ABC show - my commentary
Ralph Hilton
managed to download what was actually shown (thanks Sten).
All of the CofS auditing footage is clearly marked "Church of Scientology Video"
Any other footage showing auditing and the emeter is FZ.
The introduction sequence showing a panning over a library followed by a close
up of a cream colored emeter is FZ. The scene then shifts to a shot including a
female auditor from the CofS provided material.
All the close ups of the cream colored meter are from my footage.
I must admit that I am not entirely happy that ABC failed to state such.
I have looked at the video of the CofS session and to me this bears only a vague
resemblance to auditing as taught by Hubbard.
I would not associate my name with such a horrendous misrepresentation of
auditing.
The auditing questions used and the sequence of such do not follow the bulletins
available for inspection in the tech vols.
"Locate an incident when you took the emotion of sorrow"
"1949" etc.
"Is there an earlier incident when you took the emotion of sorrow?"
"1814"
"What happened?"
(PC describes the incident)
"Thank you very much. Your needle is floating"
This is not auditing. If that is what they are doing it is a total travesty. In
all fairness it may well have been clipped by the editor.
Secondly Rinder said about overboardings:
"There was a little ceremony that grew up like a joke ... I commit my sins to
the deep and I arise a better man - people would jump off the side"
This is a lie.
People were thrown off the side of the ship. They didn't jump off. I spent
several hours last year talking to a man who was involved in the overboardings.
It was maybe a 40 foot drop. No laughing matter for older people.
Thirdly I'd like to comment on the RPF. I spent 6 months on the RPF at Flag
during the late 70's.
I didn't experience any of the horrific things described. During that time I was
never deprived of food nor of sufficient sleep.
For a while I worked in the kitchen preparing food and saw that the food
provided to the RPF was exactly the same as that given to the rest of the staff.
Persons on the RPF were required to spend 5 hours a day in auditing/ training.
If such persons were insufficiently rested then they would go and get sufficient
sleep.
During the time I spent on the RPF I was there on my own decision however insane
that might seem to others. I had the feeling that if I wanted to leave then I
could have done so. I understand that others' experiences may well differ but in
all honesty I felt there was no physical constraint against my doing so in any
way.
When I left the S.O. in 1982 there was emotional pressure to remain and long
conversations but when I stated that I wanted to leave there was no physical
coercion whatsoever. Nobody so much as touched my body in coercion.
I spent 10 years at Flag from 1972 - 1982. Sometimes it wasn't easy. I couldn't
honestly say that it was ever heavier than the army training camps I went to
while in school.
I understand that others' experiences might well be very different but
personally although I am declared SP and disagree with the CofS heavily in many
matters I prefer to state the truth as I experienced it even when it reflects
favorably on the CofS.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
Rebecca Hartong
says...
> I understand that others' experiences might well be very different but
> personally although I am declared SP and disagree with the CofS heavily in many
> matters I prefer to state the truth as I experienced it even when it reflects
> favorably on the CofS.
And that--despite however much I may at times disagree with you--is why I
think you're a good guy, Ralph.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Ron Newman
> The ABC show used auditing footage from the FZ and the CofS. I have only just
> managed to download what was actually shown (thanks Sten).
>
> All of the CofS auditing footage is clearly marked "Church of Scientology
> Video"
>
> Any other footage showing auditing and the emeter is FZ.
>
> The introduction sequence showing a panning over a library followed by a close
> up of a cream colored emeter is FZ.
It's unfortunate that ABC didn't credit this sequence in any way (even
at the end of the show).
> Thirdly I'd like to comment on the RPF. I spent 6 months on the RPF at Flag
> during the late 70's.
It is possible that either (a) the RPF was worse in other locations than
it was at Flag, or (b) the RPF is worse now than it was 20 years ago.
Can other ex-members comment on these speculations?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Bernie
>The ABC show used auditing footage from the FZ and the CofS. I have only just
>managed to download what was actually shown (thanks Sten).
>
>All of the CofS auditing footage is clearly marked "Church of Scientology Video"
>
>Any other footage showing auditing and the emeter is FZ.
>
>The introduction sequence showing a panning over a library followed by a close
>up of a cream colored emeter is FZ. The scene then shifts to a shot including a
>female auditor from the CofS provided material.
>
>All the close ups of the cream colored meter are from my footage.
>
>I must admit that I am not entirely happy that ABC failed to state such.
>
>I have looked at the video of the CofS session and to me this bears only a vague
>resemblance to auditing as taught by Hubbard.
>
>I would not associate my name with such a horrendous misrepresentation of
>auditing.
>
>The auditing questions used and the sequence of such do not follow the bulletins
>available for inspection in the tech vols.
>
>"Locate an incident when you took the emotion of sorrow"
>
>"1949" etc.
>
>"Is there an earlier incident when you took the emotion of sorrow?"
>
>"1814"
>
>"What happened?"
>
>(PC describes the incident)
>
>"Thank you very much. Your needle is floating"
>
>This is not auditing. If that is what they are doing it is a total travesty. In
>all fairness it may well have been clipped by the editor.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
>Secondly Rinder said about overboardings:
>
>"There was a little ceremony that grew up like a joke ... I commit my sins to
>the deep and I arise a better man - people would jump off the side"
>
>This is a lie.
>
>People were thrown off the side of the ship. They didn't jump off. I spent
>several hours last year talking to a man who was involved in the overboardings.
Huh? I thought you were on Flag too. You mean you never witnessed overboarding
yourself while you were there?
>It was maybe a 40 foot drop. No laughing matter for older people.
>
>Thirdly I'd like to comment on the RPF. I spent 6 months on the RPF at Flag
>during the late 70's.
>
>I didn't experience any of the horrific things described. During that time I was
>never deprived of food nor of sufficient sleep.
>
>For a while I worked in the kitchen preparing food and saw that the food
>provided to the RPF was exactly the same as that given to the rest of the staff.
>
>Persons on the RPF were required to spend 5 hours a day in auditing/ training.
>If such persons were insufficiently rested then they would go and get sufficient
>sleep.
>
>During the time I spent on the RPF I was there on my own decision however insane
>that might seem to others. I had the feeling that if I wanted to leave then I
>could have done so. I understand that others' experiences may well differ but in
>all honesty I felt there was no physical constraint against my doing so in any
>way.
DeoMorto stated the same in another post a while ago.
>When I left the S.O. in 1982 there was emotional pressure to remain and long
>conversations but when I stated that I wanted to leave there was no physical
>coercion whatsoever. Nobody so much as touched my body in coercion.
Same here. I stated that I wanted to leave and that's all there was to it. I
even waited that they route me to the "correct lines". Then I took my luggages,
went off, and never set foot back in.
>I spent 10 years at Flag from 1972 - 1982. Sometimes it wasn't easy. I couldn't
>honestly say that it was ever heavier than the army training camps I went to
>while in school.
>
>I understand that others' experiences might well be very different but
>personally although I am declared SP and disagree with the CofS heavily in many
>matters I prefer to state the truth as I experienced it even when it reflects
>favorably on the CofS.
Good on you. I wish more ex-members would come out from the closet and make a
similar statement.
AndroidCat
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 07:39:24 -0500, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>
>>In article <36870d43...@news.telekabel.at>, Ra...@Hilton.org wrote:
>>
>>> The ABC show used auditing footage from the FZ and the CofS. I have only
just
>>> managed to download what was actually shown (thanks Sten).
>>>
>>> All of the CofS auditing footage is clearly marked "Church of
Scientology
>>> Video"
>>>
>>> Any other footage showing auditing and the emeter is FZ.
>>>
>>> The introduction sequence showing a panning over a library followed by a
close
>>> up of a cream colored emeter is FZ.
>>
>>at the end of the show).
>
>
>>> Thirdly I'd like to comment on the RPF. I spent 6 months on the RPF at
Flag
>>> during the late 70's.
>>
>>it was at Flag, or (b) the RPF is worse now than it was 20 years ago.
>>Can other ex-members comment on these speculations?
>
>
>What I see in many accounts about the CofS is that people generalize their
>experience.
>
>I can understand that they experienced bad things.
>
>What I am saying is that the bad accounts are only part of the scene.
>
>I saw many people gain a lot from the RPF.
>
>When I went to the RPF I hadn't audited others. I had only audited solo. In
>a couple of months of co-auditing I gained enough confidence to ask the RPF
>I/C to appoint me as a review auditor. This meant that I would audit people
>who had problems in sessions with their co-auditors.
>
>My request was accepted and I spent the last few months of my RPF time
>auditing repairs.
>
>For me that was a very positive experience.
>
>I saw unhappy people become happy. I wasn't interrogating them or negating
>them. I was acknowledging and working with their reality.
>
>The 6 months I spent on the RPF were a very powerful learning experience
for
>me. I have no regrets about experiencing it.
>
>Gerry Armstrong contributed a lot of positive things to that experience for
>which I thank him. Although he may have changed his ideas since then he
>actually made the RPF what it was for me. I don't think he realized at the
>time how much he gave of himself to people on the RPF and how much of his
>personal strength contributed to what many of us gained from that
>experience.
>
>I am somewhat sad that he has chosen to go so strongly against Scientology.
>
>As I am that Dennis has.
Good for Gerry. And good for Denis too.
I hope you don't mind, but it should be said now: Once the Corporation of
$cientology is over and done with, I'm sure most critics will be giving the
Free Zone a careful look. Please don't let us find anything!
Make sure that there's no "cult of personality"! Hubbard was a loon.
Pretending that PoodleBoy spoiled the True Word is hopeless. If you announce
that Hubbard had a flawed glimpse of the truth, but it's being refined, then
you've got a chance. Any sign that (insert name here) is the new profit and
god-head of $cientology, you're toast.
Make sure you don't have a money tree. If any structure arises designed to
grab money from people, you're toast.
No punishment detail--Anything that stinks of RPF, and you're Geography!
(Like History, but more widely spread.)
Don't fib! If you want to keep Xenu, you tell people at the door.
Make no scientific claims without scientific proof to back it up.
Other than that? And it harm not? Do what thou wilt!
I hope to see the day when Co$ is gone. Sure, I'll probably scoff at Free
Zone beliefs, but picket? Hopefully no way!
/\< of that ilk.
Faith manages.
Ralph Hilton
Ralph Hilton
wrote:
>Ralph Hilton wrote in message <368657f6...@news.telekabel.at>...
>Good for Gerry. And good for Denis too.
>
>I hope you don't mind, but it should be said now: Once the Corporation of
>$cientology is over and done with, I'm sure most critics will be giving the
>Free Zone a careful look. Please don't let us find anything!
You will. The FZ is a diversity. You will almost certainly find some
corruption.
>Make sure that there's no "cult of personality"! Hubbard was a loon.
>Pretending that PoodleBoy spoiled the True Word is hopeless. If you announce
>that Hubbard had a flawed glimpse of the truth, but it's being refined, then
>you've got a chance. Any sign that (insert name here) is the new profit and
>god-head of $cientology, you're toast.
You'll probably find many personality cults have sprung up. I'm going for
refinement myself but I already see several prospective new Gurus.
>Make sure you don't have a money tree. If any structure arises designed to
>grab money from people, you're toast.
One needs money to pay for food and rent. Reasonable pricing is fair.
>No punishment detail--Anything that stinks of RPF, and you're Geography!
>(Like History, but more widely spread.)
Fair comment. I would agree.
>Don't fib! If you want to keep Xenu, you tell people at the door.
I'll give people the opportunity to examine Xenu and read about him. If it
doesn't match their perceptions then I have no problem with that.
>Make no scientific claims without scientific proof to back it up.
I could not possibly claim scientific foundations.
>Other than that? And it harm not? Do what thou wilt!
>
>I hope to see the day when Co$ is gone. Sure, I'll probably scoff at Free
>Zone beliefs, but picket? Hopefully no way!
If anyone wants to picket me they are welcome. I'll have a chat and if they
are pleasant maybe I'll give them a cup of tea. I would recommend waiting
until the Summer as its sub zero here now and I might not look out of the
window. However if you give a few days notice by email then I could lay on
tea/coffee and biscuits.
Roland
Now there's an idea. When the Co$ has been kicked out of Europe then
who shall we picket. The FZ of course! Mind you, with air fares being
what they are in Europe, it might be cheaper to go over to Florida.
At least we will have the proper Co$ there as well as all the fun of
people shooting at you because you are a tourist.
Bernie
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:12:45 -0500, "AndroidCat" <andro...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>I hope you don't mind, but it should be said now: Once the Corporation of
>>$cientology is over and done with, I'm sure most critics will be giving the
>>Free Zone a careful look. Please don't let us find anything!
>
>You will. The FZ is a diversity. You will almost certainly find some
>corruption.
But what people call abuses is sometimes (not always) the other side of the coin
for having an effective expansionist strategy. If LRH would have used the wishy
washy FZ approach, you probably wouldn't be sitting in your auditor chair right
now, the tech would not be know the world over by hundreds of thousands of
people (and critics are quite effective at spreading it too, indirectly), and we
would have thousands of variations of what can hardly be recognize as a tech
anymore - something lost among other obscure tarot readers or would-be gurus.
The FZ is a mixture of competent people, of kooks, and other in between, who
mostly are using the original ideas of others, and will probably never make
history. And, from a spiritual point of view, the tech is still worthless, and
therefore a trap when it claims anything at this level. I agree that it can be
useful at the mental and emotional level, though.
Bernie
http://welcome.to/ars
Chris Leithiser
Bernie wrote:
> But what people call abuses is sometimes (not always) the other side of the coin
> for having an effective expansionist strategy. If LRH would have used the wishy
> washy FZ approach, you probably wouldn't be sitting in your auditor chair right
> now, the tech would not be know the world over by hundreds of thousands of
> people (and critics are quite effective at spreading it too, indirectly), and we
> would have thousands of variations of what can hardly be recognize as a tech
> anymore - something lost among other obscure tarot readers or would-be gurus.
And this to you is a _bad_ thing? The fact that a "thousand flowers bloom," to
quote one of my not-favorite people, seems to me a positive. One of these
experimental forms of $cientology might actually be worth something. There's some
weird stuff out there--EMDR for example--that may actually work.
IMHO, the worst thing about religion is the reliance on "revealed truth" from on
high, and the inability to experiment. OK, do we need the commandment about not
taking the Lord's name in vain? What does it gain us to have it? What does it cost
us to lose it?
Similarly, what would $cientology look like today if Hubbard hadn't been a total
paranoid nutcase?
> The FZ is a mixture of competent people, of kooks, and other in between, who
> mostly are using the original ideas of others, and will probably never make
> history. And, from a spiritual point of view, the tech is still worthless, and
> therefore a trap when it claims anything at this level. I agree that it can be
> useful at the mental and emotional level, though.
So let them fight it out and find the parts that _are_ worthwhile. High-pressure
sales tactics will be unnecessary when _one_ of them comes out with proof that,
"hey, there are benefits here, and this is the evidence."
> Bernie
> http://welcome.to/ars
mor...@gte.net
Ra...@Hilton.org wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:12:45 -0500, "AndroidCat" <andro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
Hi, Ralph, and a happy holiday season to you.
In another post I think that you said that you had a video of the 20/20 show.
If so, could you post the part where the huborg auditor is delivering the
first Dianetic command? I didn't get the first few words, but I got stuck on
the phrase " took the emotion of". I wordcleared "took" and "take" and I can
see how the phrase could be used; however I have never before heard it used.
Of course I have only done 7 Dianetic courses and been thru the new era dn
course checksheet 6 times, and audited some 100s of hours of ned ( many of
which were videoed), so perhaps I am out of date on the revised (altered)
commands. At any rate, would you comment on the unusual rendition on the
standard command?
tia
jana
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AndroidCat
>>$cientology is over and done with, I'm sure most critics will be giving
the
>>Free Zone a careful look. Please don't let us find anything!
>
>You will. The FZ is a diversity. You will almost certainly find some
>corruption.
Yeah, but I can live with normal human corruption. That happens. Without
the Cthurch of the Wholly Law Suit backing them up, they'll fall in time.
Oh yeah: Invading government offices to remove documents is a big no-no!
(I don't think you'll have a problem with this.)
>
>>Make sure that there's no "cult of personality"! Hubbard was a loon.
>>Pretending that PoodleBoy spoiled the True Word is hopeless. If you
announce
>>that Hubbard had a flawed glimpse of the truth, but it's being refined,
then
>>you've got a chance. Any sign that (insert name here) is the new profit
and
>>god-head of $cientology, you're toast.
>
>You'll probably find many personality cults have sprung up. I'm going for
>refinement myself but I already see several prospective new Gurus.
Watch them carefully. (Anyone named Dorian? <snicker>)
>
>>Make sure you don't have a money tree. If any structure arises designed
to
>>grab money from people, you're toast.
>
>One needs money to pay for food and rent. Reasonable pricing is fair.
Oh sure. I'm not talking about charging a fair price--but the whole "rape
your savings and max your credit cards" Co$ attitude.
>
>>No punishment detail--Anything that stinks of RPF, and you're Geography!
>>(Like History, but more widely spread.)
>
>Fair comment. I would agree.
Thanks.
>
>>Don't fib! If you want to keep Xenu, you tell people at the door.
>
>I'll give people the opportunity to examine Xenu and read about him. If it
>doesn't match their perceptions then I have no problem with that.
Good.
>
>>Make no scientific claims without scientific proof to back it up.
>
>I could not possibly claim scientific foundations.
Good.
>>Other than that? And it harm not? Do what thou wilt!
>>
>>I hope to see the day when Co$ is gone. Sure, I'll probably scoff at Free
>>Zone beliefs, but picket? Hopefully no way!
>
>If anyone wants to picket me they are welcome. I'll have a chat and if they
>are pleasant maybe I'll give them a cup of tea. I would recommend waiting
>until the Summer as its sub zero here now and I might not look out of the
>window. However if you give a few days notice by email then I could lay on
>tea/coffee and biscuits.
Heh, I've got Canadian deep winter picket gear!
I'd bring shortbread. (Mom's recipe!)
Let's check my picket signs:
"Scientology: The Gerbil Wheel to Total Freedom." Nope.
"Staff members get a 10% commission on sales. Is this a church?" Nope.
"Scientology harasses the families of critics." Nope.
"Scientology stalks the children of critics." Nope.
Phhftt! Can't see using any of those. How about if I just bring the
shortbread?
>Ralph Hilton
>http://Ralph.Hilton.org
I sort of doubt that picketing you would ever be necessary. ;^) Sorry, but
I thought that I should state my position on the Free Zone now. I suspect
that the FZ'll be taking a big bite out of Co$ over the next year. Watch
out for them gurus!
Personally, I think Free Zone is sort of like methadone for heroin addicts.
But so long as it's honest, it's none of my business.
Seasons Greetings Ralph!
/\< of that ilk.
Understanding is three edged sword.
- Kosh.
Bernie
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>
>> But what people call abuses is sometimes (not always) the other side of the coin
>> for having an effective expansionist strategy. If LRH would have used the wishy
>> washy FZ approach, you probably wouldn't be sitting in your auditor chair right
>> now, the tech would not be know the world over by hundreds of thousands of
>> people (and critics are quite effective at spreading it too, indirectly), and we
>> would have thousands of variations of what can hardly be recognize as a tech
>> anymore - something lost among other obscure tarot readers or would-be gurus.
>
>And this to you is a _bad_ thing?
It was more an observation than a judgement. Whether it's good or bad,
I don't know - nor do I really care, since I don't believe in the tech
as far as the spiritual aspect is concerned.
>The fact that a "thousand flowers bloom," to
>quote one of my not-favorite people, seems to me a positive. One of these
>experimental forms of $cientology might actually be worth something. There's some
>weird stuff out there--EMDR for example--that may actually work.
Hmm.. A classical debate between the advantages/disadvantages of the
"pure" versus the "free". Too unsavory for me before Christmas. I have
to leave some place for the Turkey :-)
Bernie
http://welcome.to/ars
Ralph Hilton
Most idiotic assholes have the decency to use the same from address in all
of their posts. This enables those who do not wish to read their garbage to
kf them easily.
You are deliberately imposing your unwanted dribblings on others by changing
your address in each posting.
I think I've figured out how to handle your psychotic impulse. If you hear
nothing further from me then you will know that I succeeded.
Conner
<36869e5d....@enews.newsguy.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
[clip]
>Good on you. I wish more ex-members would come out from the closet and make a
>similar statement.
just perhaps, bernie, the number of people making similar statements
is proportional to the number of people having similar experiences.
ralph is perfectly willing to admit not everyone had the same
experience with scientology. are you?
-- see...@ix.netcom.com (Conner)
Note: remove 'spamblock' from address to reply
Friends of Dennis Erlich Club (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Bernie
(Conner) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:30:44 GMT, in message
><36869e5d....@enews.newsguy.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>
>[clip]
>
>>Good on you. I wish more ex-members would come out from the closet and make a
>>similar statement.
>
> just perhaps, bernie, the number of people making similar statements
> is proportional to the number of people having similar experiences.
> ralph is perfectly willing to admit not everyone had the same
> experience with scientology. are you?
Sure, but I don't discount the vested interest some ex-members have in
painting their experience in the darkest terms.
The problem is that "positive" ex-members usually move on with their
life and are not particularly motivated in ranting against their
former group. It often is the vocal minority that does it, giving the
impression that they are more numerous than they really are. I
wouldn't be here myself at all if I didn't have my anti-cult hobby ;-)
I think, however, that it would be good if more ex-members would come
forth with a more balanced and factual account. As I said, however,
that's really a catch 22 problem.
Bernie
http://www.bernie.us-inc.com/wolf.htm for a "positive" ex-member view.
Bernie
wrote:
>Most idiotic assholes have the decency to use the same from address in all
>of their posts. This enables those who do not wish to read their garbage to
>kf them easily.
>
>You are deliberately imposing your unwanted dribblings on others by changing
>your address in each posting.
>
>I think I've figured out how to handle your psychotic impulse. If you hear
>nothing further from me then you will know that I succeeded.
I hereby apologize for having said Bad Things(tm) about the Freezone.
It's quite obvious from the above that the Freezone is made of Super
OTs who can address the issue rather than engage in ad hominem and
unwarranted speculations, and who can express themselves in a serene,
composed and objective manner, as it befals every enlightened beings.
Ralph is obviously in need of a different type of auditing session. He
already spent *years* trying to get rid of BTs, both in the CoS and
the Freezone, and they are still influencing his behavior.
As the official a.r.s. cramming officer, I now order Ralph (as soon as
he dares venturing out of his killfile) to read and confront my posts
(on a gradient) until the process is flat.
Bernie
http://www.bernie.us-inc.com/Basics01.htm (the tech)
Roland
So there are plenty out there with positive experiences of Scientology
and they outnumber critical and vocal ex-members, do they? Except that
they choose not to post because of their happy experiences. What a
lying weasel you are!
Those who leave and get some sort of refund have to sign an agreement
that they will not act to interfere with the activities of the Co$.
This is never told to you up front. And is you so much as have a
critical viewpoint and state it such as on a web page then you are
threatened with being sued within a week unless you send them an
assurance that you will never criticise them in any way again. They
did this to me but I carried on regardless. Most people are so
financially depleted through their involvement in Scientology that
they can't even afford to consult a lawyer and so they cave in to
this evil attempt to smother their criticism and remove their right
to free speech.
You will not get many posters here relating their good experiences
in the cult for the simple reason that they are in an extreme
minority. There would be critical posters here increased by a factor
of ten or so if they were not so scared off by legal threats from
your vicious cult.
What a lying weasel you are! The sooner Dave Bird gets back on this
newsgroup to handle you, the better. You disgust me too much to have
any dealings with you.
Roland
Commentator
>On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:56:04 GMT, Tur...@bernie.us-inc.com (Bernie) wrote:
>
>Most idiotic assholes have the decency to use the same from address in all
>of their posts. This enables those who do not wish to read their garbage to
>kf them easily.
>
>You are deliberately imposing your unwanted dribblings on others by changing
>your address in each posting.
>
>I think I've figured out how to handle your psychotic impulse. If you hear
>nothing further from me then you will know that I succeeded.
Hilton = Another whacked out zonie.
Ishmael
}In article <36870d43...@news.telekabel.at>, Ra...@Hilton.org
wrote:
}
}> The ABC show used auditing footage from the FZ and the CofS. I have
only just
}> managed to download what was actually shown (thanks Sten).
}>
}> All of the CofS auditing footage is clearly marked "Church of
Scientology
}> Video"
}>
}> Any other footage showing auditing and the emeter is FZ.
}>
}> The introduction sequence showing a panning over a library followed
by a close
}> up of a cream colored emeter is FZ.
}
}It's unfortunate that ABC didn't credit this sequence in any way (even
}at the end of the show).
}
}> Thirdly I'd like to comment on the RPF. I spent 6 months on the RPF
at Flag
}> during the late 70's.
}
}It is possible that either (a) the RPF was worse in other locations
than
}it was at Flag, or (b) the RPF is worse now than it was 20 years ago.
}Can other ex-members comment on these speculations?
I can't comment specifically on the RPF of that time period at Flag but
I can comment on the differences that I observed when I was there in
1981-'82 compared to 1991-'92. The difference, in a word: HUGE.
The Flag of '81-'82 was far happier overall than the Flag of 10 years
later. I never saw anyone that I recognized as RPF on my first visit,
but I saw many of them on my second stay. I can easily believe that
Ralph had a relatively pleaseant 6-month stint in the RPF at Flag in the
late '70s. I thnk he'd be telling a different tale if he was on it in
the early '90s though.
Ralph:
Do you remember Celia Gibson? She was qual. sec. when I was there.
There was a cramming officer named Allan ??? The D of T was a pleasant
woman in her mid-to-late 40s, thin build, brown hair whose name totally
escapes me.
I'm thinking that you and I might have had some interaction. I was
doing auditor training (Cl. 0-IV) when I was there.
Ishmael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this
combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards
them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rinder will blow 09:30 GMT 10 Feb., 1999
Bernie
DougW wrote:
> kook...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > The number 33 can also be found on a pretty horrible tasting brew, Rolling
> > Rock. Its brewed in Latrobe, PA, which, I've heard, is almost like a pit in
> > hell.
> >
> > > Satan 33
> > >
> > > April 30, 1998 starts year 33 on the Satanic calendar, in honor of the
> > > date in 1966 when Anton LaVey started the Church of Satan. In
> > > Freemasonry, 33 is the highest degree. The day is also Walpurgisnacht,
> > > the eve of May Day, which is considered by many to be the witches
> > > Sabbath.
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> Rolling Rock *HACK* *SPIT*
>
> Nothing like sucking down a brew that tastes just like a bag
> of wet grass smells.
>
> I'd rather drink _gag_ water.
>
> -- LXIX --
Yeah, there's some Viet Namese zipper-head beer 33--
Why, I remember once over by LZ Didibao, there was
a little hootch that had 33, elephant grass, and some damn
fine opium. I was kicking back sharpening my K-Bar
looking over the cunt du jour...