internal justice systems? That's the official excuse, if
you've never heard it, I'd be happy to repost the PR blurb.
Do *YOU* folks buy that?
>the Church
>does go on defending itself, sometimes taking the offensive,such as the
>examples you have given me. Personally, I think that if the CofS did
>not do these things they would be long gone.
On the contrary, if the COS wasn't always pulling shit like the
examples I gave, hardly any of us would be here and its opposition
would be practically nil - probably just the Christian fruits unhappy
that you aren't worshipping Their One True God.
The COS pulled us in, you see. Many people are here because of Helena
Kobrin's RMGROUP attempt on ARS. Some are here because of the message
cancels, or because of the Spam, or because of the illegal raids
conducted against Erlich and Lerma. I myself am here because a
Scientology employee ("Chris Miller", more than likely not "her" real
name) went on the soc.women newsgroup and tried to smear the highly
regarded law firm representing Dennis Erlich, lying about how "she"
had a daughter working there and was concerned about their reputation.
So much for honesty and integrity, eh? (Could you do me a favor,
Claire? Could you be the very first Scientologist to tell me that
this was wrong? Not just ill-advised, but actually morally wrong?)
ARS is a problem the COS didn't have to have (we're an official "Hill
10", you know), but no, they had to listen to L. Ron, piss in our
sandbox and clumsily attempt to "handle" the internet. With critical
web pages multiplying all over the world, pickets happening on almost
a daily basis, negative press reports popping up like never before
(it's now a "stat" the COS uses to prove expansion!) and their secret
scriptures available free to anyone who wants them, I wonder if anyone
there wishes they'd never had that particular bright idea.
So, you've got it exactly backwards. If the COS doesn't stop its
L.Ron-mandated bullying and harassment, it WILL eventually be long
gone, and I doubt many people will shed any tears when it is. And
that's a shame, because I know most of people in it are only trying
to make the world a better place, and would be physically sick if
they knew everything their management got up to. YOU'RE bothered by
some of what you've found out about their antics, right? Right?
>I know from reading the ng
>that a number of people would like that to be so.
Yep, and are hard at work on it. I myself "muddy" the COS's "field"
whenever I can.
>I also know their
>reasons,both the ones stated (which sometimes are as stated and
>sometimes are other than stated,depending on the person posting) and
>those not stated.
You reading minds, too, Claire? Could you give me a rundown of what
these mis-stated and unstated motives are? (I collect them.)
You don't buy that crap about us all being religious bigots, do you,
or criminals afraid of being found out? If so, ask yourself - how
come hardly anyone here pesters the FreeZone? They're Scientologists
as much as you are. More so, according to them.
>The CofS is never going to sit still for that.
Nope. The "tech" forbids them to, in fact.
>Rightly or wrongly, they will not. They will do and continue to do
>things that you may deplore.
I'm afraid you're right. Things that ANY ethical human being would
deplore. You included, yes? I gave you just a brief list, but you
don't support all those actions, do you?
>However, there is one thing I can think of that may or may not work. I
>think that,even though what I said about knowledge reports was regarding
>communication lines within the organization, that still perhaps you may
>have a contact within the CofS. Remember the Dateline show about Bob
>Minton and CofS--Mr Minton and Mr Rinder did meet a couple times. I am
>not sure that anything came of this or not but these meetings did take
>place which indicates to me that such communication between the two
>camps is possible. I do not know if this particular communication line
>is the best one, but we used it once and received a speedy reply. It's
>in...@scientology.net. I would suggest letting them know you were not
>trying to give them a bad time
Ah, but I am. I'm critical of the Church of Scientology, which is by
definition an attack, which by definition makes me a criminal and an
SP, who by definition deserves no rights of any kind. Kinda neat, eh?
>or anything but wanted to handle a
>grievance in a civilized fashion. Perhaps this would work out. Other
>than that, I have no other ideas to give on this.
Thanks for your efforts, but I know it wouldn't work. It would involve
the COS admitting they were wrong to a bunch of low-toned suppressives,
for one thing. Ain't gonna happen. Can't lose face in front of the
wogs, it just doesn't say "more able", somehow.
>Claire
Thanks for the exchange (I hope it can continue) and sorry to have
given you some shit,
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNZ42jYCmc8kif9MJAQGuSQQAk5tlGizezjbfQ8CJIeYUcAFtcoBGkEbd
bpjCrvBhMCAdhah/GDS+xEPZKE0BuYNk3c2pWGeKI6PkNdPnw4lfLvf8C8HfEfqL
havCmn//MF9ZR7D7WsnivCsNK/097vynWAmTT9nfUwjFkgjHrcVEcs1lQmjKhAVH
lKemT1Qc7gs=
=18PD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Warrior
In article <359F8D2C...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>I'm just someone that wants to put her two cents in. I had been lurking
>here for a couple months or so before I posted anything and finally
>decided that it would be nice if I could put my point of view out
>there.And as for the idea of my being a troll,my posts are less
>inflammatory than many that I have seen here.
>
>© Anti-Cult ® wrote:
>>
>> IMO, Clair is a troll. Remember Mark, some months ago, I still have the
>> sig in my sigfile. I wonder how Mark and Clair would get along?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mark. A Scientologist, and proud to be critical about my Church!
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Well as I have confessed, that was me. Now who the hell is trolling here
>> as Clair?
John J and Claire M Swazey have verifiable information as to their
home address, telephone number and email address through online
resources.
But notice that "Claire" wrote: "And as for the idea of my being a troll,
my posts are less inflammatory than many that I have seen here."
She did not deny trolling.
Maybe someone should call the DSA at the org 1200 miles from Southern
California and ask if he/she approves of Claire and John posting here.
Warrior
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> In article <359F8D2C...@home.com>, Claire says...
> >
> >I'm just someone that wants to put her two cents in. I had been lurking
> >here for a couple months or so before I posted anything and finally
> >decided that it would be nice if I could put my point of view out
> >there.And as for the idea of my being a troll,my posts are less
> >inflammatory than many that I have seen here.
> >
> >© Anti-Cult ® wrote:
> >>
> >> IMO, Clair is a troll. Remember Mark, some months ago, I still have the
> >> sig in my sigfile. I wonder how Mark and Clair would get along?
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Mark. A Scientologist, and proud to be critical about my Church!
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Well as I have confessed, that was me. Now who the hell is trolling here
> >> as Clair?
>
> John J and Claire M Swazey have verifiable information as to their
> home address, telephone number and email address through online
> resources.
>
> But notice that "Claire" wrote: "And as for the idea of my being a troll,
> my posts are less inflammatory than many that I have seen here."
>
> She did not deny trolling.
Not true. i have denied it repeatedly. i deny it 'cause it isn't
true. And the ED and the EO and DSA of my Org know I am doing this.
>
> Maybe someone should call the DSA at the org 1200 miles from Southern
> California and ask if he/she approves of Claire and John posting here.
>
> Warrior
This wouldn't be necessary as she or he knows already. Why the concern?
Claire Swazey
Warrior wrote:
>
> >> In article <359EA4A3...@home.com>, John J Swazey wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Like we said we communicate with whomever we wish. And we have read the
> >> >PLs and have done the PTS/SP course. I truly am sorry you disapprove of
> >> >our posting on this ng.
>
> >Warrior wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't disapprove of your (or Claire's) posting to this newsgroup. In
> >> fact, I am happy that you do post here.
> >>
> >> Please don't "dub in" about my "disapproval"; there is no "disapproval"
> >> on my part.
> >>
> >> It was Hubbard who *disapproved* of Scienos communicating with "SPs".
> >>
> >> Warrior
>
> In article <359F8CBE...@home.com>, John J or Claire M Swazey wrote:
> >
> >I'm not dubbing anything in. I saw a bunch of accusations and sternly
> >worded admonitions and so I came to this conclusion. And I still think
> >so.
>
> Believe what you will, but I never said I disapproved of your (or Claire's)
> posting to ars. You have arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Do you have
> a "held down seven" ?
>
> Or do you just (erroneously) conclude that I "disapprove" because I am
> a critic?
>
> I have only stated (repeatedly) that it is Hubbard and Scientology who
> disapprove of your posting here.
>
> As I said above, I am happy that you post here.
>
> Warrior
> See http://www.factnet.org
Definitely not a held down seven. If this were so you would not be so
concerned with informing my org that I am posting here. As you've
stated you feel that if the org knew they would ask me to stop.
John S.
and from Claire:
it's usenet,it's a public forum, I think perhaps you may want to get
used to the idea that we will be posting for a time. We will probably
eventually stop,but that day will come when we have lost interest in
posting here.
Warrior
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> John J and Claire M Swazey have verifiable information as to their
>> home address, telephone number and email address through online
>> resources.
>>
>> But notice that "Claire" wrote: "And as for the idea of my being a troll,
>> my posts are less inflammatory than many that I have seen here."
>>
>> She did not deny trolling.
In article <359FFAEC...@home.com>, Claire says...
>
>Not true. i have denied it repeatedly. i deny it 'cause it isn't
>true. And the ED and the EO and DSA of my Org know I am doing this.
OK. You have now denied it. I never saw your denial up until now. And
in your statement above there is no denial. You only said "And as for
the idea of my being a troll, my posts are less inflammatory than many
that I have seen here." If this sentence constitutes a denial (in your
mind), then I would suggest to you that you re-read what you wrote.
Are you posting to ars as part of a "liability formula"?
>> Maybe someone should call the DSA at the org 1200 miles from Southern
>> California and ask if he/she approves of Claire and John posting here.
>>
>> Warrior
>
>This wouldn't be necessary as she or he knows already. Why the concern?
Personally, I'm not concerned. Curious maybe, but definitely not
concerned. I merely suggested it as a possibility should anyone wish
to call the DSA. The only org I can think of that is about 1200 miles
from Southern California is the Seattle Org.
Is that where you are "on lines", Claire?
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/
Warrior
In article <359FFBB5...@home.com>, Claire and John Swazey wrote:
>
>Definitely not a held down seven. If this were so you would not be so
>concerned with informing my org that I am posting here. As you've
>stated you feel that if the org knew they would ask me to stop.
I am not personally concerned with informing your org that you
are posting here. If I were, I would have already informed the
DSA days ago. I'll leave that to others (Scientologists) to do.
>John S.
>
>and from Claire:
>
>it's usenet,it's a public forum, I think perhaps you may want to get
>used to the idea that we will be posting for a time. We will probably
>eventually stop,but that day will come when we have lost interest in
>posting here.
As I said, I am happy you are posting here. May you set an example
for other Scientologists, if indeed you are one.
Warrior
Warrior
In article <199807060426...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, deom...@aol.com
says...
>
>>No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do
>>many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience)
>
> PTS Type 1 - connection to an SP - the ONLY solution is disconnection.
>
> Reference - Policy on Sources of Trouble
>
>High Crime - Continued adherence to someone declared Suppressive
>
> Reference - High Crimes- Suppression of Scientologists
>
> What policy or tech can you cite that deals with staying connected to someone
>who has been declared by the CofS?
>
> And don't try sliding over to PTS Type A which is totally different.
I gotta see her answer to this.
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
DeoMorto
>No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do
>many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience)
OK Clare - cite the policy and the tech you are using for your assumptions.
PTS Type 1 - connection to an SP - the ONLY solution is disconnection.
Reference - Policy on Sources of Trouble
High Crime - Continued adherence to someone declared Suppressive
Reference - High Crimes- Suppression of Scientologists
What policy or tech can you cite that deals with staying connected to someone
who has been declared by the CofS?
And don't try sliding over to PTS Type A which is totally different.
"He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put
it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
DeoMorto
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Disconnection
>From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
>> Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
>>
>> : Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to
>> : Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member
>> : did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the
>> : person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation
>> : cleared up.
Well geez as someone who has had 15 Comm evs and has been the chairman of over
30 and been a member on at least 20 more my experience cries over your by quite
a bit.
But it doesnt seem to matter what other people have seen and done in
scientology because it appears - though it may not be the case - that you are
stuck with defending no matter what may be said.
I have been on a comm ev where the recommendations were given to the
committee before the comm ev was even started - by RTC. I was removed as a
chairman from that comm ev for refusing to go along with it.
You say in another post that you are no longer a member of the cofs so you do
nothave to worry about such things. But one day a friend of yours may end up
receiving such "justice at the hands of a church they are committed to and you
may, at that point, realize what you have been defedning.
But maybe not - there are fewer and fewer people in the cofs.
Bernie
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Cat O'Blivion wrote:
>> Claire Swazey wrote:
>> > Disconnection is only used as a last resort if the other person is
>> > making one's life so hellish that one cannot find a way to deal with the
>> > person and restore harmony.
>> <snip>
>> > I have (non-Scientology) friends who
>> > disconnected from parents who kept trying to have sex with
>> > them.
>> Excuse me, Claire? Are you attempting to equate disagreement
>> with the "church" of scientology and incest???
>> Here's a clue, Claire: incest, just like all other forms
>> of child sexual abuse is illegal, not to mention
>> profoundly psychologically damaging (although apparently
>> L. Ron Hubbard didn't seem to think it was that traumatic,
>> so you may not, either). A person disagreeing with the
>> official teachings of a particular "church" is, at the
>> worst, merely annoying.
>> Refusing to have any contact with someone because of their
>> history of abusive and/or exploitative behaviour is not the
>> same as refusing to have any contact with someone because
>> your "church" says so.
>> Let's not confuse the issue, here. It trivializes the
>> experiences of survivors of sexual abuse and only proves
>> your insensitivity and inability to evaluate data.
>Not confusing or trivializing anything. I just was giving an example of
>an appropriate cause for disconnection.
Furthermore, saying that "a person disagreeing with the official
teachings of a particular 'church' is, at the worst, merely annoying"
is inexact and Claire's comparison is much closer to what really
happens. People who really believe in their faith can recent constant
attacks, challenges, and invalidations of their religion very deeply.
Countless religious wars are here to attest to this fact. This is
different than mere disagreement.
In addition, the general situation can be further complicated by
*prior* family problems, as I illustrated in the case of Katleen
Wilson at http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/wilson.htm (something that is
often ignored by anticultists in their primitive understanding of a
dual concept between a "loving family" and the "evil cult").
I am reminded of something Judy Stein wrote:
===========================================================
http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/stein.htm:
mabel:
> I have experienced situations where the victims
> will maintain a contact with outsiders only on the grounds that none of
> the new-found beliefs of the victim are discussed.
Judy Stein:
In some cases this may be entirely justified, i.e., if contact
tends to involve endless challenges to the cult member. Who
wants to have to be continually defending their beliefs?
> If sects and cults encouraged
> all members to openly debate the group’s philosophy with outsiders, then
> some of the friction that exists today between cult members and outsiders
> might be avoided.
Such debate could prove useful in many cases, but in others it
could lead to a situation in which the only interaction between
cult members and outsiders consisted of endless challenges, as I
suggested above, especially if the outsiders have already bought
into the anticult doctrine.
===========================================================
Bernie
On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 02:07:30 GMT, , Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>
wrote:
>I realize that abuses may happen and I have seen some accounts of
>improper disconnection posted here and webbed as well. All I can say is
>that when such things occur, (improperly, I mean) that this is not
>right. It is not Scientology. I think we have all seen people and
>organizations who did not act in accordance with
>policies,beliefs,creeds,standards,mores, etc, that they supposedly
>subscribed to, both in and outside Scientology. But I do not think that
>the majority of people and organizations betray their standards as a
>regular course of events. But it does happen, both in the
>non-Scientology world and in Scientology. But I believe,based on my
>experiences and knowing the people I know and have known, that abuse of
>disconnection is not encouraged or wanted in Scientology. I know a man
>whose wife is a non-Scientologist. The man is a dyed in the wool
>Scientologist. The wife has trouble seeing the attraction. For a while
>there was some disharmony on the home front. Even then, the Org did not
>order the guy to disconnect from his wife. They suggested better
>communication. I think this must have worked as they are still
>together. She is still a non-Scientologist but they are happy together
>and no one's pressuring them to split up.
I can confirm this with my own experience. While disconnection do
occur, it is not that common, and in case of family disagreement the
effort is put towards *improving* communication. This often is enough
to resolve the situation, albeit not always.
DeoMorto
>I know a man
>>whose wife is a non-Scientologist. The man is a dyed in the wool
>>Scientologist. The wife has trouble seeing the attraction. For a while
>>there was some disharmony on the home front. Even then, the Org did not
>>order the guy to disconnect from his wife. They suggested better
>>communication. I think this must have worked as they are still
>>together. She is still a non-Scientologist but they are happy together
>>and no one's pressuring them to split up.
>
>I can confirm this with my own experience. While disconnection do
>occur, it is not that common, and in case of family disagreement the
>effort is put towards *improving* communication. This often is enough
>to resolve the situation, albeit not always.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you ain't reading what I wrote.
If someone is declared then someone who wishes to remain in scientology MUST
disconnect.
You are - deliberately or otherwise - trying to cover up one situation by
using a red herring of another.
If someone is antagonistic to scientology the solution per PTS Type A
handling is to use fair roads and good weather communication - mainly because
the initial antagonism is, in a large degree supposed to be generated by the
scientologist being too enthusiastic and insistent with their family members.
And yes - in that circumstance handling is far preferred to disconnection
though disconnection remains the handling of last resort.
However what I posted and which, so far, both you and Clare have been doing a
tap dance around is the circum,stance of someone declared suppressive by the
church.
There is no other handling except disconnection. It is used routinely and
ruthlessly. It is exactly per the policies and "tech" of the CofS.
I have given examples which Clare keeps claiming are not examples of the real
deal. Either she has absolutely no knowledge of PTS/SP policies and tech or she
is a troll.
You Bernie however should know better - as I said in my posting wehere I
cited the references for disconnection - lets see you cite something to the
contrary.
Stop trying to obfuscate - if the Church declares someone suppressive then a
scientologist who wishes to remain in good standing must disconnect. True or
False?
Failure to disconnect from a declared SP is a High Crime - true or false?
Whether you as a scientologist think the declare is true or not does not
enter into it. True or False?
Keith Henson
I am hard pressed to decide if the wgert or these "publics" do more
damage to Co$ on the net. For example:
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote:
snip
: Well, I think that it could be said that a number of people are at war
: against CofS. Of course, you realize that in that case, it's quite
: mutual. Although the fair game policy letter was canceled,
Not quite correct. The *term* "fair game" was not to be used, the
treatment was to continue as before.
the Church
: does go on defending itself, sometimes taking the offensive,such as the
: examples you have given me. Personally, I think that if the CofS did
: not do these things they would be long gone. I know from reading the ng
: that a number of people would like that to be so. I also know their
: reasons,both the ones stated (which sometimes are as stated and
: sometimes are other than stated,depending on the person posting) and
: those not stated. The CofS is never going to sit still for that.
: Rightly or wrongly, they will not.
Such as disconnections, lethal or near lethal isolation rundowns, "noisy
investigations," censor attempts, suing individuals into submission,
concentration camps for kids, forced abortions, kidnapping members who try
to leave, and similar nasty behavior.
They will do and continue to do
: things that you may deplore.
You got this right!
I must say that the non-professionals (not that I can really tell) seem to
be doing as much or maybe even more damage as the wgerts and
rod_fletchers. Admitting Co$ will continue to act uncivilized is a
refreshing change, but like all previous attempts is more foot bullet.
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
ats...@swbell.net wrote:
: Claire Swazey wrote:
: > Yes,I could be fooled. I just don't think I could be fooled for years on
: > end.
: Claire, there are many here who *were* fooled for years on end.
: Intelligence doesn't make you cult-proof.
Intelligence does not protect you from either drugs or cults. Both get
into the deep brain reward systems and employ intelligence to rationalize
behavior (taking drugs or wasting life on cults). See the third article
in the file "all" at
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hk/hkenson
Keith Henson
Jim Byrd
In article <199807061801...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, deom...@aol.com
says...
[in response to a scn post]
> Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you ain't reading what I wrote.
> If someone is declared then someone who wishes to remain in scientology MUST
>disconnect.
> You are - deliberately or otherwise - trying to cover up one situation by
>using a red herring of another.
Deliberately continuing to misunderstand the other person's point of view is a
standard Scientology tactic. Kim Baker once published a set of such tricks used
by Scientologists. You are being "handled".
Warrior
> If someone is declared then someone who wishes to remain in scientology MUST
>disconnect.
> You are - deliberately or otherwise - trying to cover up one situation by
>using a red herring of another.
Claire:
I'd like to see you answer Deo's questions too. They are essentially
the same as what I've been asking. To date, you have failed to answer me.
That's what prompted me to call you a "slimy Q&A artist". You have
continued to avoid answering. Why?
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In<35a28f62....@news.ping.be>,Barmie<clue...@defective.be>writes:
> The man is a dyed in the wool
>>Scientologist. The wife has trouble seeing the attraction. For a while
>>there was some disharmony on the home front. Even then, the Org did not
>>order the guy to disconnect from his wife. They suggested better
>>communication. I think this must have worked as they are still
>>together. She is still a non-Scientologist but they are happy together
>>and no one's pressuring them to split up.
>
>I can confirm this with my own experience. While disconnection do
>occur, it is not that common, and in case of family disagreement the
>effort is put towards *improving* communication. This often is enough
>to resolve the situation, albeit not always.
I can confirm this with my own experience: when representatives
of the mafia talk to people about "blowing their fucking heads off"
unless they comply, this is often enough to resolve the situation:
they comply without actually having their heads blown off, which
is a comparatively rare occurenece as a last resort.
--
//////\\\
/ (~) (~) \ "Sometimes, Barmpot, your deductive processes
[( / \ {)]} truly amaze me."
\ ._. .-. / : --Captain Hastings, in
\_=====_/ Hercule Barmpot: The Case of the Missing Marbles
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In<35a18f3f....@news.ping.be>,Barmie<clue...@defective.be>writes:
>>> Let's not confuse the issue, here. It trivializes the
>>> experiences of survivors of sexual abuse and only proves
>>> your insensitivity and inability to evaluate data.
>>
>>Not confusing or trivializing anything. I just was giving an example of
>>an appropriate cause for disconnection.
>
>Furthermore, saying that "a person disagreeing with the official
>teachings of a particular 'church' is, at the worst, merely annoying"
>is inexact and Claire's comparison is much closer to what really
>happens. People who really believe in their faith can recent constant
>attacks, challenges, and invalidations of their religion very deeply.
>Countless religious wars are here to attest to this fact. This is
>different than mere disagreement.
People who resort to force of arms or other violent means because they
don't like their belief in mickey mouse being challenged are not well
regarded in civilised western countries. Even Belgium.
Tom Fielder
In article <362cc01e...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> In <359EA6DC...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> Did you have to pay a freeloader bill? And if yes, what were you
> >> thoughts about it - did you think it is fair, considering you worked for
> >> very low money?
> >
> >This is not public information.
>
> Sounds to me as if it is embarassing to fall for the "freeloader bill"
> scam. This is the main reason to get people on staff - to make them work
> at low pay, and later to charge them for it.
>
> The is no reason to be ashamed of it. Contrary to scientology logic, in
> the real world it is *not* your fault when someone scams you.
Just to throw my two cents into what has been, IMO, an interesting
exchange amongst Claire, Warrior,et al. I left the staff of the
Champaign, Illinois Mission in 1977. At first, I was told I would have to
pay a freeloader's debt, but shortly thereafter (maybe a month or so?) I
was told the policy had been cancelled (or something to that effect - the
end result being I didn't have to pay it). Sad to say, I probably would
have paid it if the CofS had demanded it. Can anyone say for sure whether
or not this policy is still in effect, or reinstated?
Tom
Warrior
In article <tjf-060798...@tmfmac.bio.uci.edu>, t...@uci.edu says...
>
>Just to throw my two cents into what has been, IMO, an interesting
>exchange amongst Claire, Warrior,et al. I left the staff of the
>Champaign, Illinois Mission in 1977. At first, I was told I would have to
>pay a freeloader's debt, but shortly thereafter (maybe a month or so?) I
>was told the policy had been cancelled (or something to that effect - the
>end result being I didn't have to pay it). Sad to say, I probably would
>have paid it if the CofS had demanded it. Can anyone say for sure whether
>or not this policy is still in effect, or reinstated?
>
>Tom
Well, it has been about twenty years or so, but I do recall
an issue that was piloted. If I recall correctly it was written by
CS-3 Fran Freedman. The substance of the issue was that a 20%
reduction off the total of a person's "freeloader debt" was given
for each year a person had served on his/her contract, with a
minimum of $2500 due.
This program was quite successful in getting many former staff
back "on lines", since it facilitated very drastic reductions
on the amounts previously billed.
Imagine if you had been on staff for 8-10 years and had a "freeloader
bill" of $100,000 or more. (This happened a lot). I've even seen
larger amounts than $100,000 billed! Very few former staff ever paid
such large amounts off.
Under the old policy, a former staff was billed for the *full* amount
of services. Every time a staff member did a service, he/she was
required to sign a "no charge staff invoice" prior to starting the
service, stating something to the effect of: "I agree to pay the
full amount of $_______ in the event of contract breakage."
Under the pilot program, a staff member who had a bill of $100,000
and who had been on staff for 5 years, now "owed" only $2500. If
he/she had been on staff for 4 years, the "debt" would be $20,000
(20% of $100,000. (I'm only using $100,000 as an example. Of course,
some former staff had smaller "freeloader debts" initially, and
many had larger ones.)
I don't know what policies may have been in force in the Champaign-
Urbana Mission (I think that's what it was called in 1977). The one
I described very briefly was in use by the Sea Org orgs like AOLA,
ASHO, Flag, CESO and FOLO WUS. Scientology management does issue
different policies for different classes of orgs and missions, and
it sometimes tries different "pilot programs" in different areas.
And Sea Org orgs are run off of additional policies (called Flag
Orders) than Class IV (now called Class V) orgs and missions.
The basic issue was called "Freeloader Program Administration".
A later issue was "Violation of Staff Covenant".
As I said, I have only described the "freeloader debt" issue very
briefly. There is much more to the whole subject, and I could easily
write a 20-page article on it, since I spent 6+ years in finance
while in the Sea Org. One of my "post duties" as Treasury Secretary
was collecting (as well as overseeing the collection activities by
the Director of Income) from "freeloaders".
Sorry I can't tell you about the practices in Champaign, Illinois
in 1977. I wasn't there.
As to what policies are still in effect, I will have to ask some
friends who have recently left Scientology. I hope you will be
patient and hang around this NG for more information, because I
will have to put this on my *LONG* list of things to do and then
get back to you.
Warrior
See http://www.xenu.net
and http://www.entheta.net
and http://www.factnet.org
David Gerard
:I was going to answer more of these questions you had but the slime
:thing was too over the top. So forget it.
You are making excuses.
--
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
The above was written by the container formerly known as David Gerard.
See http://www.subgenius.com/ for details. It's too late to pay your $30.
David Gerard
:it's usenet,it's a public forum, I think perhaps you may want to get
:used to the idea that we will be posting for a time. We will probably
:eventually stop,but that day will come when we have lost interest in
:posting here.
Time to start a pool.
My guess is: two weeks. Say, Sunday 19th July.
David Gerard
:[Warrior]
:> I realize I would have had a better
:> chance of continuing to communicate with you had I not used the word
:> "slimy".
:Yeah you blew it.
Your tone level is visibly dropping.
That may be appropriate (or not) for one-to-one communication, but is it
appropriate for a public forum, where anything you say may be the first
thing a new person sees?
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> Stop trying to obfuscate - if the Church declares someone suppressive then a
>>scientologist who wishes to remain in good standing must disconnect. True or
>>False?
>> Failure to disconnect from a declared SP is a High Crime - true or false?
>> Whether you as a scientologist think the declare is true or not does not
>>enter into it. True or False?
>>
>>"He either fears his fate too much, or his rewards are small, who fears to put
>>it to the touch, to win -or lose it all""
>
>Claire:
>
> I'd like to see you answer Deo's questions too. They are essentially
>the same as what I've been asking. To date, you have failed to answer me.
>That's what prompted me to call you a "slimy Q&A artist". You have
>continued to avoid answering. Why?
Me2: I would like to see you answer on this point.
You are not dodging the question are you?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Rob Clark
>On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 04:06:54 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>:[Warrior]
>:> I realize I would have had a better
>:> chance of continuing to communicate with you had I not used the word
>:> "slimy".
>:Yeah you blew it.
>Your tone level is visibly dropping.
actually i chuckled at this exchange. i have never seen "humor" on the tone
scale, though i think it is, perhaps, that it, being one of the more sublime
things on earth, may be somewhere at 48.0 serenity of laughingness.
>That may be appropriate (or not) for one-to-one communication, but is it
>appropriate for a public forum, where anything you say may be the first
>thing a new person sees?
it would be a damn miracle if the first article anyone read on ars (or any other
newsgroup for that matter) were a model of perfect communication.
on a more serious note, this does indeed happen to any seemingly genuine
scientologist who has the temerity to poke their head into ars. the OSA bots,
gerts, fletchers et al generally just get loads of virtual tomatos thrown at
them, and it is indeed what they deserve. however, there's also a reverse
phenomenon whenever anyone remotely human shows up, for dozens of different
people just to leap like a pack of hungry wolves on the poor newbie and fire
five hundred different questions and comments at them in their first few days
here. in such a circumstance, i think it is probably unfair then to gripe about
any one question not being answered.
also, posting to usenet does not entail an obligation to respond to every single
followup or gripe. one is entirely within their rights to respond with nothing
or a quick fuckoff to anything they don't see as worth a response. i think it
takes a long track record of weaselling to be labelled a weasel, not merely the
occasional dropped question or response in a humongous monster thread.
rob
STella
David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 23:11:28 GMT, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>:it's usenet,it's a public forum, I think perhaps you may want to get
>:used to the idea that we will be posting for a time. We will probably
Hon, we're used to the idea that people can post freely, disagree
freely, disagree vociferously with ME, even. And for those of us
net.trained on Mark Ethan Smith and the glory days of the net, when we
had to carry our killfiles fifteen miles to school uphill BOTH ways,
we can even tolerate this with an amused smile, and a fantasy about
putting MES, Even Steven, Cheryl Stewart, and Noodle in the same
newsgroup and shaking them till they buzz.
Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas. Freedom is more addictive
than auditine, which is a very large part of scientology's difficulty
with the net.
>:eventually stop,but that day will come when we have lost interest in
>:posting here.
I've stopped for weeks or months a time or two myself.
>Time to start a pool.
>
>My guess is: two weeks. Say, Sunday 19th July.
I'm not really terribly interested in that pool; I'm a lot more
curious about how long a sincere and honest scientologist can stay
here, confronting and being confronted, and NOT squirrel off to the
freezone, or leave the tek entirely.
I'm not interested in how fast they simperwhapper, but how long it
takes 'em to Clear, baybee. <wink and a grin to Heidrun!>
But if I were interested in that pool, I'd say August 1, because
people DO kinda assay the results they're getting around
month/year/millenial boundaries, and I always like a semi-plausible
reason for pulling numbers out of an orifice, which IS all we can
possibly do here.
STella, who tried to work a reference to certain tools of an officer
of the court into the sentence containing the word "orifice"
but who found that "shit-stained strapon" messed up the metre no
matter how the sentence was structured
Tilman Hausherr
wrote:
>Just to throw my two cents into what has been, IMO, an interesting
>exchange amongst Claire, Warrior,et al. I left the staff of the
>Champaign, Illinois Mission in 1977. At first, I was told I would have to
>pay a freeloader's debt, but shortly thereafter (maybe a month or so?) I
>was told the policy had been cancelled (or something to that effect - the
>end result being I didn't have to pay it). Sad to say, I probably would
>have paid it if the CofS had demanded it. Can anyone say for sure whether
>or not this policy is still in effect, or reinstated?
This is the very first time I *ever* hear this. Either they were
off-policy, or the policy was only cancelled temporarly. Many [ex] clams
have mentioned the freeloader bills, some even proudly.
In the 80ies, there was a lawsuit in Germany about a freeloader bill
that had been paid. The "victim" wanted the money back. The court
agreed: Freedom of religion does not mean (in Germany) that you may
pressure people to join or to stay.
Susanne Elleby also told that she was scared to leave because of it. So
she stayed, but tried hard to be *very* downstat in the hope they kick
her out. (They did so only after her brother made a threat to blow the
whole place up, which - for the record - does not have my approval)
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
DeoMorto
any one question not being answered.>>
Well I would agree were it not for the fact that both Bernie and Clare both
tried to obfuscate the issue. They both took the time to fabricate and answer
to a question that was not asked and tried to pass it off as an answer to my
point about disconnection.
I have pointed it out to both of them - in Clare's case, twice.
So far there has been no response.
Thomas Fielder
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> In <tjf-060798...@tmfmac.bio.uci.edu>, t...@uci.edu (Tom Fielder)
> wrote:
>
> >Just to throw my two cents into what has been, IMO, an interesting
> >exchange amongst Claire, Warrior,et al. I left the staff of the
> >Champaign, Illinois Mission in 1977. At first, I was told I would have to
> >pay a freeloader's debt, but shortly thereafter (maybe a month or so?) I
> >was told the policy had been cancelled (or something to that effect - the
> >end result being I didn't have to pay it). Sad to say, I probably would
> >have paid it if the CofS had demanded it. Can anyone say for sure whether
> >or not this policy is still in effect, or reinstated?
>
> This is the very first time I *ever* hear this. Either they were
> off-policy, or the policy was only cancelled temporarly. Many [ex] clams
> have mentioned the freeloader bills, some even proudly.
>
> In the 80ies, there was a lawsuit in Germany about a freeloader bill
> that had been paid. The "victim" wanted the money back. The court
> agreed: Freedom of religion does not mean (in Germany) that you may
> pressure people to join or to stay.
According to another response to my query (I think it was by Warrior - I'm
reading this ng from two different computers so it gets confusing
sometimes - actually, I think his reply was posted as a separate thread),
there have been a number of variations on the freeloader policy, so we may
both be right. As I said, I don't really remember if I was told the
policy had been cancelled, but the bottom line was I didn't have to pay.
Tom