The latest issue, in 1991, which is mentioned below, was basically an
update of an earlier issue. It is doubtful that it was actually
Hubbard's intent to continue the practice of forced disconnection that
he, himself, cancelled in the 1960s and that, most likely, some
underling resurrected many years later without Hubbard's knowledge.
It is a shame that the Hubbard idea about families as stated in 'The
Way to Happiness,' Chapter 5, quoted below is not used instead of
disconnection. This should be the last word on the subject as it was
Hubbard's last writing on the matter (1982) to my knowledge. Here's
Honor and Help Your Parents
>From a child's point of view, parents are sometimes hard to understand.
There are differences between generations. But truthfully, this is no
barrier. When one is weak, it is a temptation to take refuge in
subterfuges and lies: it is this which builds the wall.
Children CAN reconcile their differences with their parents. Before any
shouting begins, one can at least try to talk it over quietly. If the
child is frank and honest, there cannot help but be an appeal that will
reach. It is often possible to attain a compromise where both sides
now understand and can agree. It is not always easy to get along with
others but one should try.
One cannot overlook the fact that almost always, parents are acting
from a very strong desire to do what they believe is best for the
Children are indebted to their parents for their upbringing -- if the
parents did so. While some parents are so fiercely independent that
they will accept no return on the obligation, it is nevertheless true
that there often comes a time when it is the turn of the younger
generation to care for their parents.
In spite of it all, one must remember that they are the only parents
one has. And as such, no matter what, one should honor them and help
THE WAY TO HAPPINESS INCLUDES BEING ON GOOD TERMS WITH ONE'S PARENTS OR
THOSE WHO BROUGHT ONE UP
-- end of quote --
Below is a post that lists other references for disconnection in Scn.
Subject: Re: Disconnection - Fact or Myth
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:08:33 +0200
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: 25 Jul 2004 05:07:28 -0400, 188.8.131.52
X-Original-Trace: 25 Jul 2004 05:07:28 -0400, 184.108.40.206
Organization: Lightlink Internet
>Wanna do a timeline of Disconnection?
I can give it a try. Disconnection was introduced in 1965 (Jon Atack).
don't have these policies so I've to venture a guess here. I'd pick
one of these:
HCOPL - 5 APR 1965 - "Handling the Suppressive Person"
HCOPL - 7 AUG 1965 - "Suppressive Person, Main Characteristics of"
Or this one, the following part is printed in both the technical and
PTS TYPE TWO, Type Two is harder to handle than Type One, for the
apparent suppressive person in present time is only a restimulator
for the actual suppressive. The pc who isn't sure, won't
disconnect, or still roller-coasters, or who doesn't brighten up,
can't name any SP at all is a Type Two. (HCOB 24 Nov 65)
Code of Reform - 29 November 1968
1. Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from
HCOPL - 15 November 1968 - "CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION"
Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a
HCOPL - 15 September 1973 - "HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS"
"Handle or disconnect" is part of current procedure on handling
Potential Trouble Sources, as per HCO B 10 August '73, "PTS
This does *not* mean that we are returning to the practice of
or writing disconnection letters to the person concerned.
SPD 28 - 13 August 1982 - "Suppressive Act - Dealing with a Declared
There is no practice of "disconnection" allowed in the Church of
Scientology.. One does not however use a false excuse of "handling my
PTS condition" to covertly maintain a line of supportful dealings and
agreements with an SP. If you wish to maintain such a line, do so
outside of current and future membership in the Church.
To deal with a Suppressive is a Suppressive Act.
HCOB - 10 September 1983 - "PTSness AND DISCONNECTION"
In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone
more powerful. In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get
trying to "handle" the person. The answer is to sever the connection.
HCOB - 23 December 1965RB, Revised 8 January 1991 - "SUPPRESSION OF
SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS"
Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person
guilty of suppressive acts.
I am forgetting a cancel of a cancel somewhere but it was late and I
find it back.
- WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect
- Hubbard on psychs
Part of it.
HCOPL 7 March 65 was the first round of definition
of high crimes et al, heavy ethics started.
By December this was replaced.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965 (Replaces HCO Policy
Letter of 7 March 1965, Issue I. This was originally misdated as 1
Post Org Public (HCO Division 1)
ETHICS SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND
SCIENTOLOGISTS THE FAIR GAME LAW
A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology
while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a
Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain,
as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. Only ARC Breaks worsen
it. To the PTP is added ARC Breaks with the Suppressive Person or
Group. The result is no-gain or deterioration of a case by reason
of the suppressive connection in the environment. Any
Scientologist, in his own experience, can probably recall some such
cases and their subsequent upset.
Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen.
Quite the contrary. In the most flagrant of such cases the
Scientologist's case worsened and the Suppressive Person or Group
sent endless reports to press, police, authorities and the public
Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in
this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end
the situation one has a pc or Scientologist who may cave in or
squirrel because of no case gain and also a hostile environment for
Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who
is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a
(Here is the introduction of disconnection
as a general public issue. )
POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE
A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person
who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble
Source or Trouble Source. The history of Dianetics and Scientology
is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in
refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive
Person at every turn they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If
they would act with determination one way or the other - reform
the Suppressive Person or disconnect, they could then make gains
and recover their potential. If they make no determined move, they
Therefore this Policy Letter extends to suppressive
non-Scientology wives and husbands and parents, or other family
members or hostile groups or even close friends. So long as a wife
or husband, father or mother or other family connection, who is
attempting to suppress the Scientology spouse or child, or hostile
group remains continuingly acknowledged or in communication with
the Scientology spouse or child or member, then that Scientologist
or preclear comes under the family or adherent clause and may not
be processed or further trained until he or she has taken
appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble Source.
The validity of this policy is borne out by the fact that the US
government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives,
husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist,
or Scientology. The suppressed Scientologist did not act in good
time to avert the trouble by handling the antagonistic family
member as a suppressive source or disconnect fully.
Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a
Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source
publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of "The
Auditor" and public announcements and taking any required civil
action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter
cutting all further communication and disassociating from the
person or group.
Unwarranted or threatened disconnection has the recourse of the
person or group being disconnected from requesting a Committee of
Evidence from the nearest Convening Authority (or HCO) and
producing to the Committee any evidence of actual material
assistance to Scientology without reservation or bad intent. The
Committee must be convened if requested.
Before publicly disconnecting, the Scientologist would be we'll
advised to fully inform the person he or she accuses of Suppressive
Acts of the substance of this policy letter and seek a reform of
the person, disconnecting only when honest efforts to reform the
person have not been co-operated with or have failed. And only then
disconnecting publicly. Such efforts should not be unduly long as
any processing of the Potential Trouble Source is denied or illegal
while the connection exists and a person not actively seeking to
settle the matter may be subjected to a Committee of Evidence if
The real motives of Suppressive Persons have been traced to quite
sordid hidden desires - in one case the wife wanted her
husband's death so she could get his money, and fought Scientology
because it was making the husband well. Without handling the wife
or the connection with the woman the Scientologist, as family,
drifted on with the situation and the wife was able to cause a near
destruction of Scientology in that area by false testimony to the
police and government and press. Therefore this is a serious
thing - to tolerate or remain connected to a source of active
suppression of a Scientologist or Scientology without legally
disconnecting the relationship or acting to expose the true motives
behind the hostility and reform the person. No money particularly
may be accepted as fee or loan from a person who is "family" to a
Suppressive Person and therefore a Potential Trouble Source. There
is no source of trouble in Scientology's history greater than this
one for frequency and lack of attention.
RECOURSE OF A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE
A person labelled a Potential Trouble Source and so barred from
receiving auditing, may request a Committee of Evidence of the
nearest HCO as recourse if he or she contests the allegation.
The Committee of Evidence requested must be convened by the
nearest Convening Authority.
If evidences of disconnection are given or if the alleged
Suppressive Person or Group is clearly and beyond reasonable doubt
shown not to be guilty of Suppressive Acts or is shown clearly to
have reformed, the Committee of Evidence findings and the Convening
Authority must remove the label of Potential Trouble Source from
the Scientologist and the label Suppressive Person or Group from
the suspected person or group.
But should the former Potential Trouble Source's state of case
show no gain after reasonable time in processing, any executive of
Division 4 (Training and Processing) may order a new Committee of
Evidence in the matter and if it and its Convening Authority
reverse the former findings, the labels are applied. But no auditor
may be disciplined for auditing either during the period between
the two findings.
EVIDENCE OF DISCONNECTION
Any HCO Secretary may receive evidences of disconnection or
disavowal or separation or divorce and, on finding them to be bona
fide, may publicly announce them on a public board and legal
notices in "The Auditor".
The HCO Secretary must place copies of such evidences in the
Ethics file and in the CF folders of all persons named in them.
The disconnecting person then ceases to be a Potential Trouble
The procedure for a recanting Suppressive Person or Group is
outlined above. EVIDENCES OF SUPPRESSION
It is wise for any Scientologist, HCO Secretary or Committee of
Evidence in matters concerning Suppressive Acts to obtain valid
documents, letters, testimonies duly signed and witnessed,
affidavits duly sworn to and other matters and evidences which
would have weight in a court of law. Momentary spite, slander
suits, charges of Scientology separating families, etc. are then
HCOPL 23 December 1965 is still operative.
It has long been distributed with the SP/PTS packs.
Part of the problem with this new heavy ethics
is that it caused complaints with authorities and
drew the attention of various governments.
Disconnections were part of the focus of the
Dumbleton-Powles report in New Zealand, the Foster
report in England and the Anderson report in Australia.
This is why Hubbard back peddled on disconnections, officialy.
Disconnections did not end but they were not mandated.
Just forcefully recommended.
Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever that Scientology, or
Scientologists, at any reasonable and appropriate time took any
steps to attempt some reconciliation between Erin and her parents.
Indeed, the contrary was the case. By the issue of the suppressive
order against the parents and by the adoption of he practice of
sending disconnecting letters, including specific disconnections
by the two children concerned, Scientology went far to make
irrevocable a separation and estrangement which, while initially
distressing, would not necessarily be regarded as incapable of
being repaired. The further action in connection with the
affidavits widened an existing gulf between the parents and
(a) Estrangements in Family Relationships
From the discussion of the evidence it will be seen that the
commission has concluded that there was clear proof of the
activities, methods, and practices of Scientology in New Zealand
contributing to estrangements in family relationships. In the
O'Donnell case it could almost be said that Scientology "caused"
the estrangement between Noel and his parents; it certainly
contributed to it in a substantial manner. It also contributed
substantially to the estrangement between Erin and her parents.
This contribution was made not only in the production of
anti-parental attitudes but also by the official act of the
organisation in declaring the parents to be suppressive persons.
This declaration was followed by the sending 6 disconnecting
letters to Mr and Mrs O'Donnell by a large number of
Scientologists, of most of whom they had no previous knowledge. It
was also followed by the particularly vicious disconnecting letter
written by Linklater and already quoted. There were also a
suppressive person declaration and disconnecting letters in the
It seems clear that at some stage in the course of its
operations in New Zealand Scientology did actively contemplate
interfering with familial relations in such a way as to induce
trainee Scientologists to disconnect from close relatives who were
considered by Scientology to be acting in the role of suppressive
persons. HCO policy letter of 23 December 1965 on "Suppressive
Acts" has, the commission was informed, been cancelled, but the
date of cancellation was not given. This policy letter may or may
not have been actually in force at the time of the O'Donnell and
Morris cases, but in any case its spirit seems to have been applied
to them. In a significant passage it says:
(Here Scientology lied. HCOPL 23 December 1965 is distributed
as part of the SP/PTS packs and has been for years.)
A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a
person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a
Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. The history
of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these.
Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up
Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive Person at
every turn they cannot, having a PTP, make case gains. If
they would act with determination one way or the other -
reform the Suppressive Person or disconnect - they could
then make gains and recover their potential. If they make
no determined move, they eventually succumb.
The commission was informed that the practice of disconnection
was cancelled by directive of 15 November 1968, and the commission
received, as has already been mentioned, a letter from L. Ron
Hubbard stating that the Board of Directors of the Church of
Scientology had no intention of reintroducing the policy. He also
added that, for his part, he could see no reason why the policy
should ever be reintroduced. The letter is on page 27.
* It has been markedly influenced by what it believes to be
a distinct change not only in the activities, method, and
practices of Scientology but also in the outlook of the
organisation. Its founder and head, in his HCO policy
direction of 7 March 1969, has this to say:
We are going in the direction of mild ethics and
involvement with the Society.... The policy which
cancels the condition of disconnection, the
cancellation of the fair game law, cancellation of
Sec. checks and no records allowed of confessional
materials plus the new Code of a Scientologist have
accomplished every reform suggested to us.
Let's get the show on the road.
(This "policy" is not known in any offical Scientology
source, not the OECs et al. It seems to have been a
special issue only for purposes of influencing the
New Zealand government.)
It will be seen, therefore, that while the commission has in effect
found against Scientology on all three heads of the terms of
reference, yet it is prepared, relying on Lady Hort's candour and
co-operation and upon the evidence of the changed outlook on the
part of Scientology, to make no recommendations about the necessity
or expediency of legislation change at this stage. The commission
feels that for the future Scientology should regard as
indispensable certain rules of practice. These are:
* No reintroduction of the practice of disconnection.
* No issue of Suppressive Person or Declaration of Enemy orders
by any member to any other member of a family.
* No auditing or processing or training of anyone under the age
of 21 without the specific written consent of both parents;
such consent to include approval of the fees (which shall be
specified) to be charged for the course or courses to which the
consent is applicable.
At the adjourned hearing in Wellington, Lady Hort produced a
letter which she said was signed by L. Ron Hubbard. This letter was
L. RON HUBBARD
Saint Hill Manor,
26th March, 1969.
The Commission of Enquiry into
Scientology in New Zealand.
With regard to the practice of disconnection, I have
taken this up with the Board of Directors of the Church
of Scientology, and they have no intention of
re-introducing this policy, which was cancelled on the
15th November, 1968.
For my part, I can see no reason why this policy
should ever be reintroduced, as an extensive survey in
the English speaking countries found that this practice
was not acceptable.
(Signed) L. Ron Hubbard
L. Ron Hubbard
Thus Scientology was under the gun here and in New Zealand,
Australia and UK, was facing governmental control in
situations of disconnections and coercians.
I also checked the SP/PTS packs and HCOPL November 68
is in fact distributed there.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 SEPTEMBER 1983
Remimeo HCOs E/O Hats MAA Hats Tech/Qual
All Staff PTS/SP Course
PTSness AND DISCONNECTION
Refs: Tape: 6505C18 "Organization and Ethics"
Tape: 6506C08 "Handling the PTS" HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND
Tape: 6608C02 "Suppressives and GAEs"
Tape: 6608C25 "The Antisocial Personality"
HCOB 27 Sept. 66 THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY THE
HCOB 24 Apr. 72 I C/S Series 79 PTS INTERVIEWS
HCO PL 3 May 72R Exec Series 12 Rev. 18.12.77
ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES HCOB 10 Aug. 73 PTS HANDLING
HCOB 29 Dec. 78 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 II OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING
HCOB 31 Dec. 78 III EDUCATING THE PTS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD
HANDLING: PTS C/S-1
HCO PL 20 Oct. 81R PTS TYPE A HANDLING Rev. 10.9.83
HCOB 8 Mar. 83 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS THEORY
Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the right to
Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate. Communication,
however, is a
two-way flow. If one has the right to communicate, then one must also
right to not receive communication from another. It is this latter
the right to communicate that gives us our right to privacy.
These rights are so basic that governments have written them into laws
- witness the American Bill of Rights. However, groups have always
these rights to one degree or another. For with the freedom to
come certain agreements and responsibilities.
An example of this is a marriage: In a monogamous society,
the agreement is that one will be married to only one person at one
agreement extends to having second-dynamic relations with one's spouse
one else. Thus, should wife Shirley establish a 2D-type of
with someone other than her husband Pete, it is a violation of the
and postulates of the marriage. Pete has the right to insist that
communication cease or that the marriage will cease.
HANDLE OR DISCONNECT In the HCOBs on PTS tech you'll see the phrase
or disconnect." It means simply that. The term "handle" most commonly
when used in relation to PTS tech, to smooth out a situation with
person by applying the tech of communication. The term "disconnection"
defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is
going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication
The basic principle of handle or disconnect exists in any group and
is no different.
Therefore, the tech of disconnection is
hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and
trained in PTS/SP tech. HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES In the great
of cases, where a person has some family member or close associate who
antagonistic to his getting better through Scientology, it is not
really a matter
of the antagonistic source wanting the PTS to not get better. It is
a lack of correct information about Scientology that causes the
problem or upset.
In such a case, simply having the PTS disconnect would not help
matters and would
actually be a nonconfront of the situation. It is quite common that
the PTS has a
low confront on the terminal and situation.
> Mike Gormez
> - WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace
> - Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
> - 'Religious' child abuse and neglect
> - Hubbard on psychs
I don't find the process of handle or disconnect from a SP or PTS
individual to be "bad tech". I think it is very useful and accurate.
The problem is it is very easily misunderstood and/or abused. When a
person is defined as Suppressive for strategic organizational purposes,
instead of actually BEING an SP, the abuse begins. This centers around
the organization using "tech" for it's own survival, rather than to help
the individual in front of them.
When a person is REALLY an SP, they are doing whatever they can to
destroy, undermine or harm those they are connected to, unless they are
empowering those who are more effective at destroying, undermining and
harming others. There is a significant, even a signal difference
between an SP and an "opp-term". An SP is crazy, evil in the classic
sense, operating on the idea that they have to destroy everyone around
them in order to be safe or successful themself. An "opp-term" is
simply someone who opposes a given person for whatever reason (MIGHT be
a SP, but likely is not). Opposition doesn't need to be disconnected
from, unless it is totally overwhelming. It is far better (and
recognized as such in Scientology literature) to HANDLE the opposition
or SP than to disconnect. When the opposition is coming from a true SP,
and there is no way to handle them, disconnection becomes the viable
option. Misattributing the label of SP to those who oppose the Church
or ANYONE other than true SPs is the source of many problems for
scientologists and the Church itself.
> Forgive the top-post, but this was rather lengthy, and my comments
> are not specific to any particular point.
> I don't find the process of handle or disconnect from a SP or PTS
> individual to be "bad tech". I think it is very useful and
It was abused enough it raised an uproar and
several investigations into the practice.
Similar practices made the Moonies very unpopular
when they breezed into the US some decades ago.
This is the practice that is evil and spells
> The problem is it is very easily misunderstood and/or abused. When
> a person is defined as Suppressive for strategic organizational
> instead of actually BEING an SP, the abuse begins. This centers
> around the organization using "tech" for it's own survival, rather
> than to help the individual in front of them.
> When a person is REALLY an SP, they are doing whatever they can to
> destroy, undermine or harm those they are connected to, unless they
> are empowering those who are more effective at destroying,
> undermining and
> harming others.
When a parent warns a child its not a good idea
to drop out of college and take up Scientology
and the cult pressures the kid for a disconnection,
this is the sort of things that people strongly and
properly object too.
And it happened a lot. I have been hearing angry stories
like that for DECADES about Scientology. Not to mention
What we see here are mental kidnappings of children,
wives, fathers, mothers, husbands.
Scientology does far more destroying than families.
> There is a significant, even a signal difference
> between an SP and an "opp-term". An SP is crazy, evil in the
> classic sense, operating on the idea that they have to destroy
> everyone around
> them in order to be safe or successful themself.
Hubbard then is the world's classic example
of a raging SP. The cult is no better.
Read the 23 December 65 Fair Game Law.
> An "opp-term" is
> simply someone who opposes a given person for whatever reason (MIGHT
> a SP, but likely is not). Opposition doesn't need to be
> from, unless it is totally overwhelming. It is far better (and
> recognized as such in Scientology literature) to HANDLE the
> or SP than to disconnect. When the opposition is coming from a true
> SP, and there is no way to handle them, disconnection becomes the
> option. Misattributing the label of SP to those who oppose the
> Church or ANYONE other than true SPs is the source of many problems
> for scientologists and the Church itself.
It all depends on the scumbag that is handling the case of
a PC. If you have a nasty little cultist that is determined
that this PC will stay in Scientology, pressure gets hard to
disconnect. Always has. I have decades of experience hearing
the stories of how it works as seen by victimized families.
This is one good reason I have been hammering this stupid
cult for years here, one of the big reasons.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is fundamentally a bad way to handle
genuine suppressive persons.
> Similar practices made the Moonies very unpopular
> when they breezed into the US some decades ago.
Survival and self-development are not popularity contests.
> This is the practice that is evil and spells
Yes, when it is abused in the way that it has been. I am quite aware of
this. I've been the victim of this tactic, myself. Lost my young
family to it!
>>The problem is it is very easily misunderstood and/or abused. When
>>a person is defined as Suppressive for strategic organizational
>>instead of actually BEING an SP, the abuse begins. This centers
>>around the organization using "tech" for it's own survival, rather
>>than to help the individual in front of them.
>>When a person is REALLY an SP, they are doing whatever they can to
>>destroy, undermine or harm those they are connected to, unless they
>>are empowering those who are more effective at destroying,
> When a parent warns a child its not a good idea
> to drop out of college and take up Scientology
> and the cult pressures the kid for a disconnection,
> this is the sort of things that people strongly and
> properly object too.
Absolutely. This is abuse of that "tech". I'm not saying that it
wasn't used for evil purposes by the org, or that Hubbard didn't have
these evil purposes in mind. But if it is used genuinely, it is helpful.
> And it happened a lot. I have been hearing angry stories
> like that for DECADES about Scientology. Not to mention
> other cults.
Got it. I appreciate how angry this makes people, and how horrible it
is when it is abused.
> What we see here are mental kidnappings of children,
> wives, fathers, mothers, husbands.
> Scientology does far more destroying than families.
Well, I see your point. My family was certainly torn about by abuses of
this "tech" by a group of supposed scientologists.
>>There is a significant, even a signal difference
>>between an SP and an "opp-term". An SP is crazy, evil in the
>>classic sense, operating on the idea that they have to destroy
>>them in order to be safe or successful themself.
> Hubbard then is the world's classic example
> of a raging SP. The cult is no better.
He certainly became so, or got significantly worse about it after the
1965 period. And you are right about the cult.
> Read the 23 December 65 Fair Game Law.
Oh, I have. Been victim of it, actually.
>>An "opp-term" is
>>simply someone who opposes a given person for whatever reason (MIGHT
>>a SP, but likely is not). Opposition doesn't need to be
>>from, unless it is totally overwhelming. It is far better (and
>>recognized as such in Scientology literature) to HANDLE the
>>or SP than to disconnect. When the opposition is coming from a true
>>SP, and there is no way to handle them, disconnection becomes the
>>option. Misattributing the label of SP to those who oppose the
>>Church or ANYONE other than true SPs is the source of many problems
>>for scientologists and the Church itself.
> It all depends on the scumbag that is handling the case of
> a PC. If you have a nasty little cultist that is determined
> that this PC will stay in Scientology, pressure gets hard to
> disconnect. Always has. I have decades of experience hearing
> the stories of how it works as seen by victimized families.
Yep, this can and does happen with regularity.
> This is one good reason I have been hammering this stupid
> cult for years here, one of the big reasons.
It's a good reason, and I'm glad you're on watch about it!
<snip already posted info>
> HCOPL - 15 September 1973 - "HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS"
> "Handle or disconnect" is part of current procedure on handling
> Potential Trouble Sources, as per HCO B 10 August '73, "PTS
> This does *not* mean that we are returning to the practice of
> publishing or writing disconnection letters to the person concerned.
So, here we have it. Regardless of what *else* has been said, the only
thing about 'disconnection' that was canceled was the practice of
'writing disconnection letters', not the disconnection itself, although
the letters still seem to be sent at times even after this HCOPL.
Scientology: The Science of Believing Anything You Like
This is the 'Tech' This is the Session.