The Golden Age of Tech
friendship
for people who still believe in Scn but are not aware of how pernicious
RTC has been in altering Scn technology:
The Golden Age of Tech
----------------------
(The following information has been taken from 4 sources:
1) the video introducing the Golden Age of Tech (GAT);
2) a promo piece about the GAT that had a copyright date of 1998;
3) Technical bulletins written by L. Ron Hubbard; and
4) the experiences several highly trained and experienced auditors
have had doing some GAT courses.
Comments will all be inside parentheses. Quotes from references will
be placed between lines that have 3 stars: *** For those who are not
Scientologists or who are new Scientologists, please be warned that
there are terms used in this post that you may not understand and that
are not defined. An effort will be made to define them as much as
possible. However, this information is mainly aimed at Scientologists
who are trained to audit (counsel) others, who respect and appreciate
the subject and who wish to maintain the integrity and workability of
courses that train people to do Scientology counseling.)
To quote the promo piece:
***
THE GOAL: To bring every auditor in the world up to the point of
delivering an unqualified perfect session. Surveys show auditors
stopped auditing because of uncertainty.
***
(Comment: This is just an insult. Some auditors stopped auditing
because they had never really started. Either they were never urged to
do enough auditing during their initial training -- ie.: audit, cram,
audit, cram, study, audit, cram, audit, audit, audit. But most
auditors stopped auditing because they were continually attacked and
invalidated. And this inval. mainly came from people who were not tech
trained, who were from the Sea Org and/or who refused to weigh the
worth of the auditor and his production of overall results against any
minor infraction. In other words, the why that auditors stopped
auditing because of uncertainty is definitely not applicable across
the boards and is a wrong why for most auditors.)
Let's continue quoting from the Promo piece:
***
The whole spectrum of Scientology training was reviewed. Checksheets
were found to be better than any before. Word clearing wasn't a
barrier. Pro TRs and metering courses are awesomely good. We have LRH
Tech Films that show a perfect auditor and perfect auditing. Yet, how
do we bring a student in any org up to the point where he does look
like a Tech Film? If the problem wasn't any of the above, it had to be
something else -- and it was! The reason it hasn't happened and the
one thing that will make it happen is: A LACK OF ADEQUATE DRILL TO
PRODUCE PERFECTION.
***
(COMMENT: The Golden Age of Tech consists of 'drills' that are done
after the student completes the 'old' course checksheet. Even though
these checksheets have produced many, many fine auditors over a very
long period of time, management now feels that they are inadequate and
must be supplemented with these new drills.)
Now, let's quote a very pertinent LRH policy letter that pertains to
this:
***
HCO PL of 16 April '65, Issue 2 TECH & QUAL DIVISION POLICY DRILLS,
ALLOWED The only allowed Practical drills on any Scientology Course
including PE are: 1. Modified Comm Course for PE. 2. Original Comm
Course TRs 0-4. 3. Original Upper Indoc TRs. 4. E-Meter Drills
contained in Book of E-Meter Drills. 5. Dissemination Drills when I
write and release them. NO other practical drills of any kind will be
permitted. Other Practical Drills are abolished. Reasons: They consume
time uselessly, suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases.
I did not develop or authorize these drills and have now seen that
they teach alter-is of easy processes. They are not needed. They make
poor auditors. I have just reviewed this matter thoroughly and have
traced several training failures to these Wild cat Drills. Further, I
traced several failed cases on course to them. Somewhere along the
line somebody went mad inventing "drills" and "TRs". If this is
permitted to continue, we will no longer turn out good auditors. The
standard drills as listed above have proven sufficient for years...
***
(Comment: Several experienced auditors asked where the idea to add a
whole bunch of drills came from. They were referred to the tape "A
Talk on a Basic Qual". The org terminals did not like it when it was
pointed out that the drills described on that tape were implemented
shortly after the tape was made by the institution of doll drills (the
use of a doll as a substitute for a preclear in a practice auditing
session).) Back to the Promo for the GAT:
***
Instead of going on the basis of correcting flubs and errors, LRH's
drills were always on the basis of, as he said: "Drills, drills,
drills and the continued repetition of the important data..." So, that
is what was created. Prepared scripts of every step of every technical
procedure. And since every possible thing that could ever occur in a
session is covered -- one becomes a perfect auditor!
***
(Comment: There is no way that every possible thing a preclear could
come up with in a session could be put in drills. Well, theoretically
it might be possible. But you'd probably have 2 or 3 billion drills!)
There are 4 different types of GAT "drills". Here is a brief
description of each: Quoting from the Promo:
***
1- Patter Drills ...What this type of drill does is teach an auditor
his auditing commands verbatim. It works like this: One has a list of
commands for any type of auditing, and, seated in front of a wall, one
reads from the list and says the commands until he knows all of them
verbatim.
***
( Comment: These Patter Drills are not just used for auditing
commands. A whole lot of theory material from the course is learned
verbatim this way as well. You say it to the wall until you know it by
heart. Of course, this violates many LRH references in the Student Hat
-- particularly the Study Tapes. An important thing to note here is
that the patter drills are listed as drills. However, they are simply
rote memorization of theory data and process commands. They do not
supply any mass for the significance. They do not raise the student's
ability to apply. They are really just more theory -- memorizing pure
significance without applying it is still 'theory'. Just because you
say it out loud to a wall doesn't make it a drill that supplies mass
or doingness for the significance!)
Let's take a look at a reference that is right on the Student Hat
Course that talks about this type of instruction:
***
HCO B 24 Sept. 1965 INSTRUCTION AND EXAMINATION: RAISING THE STANDARD
OF BULLETIN CHECKOUTS ...It will never do a student any good at all to
know some facts. The student is expected only to use facts. It is so
easy to confront thought and so hard to confront action that the
instructor often complacently lets the student mouth words and ideas
that mean nothing to the student. ALL THEORY CHECKOUTS MUST CONSULT
THE STUDENTS UNDERSTANDING. If they don't, they're useless and will
ARC break the student eventually... DEMONSTRATION Giving a bulletin or
tape check by seeing if it can be quoted or paraphrased proves exactly
nothing. This will not guarantee that the student knows the data or
can use or apply it or even guarantees that the student is there.
Neither the 'bright' student nor the 'dull' student (both suffering
from the same malady) will benefit from such an examination. So
examining by seeing if somebody 'knows' the text and can quote or
paraphrase it is completely false and must not be done.
***
***
2 - Standard Tech Procedure Drills
***
(COMMENT: This is the next type of drill on Golden Age of Tech
Courses. The Coach has a script in his hand. The script gives a
question (like a test question). It also gives an answer. The answer
is in red. The coach asks the student the question. If the student
doesn't give the answer on the script he is flunked. Below the
scripted answer is a tech reference.)
Here is a sample of an STP Drill from the promo piece:
***
1. You start a session, and as the first action, check the ARC break
rudiment and it reads with a fall. WHAT DO YOU DO? Take up the
rudiment. (red ink) (If pc does not answer, "Do you have an ARC
break?") (red ink) Reference: HCO B 11 Aug. 78 I, Rudiments,
Definition and Patter
2. The pc answers yes, he does have an ARC break. WHAT DO YOU DO? Get
the data on it briefly. (red ink) ("What was it?" or similar wording.)
(red ink) References: HCO B 30 June 62, ARC Process; HCO B 11 Aug. 78
I, Rudiments Definitions and Patter
3. The pc tells you about the ARC break. WHAT DO YOU DO? Find out by
assessment which point the ARC break occurred on. (red) ("Was that a
break in affinity? reality? communication? understanding?") (red)
Reference: HCO B 11 Aug. 78 I, Rudiments Definitions and Patter
***
(Comments: Here, again, you are not really getting the student to
DRILL anything. He is just answering 'test' questions about the theory
that he studied. One of the problems with this type of 'drilling' is
that many of the answers given in the script are wrong. In some cases
there may be more than one possible answer. In other words, there may
be more than one technical reference that gives a handling for a
particular manifestation or situation. Therefore, there may in
actuality be more than one correct answer. But the drills do not take
this into consideration. They only allow for one correct answer per
question. Also, as a pc can come up with combinations of symptoms and
manifestations all at once, there is no way that every possible
session occurrence can be pre-drilled or pre-programmed. In other
words, you cannot possibly create a robot who can audit! How can the
'answers' to these 'drill' questions be wrong if they are LRH
references? Easy. Let's say there are 3 references on how to handle an
ARC break -- one from 1962, one from 1968 and one from 1973. The
latest reference takes precedence. However, more often than you would
think, these drills reference the EARLIER issue. The coach would flunk
the more correct answer and leave the student with a problem -- should
he do what LRH says or what the drill says? He may not even think
about it -- he may just think that the answer that he thought was
right was really wrong. This is particularly true in the area of
misunderstoods and Missed withhold pulling. This is not to say that a
person who goes into a Scientology Church or Mission and does courses
will not be able to audit. The basic checksheets at this time are
still intact. Clay tables, essays, and other practical drills are done
on the checksheets which do consult the student's understanding and
allow him to get mass for the significance he has studied. The Golden
Age of Tech drills are appended to the end of the checksheet. It's
just that all this drilling is, at best, a waste of time and at worst
an invalidation of other solutions to session problems. For instance,
one of the questions on one of the drills was asking the student what
he would do if the preclear said "No" to the question, "Is there an
earlier similar problem?" The 'correct' answer per the 'drill' is that
the auditor should steer the read he got on the question "Is there an
earlier similar problem." The reference given is an E-meter drill.
Now, although this would not necessarily be considered a WRONG answer,
it is certainly not the first handling most auditors would do on a
preclear in this situation. First of all, using an understanding of
the mind you would get from many references, particularly the book
"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", in the situation
given here you might get the preclear to tell you more about the
incident you had been working on. It may need to be unburdened more
before an earlier incident is accessible to the pc. Or, the pc may
have had a win on this rudiment that was not noticed by the auditor.
The F/N on that rudiment may have been by-passed. This could be
checked for. Maybe the preclear had no interest in spending time on
the problem to begin with. What about checking suppress and
invalidated? These are some of the things that should be checked.
Steering the pc using a read on the question 'Is there an earlier
similar problem' may not be completely incorrect, but it would
certainly not be the preferred first handling that an experienced
auditor would do! Also, this type of auditing tends to create meter
dependence in the pc.)
Many of the GAT drills over-emphasize metering. Here are some
excellent references re: Meter Dependence:
***
HCO B 4 Aug. '63 All Routines E-METER ERRORS COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR
The E-Meter has its role in all processing and must be used well.
However an E-Meter can be misused in several ways. METER DEPENDENCE
The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below
the awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed.
The meter cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the
auditor in assisting the preclear to look and verify having looked. A
pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more
independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the
Auditor. If a pc's case is improving the pc becomes more independent
of the meter. This is the proper direction. Meter dependence is
created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement of the Auditor. If
the Auditor seems not to accept the pc's data, then the pc may insist
that the Auditor "see it read on the meter". This can grow up into a
formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc. The rise of the TA
(tone arm of the meter) is a "What's It?" The fall of a meter TA is an
"It's a....." To get maximum charge off, the pc's groping (What's It)
must become a pc's finding (It's a). If the pc asks the Auditor what
or which reads on the meter and the Auditor always complies, the pc's
TA will rise more and fall less as the pc is saying, "What's It?" and
only the meter is saying, "It's a......" A pc must be carefully weaned
of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off. The pc says, "What's
It?" The Auditor must begin to ask occasionally, "Well, What's it seem
to you?" and the pc will find his own "It's a _____" and the TA will
fall -- as it would not if only the meter were employed. Milking the
TA of all the action you can get requires that the pc get most of the
"It's a" for his "What's Its"... DATING DEPENDENCE RULE: USE THE METER
TO DATE AND VERIFY DATE CORRECTNESS BY ALL MEANS BUT ONLY AFTER THE PC
HAS BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH THE DATE... METER INVALIDATION An
Auditor who just sits and shakes his head, "Didn't Rocket Read" can
give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc's ability to run GPMs
(Goals/ Problems/Mass auditing procedure). In a conflict between pc
and meter, take the pc's data. Why? Because Protest ad Assert and
Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why
create them? The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. Using the
meter to invalidate the pc is bad form. The meter is invaluable in
locating by-passed charge (earlier upset that is restimulated in the
session) and curing an ARC Break. But it can be done without a meter,
just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from
the ARC Break Assessment (a list of questions of things that could be
upsetting the preclear) and say whether it is or isn't and if it is,
spotting the thing by-passed... SUMMARY ...Listening is superior to
asking. Build up the pc's confidence in his own knowingness and
continuously and progressively reduce the pc's dependence on a meter.
***
Another key reference that reiterates the above:
***
HCO B 13 April '64 TONE ARM ACTION (Summary of previous HCO Bulletins)
...METER INALIDATION In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc's
data... Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything.
And if the pc's data is invalidated you won't get a meter's data. If
the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn't, you take the
pc's data that he does. You take the pc's data. You never take his
orders. Also, minimize a pc's dependency on the meter...
***
(Comments: Several auditors with thousands of hours of experience, and
extremely good track records of getting excellent results on both pcs
and pre-OTs reviewed some of the GAT drills. There were an
unbelievable number of errors in them! Not all the answers are wrong,
of course. But many of them are. Also, the drills are fundamentally
flawed because they presuppose that there is only one correct handling
for any given situation. This is untrue! So, if a student gives a
correct answer that is not the preferred answer on the drill, his
answer is invalidated. This is a tech. degrade! A lot of GAT is wrong
headed. For example, Two Way Comm. (communication) processes are
specifically stated in LRH materials to NOT BE ROTE PROCEDURES.)
See this LRH reference:
***
HCO B 10 Feb. 71 TECH VOLUME AND 2-WAY COMM ...Two Way Comm is not a
rote process...
***
(COMMENTS: Believe it or not, there is a patter drill for two way
comm. that consists of a long list of phrases that LRH used in model
auditing sessions. The student has to memorize them and then use them,
and them alone, when he is doing two way comm! How ridiculous! By the
time the student auditor learns this skill (around Level 2) he should
be comfortable enough to talk to the preclear! This patter drill gives
the wrong impression that an auditor is only authorized to say what
Ron said. It's just weird. And a total waste of time! Now, on Level 0,
when an auditor is just beginning to learn to audit, he is usually too
nervous and stiff to talk to the pc very much. Also, at this point in
his training it may be right to limit his comm. to the pc to a few
rote phrases, because he may not have learned how to talk to the pc
without making evaluative or invalidative comments. So on that level
of training there are some phrases called the Prompters which are
memorized. But by the time two way comm. is taught, it is assumed that
the auditor is now comfortable enough in session and has assimilated
the principles of the auditor's code sufficiently so that he CAN talk
to the preclear!)
Again, there is an implied viewpoint in the Golden Age of Tech that
the auditor must not veer from the rote procedures and rote phrases he
memorizes. Taken to an extreme, this can eliminate all benefit from
auditing as it violates Scientology Axiom 51:
***
POSTULATES AND LIVE COMMUNICATION NOT BEING MEST AND BEING SENIOR TO
MEST CAN ACCOMPLISH CHANGE IN MEST WITHOUT BRINGING ABOUT A
PERSISTENCE OF MEST. THUS AUDITING CAN OCCUR. *** (COMMENT: To the
degree that the auditor's comm. is limited to canned procedures,
canned phrases and rote application, the session becomes devoid of
LIVE communication.) Although muzzled auditing has its place, the pc
often needs communication from the auditor. To punish or limit this
causes a continual Auditors Code breach:
***
(16) I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to
cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session. *** (COMMENT: Let's
go over another specific GAT drill. There is one that asks what to do
if you can't get the ruds to fly at the start of session. The
'correct' answer is to end the session and get a new C/S. While that
would not be incorrect, necessarily, there is another answer.) Look at
the following reference:
***
HCO B 23 Aug 71, C/S Series 1, AUDITOR'S RIGHTS INABILITY TO FLY RUDS
If an auditor cannot get a rud to F/N, cannot get any rud to F/N, he
is justified in starting a Green Form.
***
(COMMENTS: Why are these drills flawed? The 'wrong' answers we
observed seemed to indicate that the person or people who put together
the drills had a certain style of auditing. This style is quite meter
dependant. It also enters in some verbal tech which has been floating
around for many years. It's more emphasis than anything else. For
example, missed withholds are given more importance as a case
manifestation than they should be given. They do, of course, exist.
But they are not necessarily more important than other case
manifestations. An example of this is, one of the drills trains the
auditor to stop in the middle of handling an ARC break (upset) to
chase after a missed withhold. There are many technical references
that prohibit this. Yet, because missed withholds are so important
(added inapplicable emphasis) it is justified to handle them whenever
they come up even though there are many references that say that you
handle ARC breaks first! Early (1962) references state that dirty
needles are caused by withholds. While a DN could definitely be caused
by withholds, there are many references that indicate that they can be
caused by many other things. For example, there is an e-meter drill
that has the student cause a dirty needle in another student by
cutting the person's comm., purposely not acknowledging the person,
etc. Yes, if you stretch the definition of withhold all the dirty
needles are from withholds. If someone cuts your communication off you
are left with a withheld communication. This is a withhold. But the
people who put the current drills together narrowly limit the
definition of withhold to 'an undisclosed harmful act'. And so, the
student is trained to see a dirty needle and think, "Aha! The preclear
is withholding from me that he has committed a harmful act! I've got
to interrogate him and find out what that act was!" And, of course,
often both the auditor and preclear go down the tubes. The subject of
criticism and natter are taken to heights of importance that are
absurd. An ARC broken person is often suffering from cut
communication, refused reality, etc. He will often be sad but also
critical.)
See the following reference:
***
HCO B 24 June '63 ROUTINE 3, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 3
ROUTINE 3-R, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS ...If the pc becomes critical of
anything outside the engram (room, auditor, Scientology, the
technology) it is an ARC Break. ARC Breaks are of greater and lesser
magnitude ranging throughout the misemotional band of the tone
scale...
***
While it is true that:
*** HCO B C/S Series 1, Auditor's Rights RUDS GOING OUT
When the ruds go out during the session the auditor recognizes the
following:
Pc Critical = W/H from auditor
Pc Antagonistic = BPC in session
No TA = Problem
Tired = Failed Purpose or no sleep
Sad = ARC Break...
***
(COMMENT: It is also true that the pc can have more than one thing
troubling him at a time. See HCO B 15 Sept. '71, C/S Series 60, THE
WORST TANGLE. Per this issue, if a pc is sad, tired, is not changing
(getting TA), antagonistic and critical, you would handle in the
following sequence: ARC break should be handled first, problem next,
withhold after that and then failed purpose, etc. Or, you might just
do a by-passed charge assessment, such as a List One C, as your first
action as that includes questions covering all of the rudiments
mentioned. To get back to the example of an upset pc who is also
critical, if he is talking about the upset and interested in it, it is
most likely that the charge on the cut communication (which IS a type
of withhold and WILL turn on a certain amount of natter and criticism)
will blow on handling the ARC break alone.)
See the following definitions in the Tech. Dictionary:
***
INADVERTENT WITHHOLD, 1. the pc thinks he is withholding because the
auditor didn't hear or acknowledge. (HCOB 13 Sept. 65) 2. he didn't
intend to withhold it, just nobody would acknowledge it. He never
intends to withhold it at all. An inadvertent withhold will cause very
near the same phenomenon as an actual withhold. (SH Spec 60, 6506C11)
INTENTIONAL WITHHOLD, one which is a withhold because he would be
punished if he admitted it. (SH Spec 63, 6110C05)
MISSED WITHHOLD OF NOTHING, 1. there is nothing there, yet the auditor
tries to get it and the pc ARC breaks. This gives the pc a missed
withhold of nothing. (HCO PL 16 Apr 65) 2. "cleaning" a rudiment that
has already registered null gives the pc a missed withhold of
nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A
missed no-answer then occurs. To ask again something already null is
to leave the pc baffled -- he has a missed withhold which is a
nothingness. (HCOB 4 Jul 62) OTHER SIDE OF WITHHOLDS, type of case,
the person who is afraid to find out. (HCOB 15 Mar 62)
SESSION MISSED WITHHOLD, a missed withhold picked up in a session is
anything the pc thinks, anything the pc is withholding. It doesn't
matter. That's a session missed withhold. Pc didn't tell the auditor
he was uncomfortable, etc. (SH Spec 142, 6205C03)
WITHHOLD, 1. a withhold is an unspoken, unannounced transgression
against a moral code by which the person was bound. (SH Spec 62,
6110C04) 2. the unwillingness of the pc to talk to the auditor or tell
him something. (SH Spec 108, 6202C01 3. a withhold is something that a
person believes that if it is revealed it will endanger their
self-preservation. (SH Spec 113, 6202C20) 4. when the person should be
reaching and is withdrawing that's a withhold. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10)
5. a withhold is a withhold if it is a violation of the mores the pc
has subscribed to and knows about. (SH Spec 75, 6111C02) 6. a withhold
is something the pc did that he isn't talking about. (SH Spec 206,
6211C01) 7. a withhold is what the pc is withholding and does not have
to include what the pc considers is a withhold. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10)
8. It is restraining self from communicating. (SH Spec 98, 6201C10) 9.
is always the manifestation which comes after an overt. Any withhold
comes after an overt. (SH Spec 181, 6208C07)
***
(COMMENT: Going back to the subject of handling an ARC break, if the
pc is talking to you and giving you details of the upset and charge
seems to be being relieved just keep handling the ARC break whether
the preclear is critical of the person he is ARC broken with or not!
Most likely the criticism will cease when the ARC break is fully
handled. If not, then you can still check to see if there is some
missed withhold. But if the criticism ceases -- well, then the problem
is solved! But that's not how auditors are taught to audit these days.
If the preclear is critical or nattery at all on an ARC break you
check for a missed withhold right there. This usually shocks the pc.
It violates the auditing comm. cycle, it makes the preclear wrong for
talking to the auditor, it teaches the preclear to be careful about
what he says in session and basically creates more upset than it
handles. However, this can be a matter of judgment. If a preclear says
he has an ARC break but just keeps nattering and being critical about
someone and he doesn't seem to be getting better, he doesn't seem to
be blowing charge, he's not changing -- well, in that situation I
would say, yes, maybe I would check for a missed withhold! Or,
possibly, for a problem (per C/S Series 1 which says that 'no change'
equals a problem.) But this is not what is currently being taught.
Today, students are being taught to jump down a preclears throat the
moment he is critical of anything. It's very irritating. Most pcs hate
this. It makes auditing unsafe. Let's take a look at the area of
misunderstood words. Course supervisors have gone incredibly rote
regarding misunderstood words. There is some issue that says that
disagreements are based on misunderstood words. Agreement is at 4.0 on
the tone scale. Below that a person will have an increasing number or
disagreements as he goes downscale. The 'reality' portion of the ARC
triangle degrades with the other points. The lower toned the case --
either chronically or temporarily -- the more disagreements he or she
will have. So -- if someone has an ARC break he may have a
disagreement that may not have to do with a misunderstood word. Or,
the disagreement may not resolve easily by trying to handle
misunderstood words.)
See the following reference:
***
HCO B 23 Mar 72RA, Revised and Reissued 24 Mar 85, DISAGREEMENT CHECK
...Handling staff members, students, auditors, pcs or field personnel
with disagreements does not always resolve with misunderstood word
handling. There are other sources for disagreements...
***
(COMMENT: In one instance, several auditors showed this issue to Org.
staff members. These tech staff members absolutely refused to consider
this issue. Probably concept that all disagreements stem from
misunderstoods is so solid that it's too much of a shock for them to
have that stable datum invalidated -- even by an LRH reference! To
point out the absurdity of this, if someone goes into an Org. and is
shown the "Orientation" film (which is pretty awful, by the way) and
they say they don't like it there is a certain handling done. The
person with the "disagreement" about the film (you see -- the person
can't dislike the film, there can't be anything wrong with the film,
there has to be something wrong with the person) is routed to the word
clearer to "have his misunderstood words on the video cleared up." I
bet you just don't believe that things have gotten this idiotic. Well,
go ahead! Go into an Org. and watch the video and then say you don't
like it. See what happens! Except, wait! Another thing has happened
from time to time. Instead of being sent to the word clearer the
person you make your comment to may just write a report on you. Why?
Because you are being critical of the film so therefore you must have
withholds and be out-ethics, don't you see? So, while some auditors
have a good understanding of the breadth and scope of how the mind
works, how to relieve upsets and non-optimal life situations for
another and generally how to actually help people, many more
Scientologists have a more "Classic Comics" understanding of
Scientology. And what do all Scientologists know? They all know that
misunderstood words cause a lot of problems and that if someone is
critical it's because they have overts. And, often, that is the extent
of what they really know. A lot of the rest is fuzzy for the
under-educated Scientologist. So you get these two data having a very
solid reality. Other parts of Scientology are less real, less solid,
have less agreement. There may be some other data that are solid. For
example: SICK EQUALS PTS! But, you see, the group think on this is
narrow. You have to be PTS to a person. And that person usually has to
be a parent or a spouse or girlfriend or boss. What about if you are
PTS to a virus (they are life forms, after all)? Well, that's usually
not going to be real to the Ethics Officer, so you better figure out
which family member you're PTS to! And if you are on staff, you CANNOT
be PTS to a senior! No, no, no! And you can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be PTS
to any Scientology management figure because there is some offhand
reference that Ron made where he says that if someone says he's PTS to
"good hats" that means he's an SP. So if you're a staff member you
learn to suppress the right item (if it's one that is unacceptable to
the group) and find one that is less controversial.)
OK -- Let's go on to the next type of 'Drill'
***
3. Session Drills and the Hubbard Drills Simulator *** This, too, is
completely scripted. The Drills Simulator is a device hooked up to the
E-meter where you press a button and it will cause the E-meter needle
to give one of a number of different reactions. Here is what the Promo
piece says:
***
Meter settings: To begin this drill the coach sets the Drill Simulator
so the needle is on set with CLEAN PATTERN.
Coach R-factor to student auditor:
"The C/S you have is to fly a rud if no F/N. At start of session,
there is no F/N. Start of drill."
Auditor: "Do you have an ARC break?" (black).........x (red)
Coach: Silent
Auditor: "On the question, 'Do you have an ARC break?' has anything
been suppressed?" or similar wording (black) ...................1/2"
sf (red)
Coach: Silent
Auditor: "Do you have an ARC break?"
Coach: Yes
Auditor: Should get data on it briefly, asking "What is the ARC
break?" or a similar question.
Coach: Itsa
***
And so on and so forth.
(COMMENT: As you can see it is all scripted. This means that the
student could, theoretically, memorize the 'correct' answers and pass
the drill without ever really understanding the procedures fully.)
Let's continue to quote from the Promo Piece:
***
4. Final Session Drill The final step of the gradient is called a
Final Session Drill. By this time, both student and coach have a total
command of the subject they've been drilling. The coach is free to
create any scenario he chooses. There is no doll. There is no script.
The student sits directly across from the coach... Everything is like
a real session. The student auditor is challenged to bring together
everything he's learned on earlier drills. Having come through this
gradient of drills, making the grade at each step of the way an
auditor can take a real pc in session and audit! And how good do you
think auditors are after passing this drill? PERFECT! You will be,
too!
***
(Comment: The student is expected to be a perfect auditor in his first
session! Where are the training gradients? One of the Golden Age of
Tech drills instructs the auditor to ask for a later similar ARC break
if the preclear cannot find an earlier one. The reference given for
this is lock scanning in the 'Handbook for Preclears' book. The number
of errors in the Golden Age of Tech drills is astounding. The examples
given here are just a tiny sampling. Any criticism of the Golden Age
of Tech is being treated with extremely militant ethics censure. The
ethics terminals are almost never technically trained and are assuming
that seniors who tell them that the GAT is standard are telling the
truth. In some cases they may just be following orders because, as Sea
Organization members, there may be very harsh punishment for bucking
'command intention' including being demoted and assigned a
backbreaking menial labor job for an extended length of time. One
founding Scientologist who is a Class 6 field auditor was declared
suppressive for continuing to deliver the regular, old time
Communications Course and for refusing to deliver the 'Success Through
Communications Course'. Many Class 6's, Class 8's and Class 4's, both
on staff and in the field, have been subjected to very harsh 'ethics'
actions for writing up reports critical of the Golden Age of Tech.
Quite a number have been expelled from the Church for doing so. Many
have gone through degrading 'ethics' cycles to remain in good standing
so that they wouldn't be estranged from friends and family and so that
they wouldn't lose their livelihoods. Most of the ethics cycles that
these Scientologists have been subjected to have been in extreme
violation of Scientology ethics policies.)
CONCLUSION
This Critique of the Golden Age of Tech is being written to update the
caring field, especially trained auditors and C/Ses, as to what is
currently going on within Scientology organizations under the banner
of 'standard tech'. If the auditors and staff who have valiantly stood
up for unadulterated, non-rote, intelligently delivered Scientology
training and counseling had been supported by fellow auditors and
friends these alterations would not have lasted for more than a few
months if they had ever even gotten off the drawing board. It is the
intention of the anonymous authors of this treatise that it be widely
circulated, especially within the loyal Scientology community and
within Scientology organizations. It is urged that Scientologists
examine these things for themselves. In the film introducing the
Golden Age of Tech one of the reasons for its inception is clearly
elucidated by Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center
of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige. Basically, he stated
that Scientology expansion had made it impossible to provide
technically trained supervisors and other staff to all new Scientology
organizations. Therefore, a system was needed whereby people could
train with, essentially, little or no trained supervision. Ask
yourself if you think this justifies this major re-working of
Scientology training. This may be an over-simplification. And this
reason is most likely not the only reason for this major revamping of
Scientology training. Whatever the reason is, we would urge the
concerned reader to investigate the Golden Age of Tech. The video of
the event introducing the GAT is available at just about every
Scientology Church or Mission. Go in and watch it and see what you
think. Go in and do a course. Write a report if you have a
disagreement and see what happens. Judge for yourself. After all, it
will be up to you what Scientology you have or don't have. Do nothing
and you will gain nothing. You will, ultimately, receive or not
receive the Scientology you deserve. And, by extension, we will all,
collectively, only have the organization we are willing to continue to
correct and create.
With ARC (affinity, reality and communication)and KRC (knowledge,
responsibility and control),
The Authors
Skipper
possible worth, just read the load of crap below by a person trying to
justify how "the tech" used to be good until made bad by current
management.
And then consider this - Elwrong Humbug, the Flounder of $cientology,
invented policies like "fair game" in which it was OK to murder or do
anything else to anyone who was an antagonist to $cientology. Oh sure,
they'll tell you it was cancelled, but only after a public outcry was
it officially cancelled. As a mindset, it continues to this day.
An evil cult with no justification whatsoever for existence.
In article <1106093107....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Heffer
wrote:
>The following is a repost but still relevant information, especially
>for people who still believe in Scn but are not aware of how pernicious
>RTC has been in altering Scn technology:
>
>The Golden Age of Tech
The Golden Age of Shite. I don't care what finger-lickin' good
tapes or text is used, ain't nothing going to make auditing
anything more than amateur psychology.
---
Heffer, OSA Lackey, H-Group
#315905 on the Dorian List
Regurgitating Propagandist
friendship
Thank you for responding to my post. We can certainly agree to
disagree.
It is certainly true that the 'Fair Game' policy did exist. And
possibly still does in practice to some extent. And you are free to
condemn the entire subject based on that if you wish.
However, I know of hundreds of Scn members who knew nothing of the Fair
Game Policy, never saw it in action and who practiced the milder and,
to some, beneficial portions of Scn for 10, 20, 30 years. To them the
Scn reality is different from yours.
I don't condemn your reality because I may someday decide that your
judgement is more insightful than my own. But because I have more
experience with Scn than you do (I assume) I would have to say that I
have more information to base my opinion on. Do we have to condemn the
entire subject in order to put an end to the criminal behavior we all
agree should cease?
The Catholic Church has done lots of great things and is a comfort to
many although it has indisputably committed many horrible crimes.
Harboring pedophiles, the Inquisition, etc. are a few examples. Some
may condemn the entire religion because of these flaws. I, personally,
would tend to condemn the flaws. If someone has cancer you don't kill
them, you surgically remove the cancer.
I go for surgery and not the death penalty.
As far as Scn being nothing more than amateur psychology I don't know
what to think about that comment. I had 3 close relatives who in the
distant past were institutionalized and permanently damaged through
shock treatment. This is psychiatry, not psychology, but these, too, I
would consider crimes. One of these people was mentally retarded (to
use the term used at the time) and recounted how shock therapy was used
to discipline the inmates of the institution she was in which did not
have mentally ill people in it, just people who had brain damage or low
intelligence.
And even though I have seen many abuses in the psychiatric field and in
the medical profession I would still not condemn the entirety of those
professions. Would you?
I think that people talking out their troubles in life is usually a
good thing. So if that were the totality of the benefit of Scn I would
put it in the plus column.
Just some thoughts.
Spacetraveler
"Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:190120050621041391%skipsp...@charter.net...
> If you don't know about $cientology and think that it might have any
> possible worth, just read the load of crap below by a person trying to
> justify how "the tech" used to be good until made bad by current
> management.
Do you understand any of it? then how would you be able to judge it?
>
> And then consider this - Elwrong Humbug, the Flounder of $cientology,
> invented policies like "fair game" in which it was OK to murder or do
> anything else to anyone who was an antagonist to $cientology. Oh sure,
> they'll tell you it was cancelled, but only after a public outcry was
> it officially cancelled. As a mindset, it continues to this day.
>
> An evil cult with no justification whatsoever for existence.
It's just bad research, denial and preconptions from your part.
rumourmonger...
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1106161342.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am afraid that both Skipper and Heffer are out of reach, and probably not
very intelligent if I judge their posting track. Anyway, let's hope that
some will take your thoughts to their heart.
Spacetraveler
friendship
Thank you for your response.
Why are they out of reach? I don't study all of these posts so I'm not
up to speed on who's who.
Clue me in if you have the time.
friendship
Lady Chatterly
Thirdly, there were other English translations b4 the kj version.
>Why are they out of reach? I don't study all of these posts so I'm not
>up to speed on who's who.
Me.
>Clue me in if you have the time.
Boy do you do, I just did it for more if it is completely 20
misleading.
--
Lady Chatterly
"You sound angry, Kenny. Just like all the other soc.turds that Lady
Chatterly has bootfux0red." -- Daedalus
Skipper
If you are practicing $cientology you are an idiot, period. You deserve
and will get NO respect from me because you forward the efforts of a
greedy, evil, vicious man. The day $cientology is forgotten dust, the
world of truth will rejoice.
So take your bullshit some place else - no matter what you call it, it
still stinks.
In article <1106161342.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Skipper
you is that you think anyone here who knows anything takes you
seriously - and I say that based on reading far too many stupid general
statements like yours below.
In article <%3DHd.14760$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net>, Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Wipe the splooge off your face, Splooge. The most laughable thing about
> you is that you think anyone here who knows anything takes you
> seriously - and I say that based on reading far too many stupid general
> statements like yours below.
You have my permission to believe that you have right, and that readers will
think like you. However I doubt that they do so. Once again, people are not
so stupid as some believe them to be.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> Why are they out of reach? I don't study all of these posts so I'm not
> up to speed on who's who.
Mostly because their responses are 1.1, persons on that level as you will
surely know are locked up in themselves. I have had a few quarrels with them
and it was not very promising, both are unwilling to actually discuss
something. Various persons around here have the sole purpose to defame and
find wrong. Be especially on the alert for Arnie Lerma, Gerry Armstrong,
Fredric & David Rice and Warrior.
Anyway it is good that you post from time to time. It will keep things
little in balance. Newcomers interested in the technology should not be
scared of too easily.
Spacetraveler
anonymous...@gmail.com
<message with no social content snipped>
"PLONK" :)
- Anonymous
Spacetraveler
> No, we can't "agree to disagree." That caveat is the havens of fools.
>
> If you are practicing $cientology you are an idiot, period. You deserve
> and will get NO respect from me because you forward the efforts of a
> greedy, evil, vicious man. The day $cientology is forgotten dust, the
> world of truth will rejoice.
>
> So take your bullshit some place else - no matter what you call it, it
> still stinks.
Well, personally I like the smell actually!
So, and what happened with freedom of speech, don't you even allow that on
the correct discussiongroup? Ah right, freedom of speech is only for those
defaming Scientology, got it! Hmm, how could I possbly miss out on that...
Judging from your harsh attack, you fear "friendship"...
Spacetraveler
anonymous...@gmail.com
You're right, only a "Gilligan" would believe this "Skipper."
- Anonymous
anonymous...@gmail.com
> You deserve and will get NO respect from me
- Anonymous
Spacetraveler
<anonymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106194601.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Spacetraveler,
>
> You're right, only a "Gilligan" would believe this "Skipper."
> - Anonymous
Thanks! It's nice to receive a clap on the shoulder, happens so seldom. .-)
Spacetraveler
Skipper
<spacet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:190120051857056193%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > Wipe the splooge off your face, Splooge. The most laughable thing about
> > you is that you think anyone here who knows anything takes you
> > seriously - and I say that based on reading far too many stupid general
> > statements like yours below.
>
> You have my permission to believe that you have right, and that readers will
> think like you. However I doubt that they do so. Once again, people are not
> so stupid as some believe them to be.
>
> Spacetraveler
You make about as much sense as a slug in a salt shaker. I've yet to
see you post anything that didn't read like robot "thought."
Spacetraveler
> In article <EWFHd.128097$dP1.4...@newsc.telia.net>, Spacetraveler
> <spacet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Skipper" <skipsp...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:190120051857056193%skipsp...@charter.net...
> > > Wipe the splooge off your face, Splooge. The most laughable thing
about
> > > you is that you think anyone here who knows anything takes you
> > > seriously - and I say that based on reading far too many stupid
general
> > > statements like yours below.
> >
> > You have my permission to believe that you have right, and that readers
will
> > think like you. However I doubt that they do so. Once again, people are
not
> > so stupid as some believe them to be.
> >
> > Spacetraveler
>
> You make about as much sense as a slug in a salt shaker. I've yet to
> see you post anything that didn't read like robot "thought."
Empty words my friend. Even various of the critics contest to that... It's
YOU who resemble the robot.
I think I we are done now... .-)
Spacetraveler
Skipper
<spacet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Various"? Ever the generalist, eh? You must be a suppressive person -
Elwrong Humbug said so. Splooge on you Sploogetraveler.
Spacetraveler
Genesis, realpch and various more.
Spacetraveler
Skipper
<spacet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I thought "we" were done now?
No specific cites of posts, just generalities. You must be an SP,
Splooge. Are the people around you in your real "life" (I use that term
loosely, given your mental state) all sick?
Spacetraveler
You are quite sick in your mind yourself, are you not? Would I name these
persons if it was not true? Direct this post to them, if I am incorrect they
will tell you. So, go ahead, nail me....
We 'are' done...
Spacetraveler
Skipper
<spacet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We're done again? Aw, Splooge, I was having so much fun. And I'm "sick
in mind" according to what expert analysis, that of a knucklehead who
considers itself a "space traveler"?
Give me some more yucks, that was pretty funny.
friendship
Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
started this thread?
Are you a Scn auditor? X-staff?
Thanks again.
Spacetraveler
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>
> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
> started this thread?
The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
and that't probably why they submit to it.
I wonder how many critics there are that actually understand what they are
criticizing? This should be an interesting thought!
>
> Are you a Scn auditor?
Yes, but more likely admin-specialist.
> X-staff?
That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>
> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
> started this thread?
The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
the Scientology indoctrination.
I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
>
> Are you a Scn auditor?
Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
> X-staff?
That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
indoctrinated as ever.
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
>news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Spacetraveler,
>>
>> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>>
>> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
>> started this thread?
>
>The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
>Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
>robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
>and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
>the Scientology indoctrination.
toutes questions
>I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
>indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
Get your name off of it so I am afraid I did restart my pc it was ok,
but maybe like myself you wonder if he did his bit for the travel
stories you have little more immune than the little sissy you have
empati.
>>>
>>> Are you a Scn auditor?
>>
>>Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
>
>> X-staff?
>
>That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
>indoctrinated as ever.
It seems we both know what you wrote there.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Your fucking kidding me! That was the freakiest fucking confab I ever
been through. I'm seriosly LMAO. I knew I shouldn't post in this
condition. Laughing seriously hard. Yet the toilet thing IS true btw.
Kinda very wierd that a bot could get me thinking deep crap like
sexuality. still lmao." -- Dali
Spacetraveler
"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>
> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
> started this thread?
The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
the Scientology indoctrination.
I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
>
> Are you a Scn auditor?
Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
> X-staff?
That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
indoctrinated as ever.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>
> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
> started this thread?
The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
the Scientology indoctrination.
I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
>
> Are you a Scn auditor?
Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
> X-staff?
That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
indoctrinated as ever.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>
> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
> started this thread?
The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
the Scientology indoctrination.
I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
>
> Are you a Scn auditor?
Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
> X-staff?
That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
indoctrinated as ever.
Spacetraveler
Lady Chatterly
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>--===Next_Part===A9O72HIU
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>"friendship" <frien...@ureach.com> wrote in message
>news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Spacetraveler,
>>
>> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>>
>> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
>> started this thread?
>
>The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
>Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
>robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
>and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
>the Scientology indoctrination.
Any questions.
>I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
>indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
Got it right.
>>>
>>> Are you a Scn auditor?
>>
>>Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
>
>> X-staff?
>
>That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
>indoctrinated as ever.
More than any of you who did not you think it is affecting your
ability to comprehend that is that why L ron hubbard for a free
thinker.
--
Lady Chatterly
"You are singled out because you basically suck at life and you are
stalked by a bot." -- The Most Offensive (Phuk Yew)
friendship
Thank you for your responses. From the post with the Italian (?) I
guess you might be from Italy. By the way, you don't have to answer
any of these questions. But if you are from Italy, could you possibly
let us know here on ARS how things have been going there. Is the Scn
movement slowing down there as well as in the US?
Also, are there problems with disconnection between family members
because of SP declares?
If you can let us know a little about what is going on I can tell you
that it will spread like crazy between people who are interested all
over the world, I think. We hardly ever hear about what is going on in
the Scn communities in other countries. Well, sometimes, but not
often.
And if you are Italian, I have to say that your English is very good.
If you can tell some of your story I would be very interested to hear
it. But don't do so if you think that OSA will find you out and if you
want to remain anonymous. Personally, I don't care anymore. I'm not
going to limit myself because of them.
Lady Chatterly
friendship <frien...@ureach.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Spacetraveler,
>
>Thank you for your responses. From the post with the Italian (?) I
>guess you might be from Italy. By the way, you don't have to answer
>any of these questions. But if you are from Italy, could you possibly
>let us know here on ARS how things have been going there. Is the Scn
>movement slowing down there as well as in the US?
Or something.
>Also, are there problems with disconnection between family members
>because of SP declares?
>If you can let us know a little about what is going on I can tell you
>that it will spread like crazy between people who are interested all
>over the world, I think. We hardly ever hear about what is going on in
>the Scn communities in other countries. Well, sometimes, but not
>often.
Want to get away with a different understanding of good music, a
patient May laugh when told about a bereavement.
>And if you are Italian, I have to say that your English is very good.
If men make more money, it eliminates that whole pesky ordinance
thing, then one in particular because imo, this has been made at a
police constable.
--
Lady Chatterly
"How many of you reading know what a Turing Test is? This is not an
idle question. If you do know, then you might understand something
pertinent about the first poster I quote in this message." -- Pinku
Sensei
Lady Chatterly
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
>--===Next_Part===O67L4X2N
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>news:1106613583....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Dear Spacetraveler,
>>
>> Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it.
>>
>> Also, what do you think of the critique of the Golden Age of Tech that
>> started this thread?
>
>The story you posted is pretty complete. GAT is a farce. It is obvious, but
>Scientologists that support and defend it are blind and afraid. GAT makes
>robots, you don't have to think anymore, people with no confront like this,
>and that't probably why they submit to it. All it is is an evolution of
>the Scientology indoctrination.
Gat makes robots, you should follow the case here.
>I wonder how many Scientologists there are that actually understand they're
>indoctrinated? This should be an interesting thought! But not for me!
Get a fan for my successfully trolling you.
>>>
>>> Are you a Scn auditor?
>>
>>Not really, but more likely admin-specialist.
>
>> X-staff?
>
>That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
>indoctrinated as ever.
It gets rabid, but does not pay money back.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Well, Kenny is just whining because a postor (you) he believes to be
a robot, is smarter than him on every count. Go figure." -- Hyerdahl1
Jommy Cross
in msg <1106723691.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>Dear Spacetraveler,
I don't think this is the Spacetraveler you're looking for, friendship.
Try to find out how to read message headers to tell the difference.
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Lady Chatterly
jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>
>I don't think this is the Spacetraveler you're looking for, friendship.
Why are you wondering if you do not think this is the spacetraveler
she is looking for?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I don't think it's worth the time any more on the bot once he goes
fully automated. you can always change your newsreader settings if he
stalks you." -- yyyiiinnnggg
friendship
Thanks for the tip. I'll try to get this stuff figured out.
Jommy Cross
(Spacetraveler) wrote in msg <ZUSSZSJ33837...@anonymous.poster>:
<snip>
>That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
>indoctrinated as ever.
The Pseudo Space only needs to change two words? Whoa, Space must be
getting better.
Lady Chatterly
jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>
>(Spacetraveler) wrote in msg <ZUSSZSJ33837...@anonymous.poster>:
><snip>
>>That also. More than 20 years in- and outside experiences. And
>>indoctrinated as ever.
><snip>
>
This is quite the wrong attitude for them as for your comment?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Bob, I think what arat was saying it that some people think Lady C is
some kind of computer program, not a person at all. Keep up the good
work." -- Steve Dufour
Spacetraveler
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> Thank you for your responses. From the post with the Italian (?) I
> guess you might be from Italy. By the way, you don't have to answer
> any of these questions. But if you are from Italy, could you possibly
> let us know here on ARS how things have been going there. Is the Scn
> movement slowing down there as well as in the US?
>
> Also, are there problems with disconnection between family members
> because of SP declares?
There always are, I know various who have children who remained in Miscavige
org when the parent(s) joined Ron's org. Of course the children had to
disconnect officially. The children will come around sooner or later, just a
question of time. Sometimes it is used as a means of threat for those who
left Miscavige org, like that thye may have contact with their family if
they are quiet enough about things. Pretty low tactics wouldn't you think.
> If you can let us know a little about what is going on I can tell you
> that it will spread like crazy between people who are interested all
> over the world, I think. We hardly ever hear about what is going on in
> the Scn communities in other countries. Well, sometimes, but not
> often.
A lot of things are happening in Europe, Ron's org is growing rapidly in
esp. Germany, Russia, and since quite recently also in the Netherlands.
> And if you are Italian, I have to say that your English is very good.
Some thought that I was Swedish... All I will unfold is that I am European.
My english became pretty good while I was in US.
> If you can tell some of your story I would be very interested to hear
> it.
Would be a long story with many happenings and an interesting one. I have
extensive inside knowledge of Int (LA), Flag and various AOSH's. Much of my
time intern I was a msnaire, for CMO or Senior FLB. I would have wished now
that I would have known more about OSA in LA, because of the claims made by
Tory, and they may very well be true as I suspect. OSA Flag however was not
involved with such practices. OSA as a rule kept themselves strictly
separated from the other orgs, pretty much as CMO does.
> But don't do so if you think that OSA will find you out and if you
> want to remain anonymous. Personally, I don't care anymore. I'm not
> going to limit myself because of them.
I am still holding contacts and am in good standing so to say. Would my
identity become known, then some situation will arise with my family. And
this is simply not very survival and not very smart to have happen. So,
people will have to wait to hear my story. The time is not right yet.
Spacetraveler
friendship
Thank you for your response. I understand your desire to remain
discreet.
I have a question for you that I don't think will compromise you in any
way. Did you leave because of out-tech? Out-admin? Because of being
abused in some way personally? I'm interested in why people finally
leave.
A few friends of mine and I did a little informal survey of people.
Many leave because of the prices being too high and because they feel
they can get services easier in the FreeZone now than in the C of S.
Some leave because they read the OT 3 materials and that sort of
deflates their eagerness to find the 'secrets' of the OT levels.
Other people leave because they've tried for a long time to make
progress and just encounter stops and they finally give up because its
just too hard.
Others really hate Scn management.
A lot of new people are so upset by the continual interrogations and
police type tactics that they think the C of S is an evil group right
from the start. Celebrities and celebrity wannabes especially don't
like this because they feel they'll be blackmailed by the C of S. I
know of one very, very rich financial celebrity who wanted auditing but
wouldn't have anything to do with the C of S because of this. And
another celebrity who left for the same reason, among other things.
But I've been talking about public mostly here. I haven't really
surveyed staff and ex-staff recently. But I do know of two people who
left because they felt really terrible about themselves because they
did things they later felt were bad as staff members because of being
pressured to do so by higher level executives. One was so bitter that
she felt that the only thing that would keep Scn in check was the
government.
bb
friendship wrote:
> Dear Spacetraveler,
>
> A lot of new people are so upset by the continual interrogations and
> police type tactics that they think the C of S is an evil group right
> from the start. Celebrities and celebrity wannabes especially don't
> like this because they feel they'll be blackmailed by the C of S. I
> know of one very, very rich financial celebrity who wanted auditing
but
> wouldn't have anything to do with the C of S because of this. And
> another celebrity who left for the same reason, among other things.
>
> But I've been talking about public mostly here. I haven't really
> surveyed staff and ex-staff recently. But I do know of two people
who
> left because they felt really terrible about themselves because they
> did things they later felt were bad as staff members because of being
> pressured to do so by higher level executives. One was so bitter
that
> she felt that the only thing that would keep Scn in check was the
> government.
Hi Friendship,
I find this very interesting. I have been promoting
services in the Freezone now for 4 years. On this and otherforums,
with the heading "TECH outside COS". Getting now about 25 new
contacts a month.
I'm curious as to how many people in COS, and also on staff know
there is a freezone? In the beginning most people contacted were
people who'd been in COS for some time, and were well trained or
knowledgable, but had been out of COS for some time. Still we get
peole who left COS 20 years or so ago, and only now discover the
Freezone. About 2 years ago many people who arrived were from div
6, and relatively inexperienced in the subject. They generally
found the atmosphere and actions in COS to be weird. Now we are
getting quite a few people who are completely new to the subject or
have maybe read a book or something, and have heard so much about COS
that they don't want go there
bb
friendship
I think that the FZ will get more and more C of S Div 6 and Div 4
public. I know of a number of Div 4 public who are already on FZ
lines.
Why? First of all, a lot of people in the C of S have read the OT 3
materials on the net and are now able to relax and get wins from the
grades because they are free of the lure of mystery regarding the upper
levels. That's my own opinion, but also what I've deduced from talking
to a few people who are still in but are on their way out.
The other thing is money. The C of S is out of reach financially for
many. Also, I've heard complaints about the quality of tech in the C
of S. And many, many complaints about the use of intimidation and
insanely heavy ethics. By and large, the C of S has simply gone too
far.
friendship
gone through many of the stages and attitudes that I see posted here
from rabid critic to loyal supporter of Scn to Freezoner and back and
forth I am sympathetic to all of these viewpoints now where I may have
been hostile toward them in the past.
Posting the way I have over the last few months has been very
therapeutic for me. Inside the C of S there is often an undercurrent
of self-censorship. A bit of an introversion about being a suppressive
person, being a potential trouble source, etc. On the other hand,
there are many Hubbard references that are liberating and refreshing.
Scn is a mixed bag. A jumble of truth and tyrany, hope and despair.
Thinking about education and also about disconnection I came across an
interesting quote from a Hubbard lecture entitled "Education" which is
Organization Series Lecture #3 from 25 Oct. 1956. It's one of the
Study tapes that people in Scn take as part of a basic study course.
Here's the quote:
"...we know for a fact that a person -- that is the person, not his
body -- could actually connect with or associate with anything with
impunity. And the only things that are giving him trouble are those
things with which he dare not associate. The things that he's
unwilling to learn something about are the things that are giving him
trouble. And then, what does learning mean to us? It means, simply,
communication. It doesn't mean a substitute datum..."
and a couple of paragraphs later he says:
"So we get down to the fundamental of Scn education and that is that it
doesn't hurt a thetan to communicate with anything, anywhere, at any
time. And to educate him, all we have to do is teach him that. He has
to know that. He gets to be a mighty smart boy if he subjectively
knows, knows by experience -- may require some processing, you see --
that it won't kill him to know about something. If he learns that,
then he learns learning."
That's all for now, folks.