Stacy Brooks, my response you your comments
An0n
Hi Stacy Brooks,
I have some real problems believing some of what you say in your post. The
biggest out point is that you claim to be an "ethical scietologist" in PT.
You wrote:
"When I left the C of S and the Sea Org I did so because I felt it was
the only way to continue to be an ethical Scientologist."
This is what I believe:
If you at one time were an ethical scientologist, then you no doubt
recognized when that stopped being true. At that time, if you tried
putting ethics in on yourself, without using actual tech of ethics, your
"handling" of your out ethics situation would put you exactly where you
are. . .charging that something was done to you which justifed your
out-ethics action.
I apologize to any scientologist reading this who will have to read all
the attacks and Pretty Rotten Tnings which will no doubt be levied here
agianst me and my beliefs. I'm sure both will be quickly ridiculed,
complete with "clam" comments, scoffing, and as much entheta as can be
packed in a punch.
Stacy Brooks, I do not mean to attack you, but in the reading I have done
here, you have never before made such a claim. (the ethical Scientologist
in PT claim) I would be interested to hear what people like Safe think on
the topic. I also wonder what the Critics--the people who continually
mock scientology and scientologists-- think of you being an ethical
scientologist in PT.
It raises some questions. Do you believe then, in the OT levels? What
does Arnie Lerma think of that if you do?
You also say:
"I realize this sounds impossible to many good and ethical
Scientologists, especially after what Miscavige and his people have
told you about me. (...)I found myself in ethics trouble repeatedly for
protecting
standard tech against Miscavige's direct orders to me to use the tech
to hurt people."
Can you give any examples please? I am most interested in any examples of
standard tech which were potentially used to hurt people. And yes, I have
not heard many positive things said about you. Ditto for this newsgroup.
Regarding the newsgroup, most all of what I've been told is true.
I actually logged on here because someone (not a scientologist) who knew I
was a scientologist, read ars and saw the Dorian posts. He asked me about
them, and for a long time I did nothing. Then I started reading them, and
the newsgroup itself. Pretty bad, and actually even worse than I had been
led to believe! How does this Dorian fit into your beliefs? I read it,
and frankly, I think you and Bob Minton are completely lying about this
person existing, and the walled room, and all that rot. How does such a
lie, such a series of lies and misrepresentations, fit into your PT
ethical scientologist beliefs? Do the people here have such short
memories? Do they just take at face value what money can buy?
I did not mean to take such a tone, but yes, this is very offensive to me.
And, contrary to what most people on ars seem to beleive, I have very
strong critical thinking skills and hold high standards for my beliefs.
(Come on critics, let me have it for this one! Dis my religion, call me a
moron, a clam, a bivalve, a cult member, a deluded adherent, stupid,
naive. . .I'm sure you'll think of more ;o} ...that's me trying to be
jovial Safe. It's hard to not be serious though, about something very
impt to my life.)
I can believe that you became a scientologist for good reasons. Ihave no
reason not to believe you about that. Scientology draws people who want
to make the world a better place. (OK critics, hit me some more for that
one!...I"m trying to create affinity here Safe, as you suggested, with a
little smile and a good attitude ;o} )
Stacy Brooks, you say you tried to change things from the inside...how did
you try to do that? Did you use standard ethics/conditions tech to do so?
If indeed you applied them correctly, that should have worked, right? As
an ethical scientologist, you believe that, correct?
Safe doesn't believe that you are trying to Reform Scientology, but
there's a whole string of posts with that heading, and many by you. Are
you trying to Reform Scientology?
Has Bob Minton read anything by LRH? Safe didn't know.
It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and offer to
talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no way in the
world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all this will, so it
was a positive gesture anyway.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions for Safe. It
seems a win that you invited him to be on the advisory board of the LMT.
I hope the other board members can be respectful of his beliefs. From my
vantage point tho, that seems very unlikely.
The critics here, or most of them anyway, claim to be for religios freedom
and say that it is not the belief system they are chastizing and
ridiculing. I'd like to ask you if you think that is true. Before you do
though, re-read some recent posts by Arnie Lerma, Captain Nerd, dave bird,
and roger gonnert, among others.
So again, thank you. As I said, I read this newsgroup not too frequently,
but will look for any responses you might provide.
Xenu Fredric Xenu L. Xenu Rice Xenu
> Hi Stacy Brooks,
>
> I have some real problems believing some of what you say in your post. The
> biggest out point is that you claim to be an "ethical scietologist" in PT.
>
> You wrote:
> "When I left the C of S and the Sea Org I did so because I felt it was
> the only way to continue to be an ethical Scientologist."
>
> This is what I believe:
>
> If you at one time were an ethical scientologist, then you no doubt
> recognized when that stopped being true.
A lot of cult followers got out after they could no longer
ethically follow the orders of the cult's leaders. Review the
court documents extant to-date and you'll see that the good
guys leave the cult when they can no longer engage in the
crimes and racketeering that the cult's leaders ordered them
to do -- upon pain of ethics condictions.
Scientology exists in a much more healthier and free
environment outside of the "Church" of Scientology. You
can contact the Free Zone and Mr. Safe in this forum for
assistance in working your case up that bridge, and you
won't have to keep a blind eye turned towards what the
cult's leaders are doing any more.
Scientology deserves to survive and the more people --
like yourself, perhaps -- who maintain Scientology outside
of the evil empire will ensure that Scientology continues.
You could be a great part of something truly wonderful if
you discard the bad and focus upon the good. But to do
that you need to open your eyes and admit to yourself
what the management of the "Church" of Scientology is,
and you need to walk out with your eyes wide open and
your head held high.
Contact the FreeZone at http://www.fza.org/ or send a
note to Mr. Safe.
ThomLove
It is impossible to 'reform' the CofS from the inside. As you well know,
you are forbidden to even question any CofS policy or activity. To
actually go so far as to 'disagree' gets you sent to the word clearer at
best. To actually state a disagreement, gets you sent to ethics at best.
To take a stand that something is 'wrong' and needs to be fixed, gets
you Declared SP, at the very best.
It is a CofS ser fac.
I can't speak for Stacy, but I saw many, many things while in the CofS
that I found uncomfortable. I was unaware of any actual crimes or any of
the criticisms of the CofS since in the CofS environment, such things
don't exist. They sure were never discussed if anyone knew of them. It
is not until coming here, and reading the links available, not the posts
themselves, that was quite the eye-opener. I'm a much 'better'
Scientologist as a result of being here.
I don't know what your relationship to the CofS is, but I'd hope that
you'd check out the links you find here. Most posts can be ignored, but
some are quite exact in what they say. You need to learn to distinguish
between what is just rant, justified or not, and what is truly a serious
concern by someone who can also listen.
I'm a Scientologist, and have been for nearly 30 years. I support the
FreeZone completely, and I also support the critics here in their
attempts to bring Scientologists to an understanding of just what the
CofS is doing to the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, as well as
what the CofS is doing to anyone in the field who questions any CofS
activity. You won't find any of that info anywhere within the CofS, only
here and in the links provided. And, I might add, provided here at great
personal rist to the provider.
I also support the CofS in it's original purposes, to create a safe
space where Dianetics and Scientology can be applied for the benefit of
those who seek it. This is no longer the case, unfortunately,
particularly in the SO Orgs.
To list out the crimes the SO Arrogants have engaged in, if that is what
you really want to question, is best done by going to those links. Some
are just rants, but some are crucial for you to know.
I hope you go and look. And, I hope you stay here and communicate. You
will get the odd ranter hit at you, but just ignore them, and comm with
those who can keep the R in.
It is good to see you here, so don't run away.
ThomLove
Realpch
>
> Hi Stacy Brooks,
> It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and offer to
> talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no way in the
> world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all this will, so it
> was a positive gesture anyway.
Son, get yourself a bunch of quarters and go to a public phone booth if
you want to speak to the lady.
Peach
Mark Bunker
> It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and offer to
> talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no way in the
> world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all this will, so it
> was a positive gesture anyway.
Why in the world is there no way you can communicate with her?
Are you not free?
Monica Pignotti
An0n <anond...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and
>offer to talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no
>way in the world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all
>this will, so it was a positive gesture anyway.
Why not? What stops you from being able to call Stacy? I know Stacy
and can vouch that she sincerely means it when she says she's willing
to talk to Scientologists. It would be a good way to get all your
questions to her answered and a chance for you to find out and judge
for yourself what's true and what's not true regarding the allegations
against her, as well as the truth of what she's saying. Isn't
Scientology all about deciding for yourself what's true for you, rather
than taking the word of an authority? If the organization is stopping
you from doing that and asking you to take their word for what is being
said against her, what does this say about their respect of you, as an
individual, to make up your own mind?
Monica Pignotti
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Safe ... www.fza.org
news:200001171823...@nym.alias.net...
>
> Hi Stacy Brooks,
>
> I have some real problems believing some of what you say in your post. The
> biggest out point is that you claim to be an "ethical scietologist" in PT.
>
> You wrote:
> "When I left the C of S and the Sea Org I did so because I felt it was
> the only way to continue to be an ethical Scientologist."
>
> This is what I believe:
>
> If you at one time were an ethical scientologist, then you no doubt
> recognized when that stopped being true. At that time, if you tried
> putting ethics in on yourself, without using actual tech of ethics, your
> "handling" of your out ethics situation would put you exactly where you
> are. . .charging that something was done to you which justifed your
> out-ethics action.
It's best that Stacy replies to your implication that she's an out-ethics
scientoligist. I can only give you my opinion. I believe Stacy did her
"doubt formula" and realized that she could no longer support the CofS, Inc.
in it's current form.
> I apologize to any scientologist reading this who will have to read all
> the attacks and Pretty Rotten Tnings which will no doubt be levied here
> agianst me and my beliefs. I'm sure both will be quickly ridiculed,
> complete with "clam" comments, scoffing, and as much entheta as can be
> packed in a punch.
>
> Stacy Brooks, I do not mean to attack you, but in the reading I have done
> here, you have never before made such a claim. (the ethical Scientologist
> in PT claim) I would be interested to hear what people like Safe think on
> the topic. I also wonder what the Critics--the people who continually
> mock scientology and scientologists-- think of you being an ethical
> scientologist in PT.
Yes, I have to admit that I didn't realize she claimed to still be a
scientologist either. But then again, I may have not been paying enough
attention.
> It raises some questions. Do you believe then, in the OT levels? What
> does Arnie Lerma think of that if you do?
I'm a scientologist and I don't "believe in" anything LRH says. I don't look
at scientology as a "religion" either. I don't think things should be taken
in "faith." Religions have a tendancy to get people to do that. That is not
very scientific and tends to ruin people's critical thinking skills. I look
at (real) scientology as a spiritual betterment methodology and philosophy.
I hope to some day look at it as a science especially when/if it gets
scientifically validated. What LRH says only becomes true if I've discovered
the same thing for myself. You know, what is true for you is true.
> You also say:
> "I realize this sounds impossible to many good and ethical
> Scientologists, especially after what Miscavige and his people have
> told you about me. (...)I found myself in ethics trouble repeatedly for
> protecting
> standard tech against Miscavige's direct orders to me to use the tech
> to hurt people."
> Can you give any examples please? I am most interested in any examples of
> standard tech which were potentially used to hurt people. And yes, I have
> not heard many positive things said about you. Ditto for this newsgroup.
> Regarding the newsgroup, most all of what I've been told is true.
Perhaps you misduplicated Stacy. She said she got in trouble for PROTECTING
STANDARD TECH. She never said anything about standard tech used to
potentially hurt people that I remember reading.
If you'd like some examples of "reverse auditing" (black scientology) then
email Theta...@hushmail.com . Theta will be happy to tell you about this
regarding the OT levels.
I don't think you've communicated enough on this newsgroup to know all the
data and know who the people here really are. Keep obnossing.
> I actually logged on here because someone (not a scientologist) who knew I
> was a scientologist, read ars and saw the Dorian posts. He asked me about
> them, and for a long time I did nothing. Then I started reading them, and
> the newsgroup itself. Pretty bad, and actually even worse than I had been
> led to believe! How does this Dorian fit into your beliefs? I read it,
> and frankly, I think you and Bob Minton are completely lying about this
> person existing, and the walled room, and all that rot. How does such a
> lie, such a series of lies and misrepresentations, fit into your PT
> ethical scientologist beliefs? Do the people here have such short
> memories? Do they just take at face value what money can buy?
I believe the Dorian crap is history and Bob had to eat some crow falling
for it himself. I've seen a notable change in Bob. He DOES change his
viewpoints. The guy does grow as a person. So that indicates to me that he's
not the SP that the CofS, Inc. is trying to spin him to be.
> I did not mean to take such a tone, but yes, this is very offensive to me.
> And, contrary to what most people on ars seem to beleive, I have very
> strong critical thinking skills and hold high standards for my beliefs.
> (Come on critics, let me have it for this one! Dis my religion, call me a
> moron, a clam, a bivalve, a cult member, a deluded adherent, stupid,
> naive. . .I'm sure you'll think of more ;o} ...that's me trying to be
> jovial Safe. It's hard to not be serious though, about something very
> impt to my life.)
I understand how you feel. I've felt the same way. I've learned that what
goes around comes around. I've found that if you grant beingness to most the
people here that they will equally treat you with respect. It's ok for them
to disagree with you. It's ok for you to disagree with them.
Think about this that Ron said. The only time scientology gets into trouble
is when it doesn't get results. No question, it is in a lot of trouble right
now. So what does that tell you about delivery? WHO got it in trouble and in
general disrepute? Not the critics. They are not responsible for delivery.
Guess again.
> I can believe that you became a scientologist for good reasons. Ihave no
> reason not to believe you about that. Scientology draws people who want
> to make the world a better place. (OK critics, hit me some more for that
> one!...I"m trying to create affinity here Safe, as you suggested, with a
> little smile and a good attitude ;o} )
That's very true. Some of the nicest people I've ever met who really want to
improve the world have been scientologists.
> Stacy Brooks, you say you tried to change things from the inside...how did
> you try to do that? Did you use standard ethics/conditions tech to do so?
> If indeed you applied them correctly, that should have worked, right? As
> an ethical scientologist, you believe that, correct?
If Stacy Brooks own ignored KR's (like mine too) kept on and it became
self-evident things were corrupt in the upper management, what condition
does that put you in. Doubt, right? I would certainly have and did have a
LOT of doubt when I found my KR's were not doing anything. So she likely did
the doubt condition on the CofS, Inc. (not scientologists) and decided to
leave that squirrelly organization just as I concluded and did. But I'd like
to hear it from her.
> Safe doesn't believe that you are trying to Reform Scientology, but
> there's a whole string of posts with that heading, and many by you. Are
> you trying to Reform Scientology?
They got their words mixed up to mean the same thing. I'm calling them on
this too. They need to separate whether they are trying to reform
scientology or reform the Church of Scientolgy, Inc. Stacy has promised me
they will make this clearer. The CofS, Inc. is a major guilty party in
creating this blending of terms together too.
> Has Bob Minton read anything by LRH? Safe didn't know.
I know Stacy put Bob Minton on the "cans." She never said if he R/Sed or
not. ;-)
> It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and offer to
> talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no way in the
> world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all this will, so it
> was a positive gesture anyway.
That is the Church of Scientology, Inc. cutting your freedom to communicate.
That right there should cause you to stop and think for a moment at why? Do
you feel it's right for anybody to dictate who you can or cannot communicate
with? I sure don't. The idea makes me mad. It's actually communistic. This
is very (wrongfully) typical of the CofS, Inc. ie:("non-enturbulation"
orders, RPF, censorship software, ex-communicated scientologists,
disconnection, etc) It does not "work towards freedom of speech" as pledged
in our own code of a scientologist. It's in direct conflict.
Here's what The Pilot has said about this cut communication:
"Every one of the following points represents a severely inhibited
communication line. Based on the technology of Scientology (which does
indeed work), that means that each one of these is guaranteed to act as a
chronic source of problems, overts, and ARCXs.
1. You must not communicate publicly about Scientology without getting
"Issue Authority" (which requires months and involves censorship).
2. You must not say anything critical of Scientology or else you will end up
in Ethics.
3. You must not discuss the tech of Scientology.
4. You must not joke about Scientology (the "Jokers and Degraders" policy).
5. You must not discuss your "case".
6. You must disconnect (not communicate) with anyone who is labeled as a
suppressive person. If it is only you who feels that they are suppressive,
you are allowed to handle instead of disconnect. But if the org has decided
that the person is suppressive, you have no choice in the matter and must
disconnect.
7. You must disconnect from anybody who has been labeled a "Squirrel" (which
means anybody who tries to practice Scientology without the expressed
permission of the organization).
8. You must never ever breath one word of confidential materials.
9. You must not read anything from an "entheta" (enturbulated theta) source.
10. You must not read or have anything to do with any other practices (known
as "Mixing Practices").
11. Sea Org members who are being punished in the RPF (Rehabilitation
Project Force) are not allowed to originate communication (may only speak if
spoken to - 24 hours a day).
12. Course Supervisors may not answer students questions except by asking
"What does your materials state".
13. Anyone being handled on the Introspection Rundown may not be spoken to.
14. The organization hides anything that is "out-PR" from the membership,
whether it is due to its own overts (such as the credit card fraud which got
many Sea Org registrars sent to the RPF) or abuses (such as the RPF itself)
or external problems (they will promote how they took down a few critical
websites and neglect to mention that a hundred sprung up to take their place
in a horrible backlash).
Furthermore, in regards to non-members,
15. The organization viciously attacks anyone who says anything about
Scientology that is not "good PR".
16. The organization vigorously sues anybody who quotes anything from
Scientology materials, even "Fair Use" quotes.
17. Instead of being happy that the material is being disseminated and
taking a lax attitude towards copyright violations, the organization pushes
copyright and trade secret laws to the hilt and sues everybody continually.
18. The org conceals its operations as much as possible and ducks answering
reasonable questions that might be embarrassing to it.
And then there are the areas of enforced and messed up communications. You
can destroy a comm line by overloading it just as well as by cutting it.
19. The registrars and recruiters continually hound people, and you must be
nice to them or you might end up in ethics.
20. The endless waves of promotional pieces, often 3 or 4 copies deep due to
incompetence in managing the mailing lists, exceed all good sense and
reasonable promotion and rarely contain any significant amount of real
communication.
21. The continual attacks against anyone else operating in the field of the
mind, whether psychs, squirrels, or metaphysical practitioners. It is not
that these are all good guys, but the org attacks indiscriminately on the
assumption that they are all evil without even finding out who might be
making an honest effort to help people instead of harm them.
22. The refusal to even sell any materials to anybody who is operating
independently ("Squirrels"). In fact, they even try to repossess materials
(without compensation) that were honorably bought and paid for before the
person was labeled a "Squirrel".
23. The spreading of false lies and rumors, known as "Dead Agenting",
against anyone who is considered to be a critic or enemy.
24. The recent "war against the internet" where enormous numbers of trivial
messages were machine generated to flood the system and drive off any
critics. The end result was to add a large number of previously impartial
webmasters to the ranks of the critics.
If you met a person with this many communication stops, they would be
severely abberated. Per "Science of Survival", you would expect them to self
destruct. The behavior is 1.1 (covert hostility) or 1.5 (anger) at best
(these are levels on the Scientology emotional tone scale)."
Study your honor code. That is senior to all the codes and creeds in my
opinion. Then next, study the codes and creeds. This is senior to all policy
because the codes and creeds are PURPOSE.
> Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions for Safe. It
> seems a win that you invited him to be on the advisory board of the LMT.
> I hope the other board members can be respectful of his beliefs. From my
> vantage point tho, that seems very unlikely.
You're very welcome. Thank you for being diplomatic. It is my hopes we can
keep both scientologists and non-scientologists communication on a
respectful level which by the way is something OSA in the past has not been
doing. They created many enemies. Many non-scientologists on the LMT board
will not respect my beliefs but they will respect my RIGHT to have those
beliefs. I'm glad they are willing to have different viewpoints. That's a
sign of a high-toned group to me.
> The critics here, or most of them anyway, claim to be for religios freedom
> and say that it is not the belief system they are chastizing and
> ridiculing. I'd like to ask you if you think that is true. Before you do
> though, re-read some recent posts by Arnie Lerma, Captain Nerd, dave bird,
> and roger gonnert, among others.
I agree that many make fun of Xenu a lot. The reason they do is because they
are mad about what they consider a bait and switch religion. First it's
engrams, then later in secret scriptures you learn the real problem is body
thetans.
The secrecy of the OT levels is what has caused all the controversy. Many
feel people would not be any part of scientology if they knew about Xenu.
Non-scientoligist skeptics want to see the truth said upfront about what
CofS, Inc. believes in. Stop the hiding. That's what critics want to see.
See The Pilots page on what's wrong with confidentiality;
http://www.fza.org/pilot/confid.html
I happen to agree with him on this.
> So again, thank you. As I said, I read this newsgroup not too frequently,
> but will look for any responses you might provide.
You're welcome. I hope we can continue our dialog and stay in communication
as questions arise.
Safe
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
>>offer to talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no
>>way in the world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all
>>this will, so it was a positive gesture anyway.
>
>and can vouch that she sincerely means it when she says she's willing
>to talk to Scientologists. It would be a good way to get all your
>questions to her answered and a chance for you to find out and judge
>for yourself what's true and what's not true regarding the allegations
>against her, as well as the truth of what she's saying. Isn't
>Scientology all about deciding for yourself what's true for you, rather
>than taking the word of an authority? If the organization is stopping
>you from doing that and asking you to take their word for what is being
>said against her, what does this say about their respect of you, as an
>individual, to make up your own mind?
>
>Monica Pignotti
"when in doubt communicate" (c) LRH
arnie
tel 703 241 1498
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Secrets are the mortar binding
bricks as lies together into prisons for the mind.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com
jewels...@hotmail.com
This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
history.
I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
would have.
"Hmmmmm ... oh my God, a squirrel SP site!" But, I could not help but
stick around long enough to look at some things just for a laugh. The
first thing I opened was "Answers for Scientology Kids" and I was
actually immediately offended and thought that this guy really IS nuts
and an SP. The truth is my kids are awesome, honest and ethical beyond
belief - and I don't need someone talking to my kids like that. They
get plenty of time from me, etc. His comments are a slap in the face
of those of us that ARE good parents and good people. So then I
realized that maybe Heldal-Lund's message to kids are meant for S.O.
kids (who HAVE been a problem). Maybe he doesn't realize that they
don't have computers and certainly no time for the internet.
But, it isn't my intention here to waste a lot of time with what I
agree with or not on his or other's sites. For some reason I stayed on
the site longer and read more of the links out of sheer curiosity. You
know what hit me between the eyes first?? The alleged lies about
Hubbard. I grappled with that for quite some time. The seemingly well-
documented war history and medical records of Hubbard by Chris Owen and
others hit me. For the last 6 weeks I have read and viewed practically
everything I could find (at least there) and some on the Freezone site
and elsewhere.
I only yesterday found out about deja.com and ars here. I had read
about ars, but am a dummy when it comes to newsgroups. (Is this
deja.com ars the same as the ars I've read about on other sites? Is
there an easier way to access ars than this?)
I have read some really stupid, pure rage stuff (not based on any facts
or experience) in my recent wanderings on the net. And I have read
some truly eye-opening things that ring true and seem well documented.
I see ars here too, so I sift and sort and wade through the crap to get
to some of the intelligent postings. It didn't take long at all to
figure that out. Just as an aside, I had a brief impression that some
of the mockery, snideness, and hate type stuff was actually a cover for
some church-going people (read PR types) to make the anti-church people
look stupid and "dead agent" them. Do you get what I mean here?
I had to reflect recently on what got me to this point. I mean, for
those of you that know, reading this stuff in itself would be ummm how
would I say ... very much frowned upon. A direct violation of my own
ethics that has been ingrained in me. (However, I have an extremely
high sense of integrity and can make my own judgements. And I am quite
a light, fun person with high ethics anyway!) So, here's what I came
up with as the reason that I was intrigued and why I sorted through the
crap to find a few truths in all this.
The church promises "total freedom." This is no idle claim as you
know - it directly states that there IS total freedom in this church
and you will NOT find it anywhere else. Well, for quite some time -
before I ever found that site last month - I had already been taking a
serious look at the fact that not one single person in 50 years has
achieved total freedom. No true OT has EVER been created that has
attained Total Freedom, and it appears that this is even true of
Hubbard if you believe even some of the reports of his later years and
death. That's particularly significant because this is being observed
by someone who IS in the church right now.
There is not much more that keeps people here other than the outright
promise of total freedom and total cause. If we professed to be just a
group that gave sincere and real help to others and that was all we
stated and then delivered on that, I would be much better about the
whole thing. But total freedom? Am I missing something? We could get
into a whole discussion on this I am sure (and it has probably already
been done), but if absolute total freedom for the peoples of earth were
documented and true, then I would think a humanitarian would do
whatever possible to make it more available now to help the planet
right here and now. Not make it hard to attain. I believe in helping
the able become more able and then going from there - but that can and
is being carried to extremes - particulary if someone is really holding
the key to total freedom. And even those "really able" people at the
top aren't any evidence of total cause.
Beyond simply making my first stab at posting, here is my point. I
think that some of the people here are missing the point if you really
want to bring the message home with some truth to others who have been
like myself for so long. First, having absolute documented facts about
Hubbard's past with no attention to suppositions or other narrative is
important. For example, NO ONE knows that he had another wife in the
late forties, early fifties, (if true) while still married to his first
wife. That and the war information is what rocked my world initially
as stated earlier. It is doubly important to compare those with HIS
actual written and spoken words, so as not to confuse this with the
possibility that "the overly zealous staff embellished his past." As
we know the truth WILL set you free. Keep everything truthful and keep
the opinions out.
Next is the very fact about "Total Freedom." Perhaps I'm missing it,
but pointing out truths of this promise and the actual statistics. Who
has ever experienced total freedom in the last 50 years? Who has ever
reached "total cause" to the extent stated and promised, etc.?? Now,
don't get me wrong. I know many who have become MUCH better and MUCH
more at cause as a result of the subject. I do believe, by actual
observation, that there are some incredibly workable and useful pieces
of work in this subject that help people immensely - and maybe that is
what gets us all hooked on the dream that everything else is true as
well, because those things do work - but, if I was to step outside the
box for a minute, I don't have to look very far to see that there is
not one individual who has attained (and probably not even close to
attaining) TOTAL FREEDOM.
There are other points, of course, but those are the two biggest ones
for me personally. And I think that they would be the bigger issues
with other's in the church too. The entire "confidential materials"
deal is another issue, but why bore you further with that. We already
know that people don't die or go crazy by being exposed to them. But
for critics to hit on the issues of "UFO religion" and those materials
that talk about that stuff is not taken with much credibility by your
average Scientologist. That might make someone new to the subject or
thinking about joining think twice, but it has no effect on a current
member, in my humble opinion. You have to hit right into the face of
the average member with truth and factual information, and not rhetoric
and hate of the organization alone.
I personally am not "against" the subject of Scientology and a lot of
what Hubbard wrote and lectured on. There IS a difference in that and
what later became the organization. Too many people confuse the two
and refute any good done by the subject because they can't see through
the current organization and it's flaws. It is very true for me that
much of the subject has merit and can help people. It is essentially
making knowledge about man and his existence, etc. available to the
common layman and out of the hands of so-called experts. I think the
revelation and why Dianetics was such a hit is that "Hey, I myself can
do something about my condition and the condition of others!! I don't
have to be a victim anymore or depend upon the so-called experts." It
just got quite a bit out of hand after that fact. Only my opinion
though!!
Also, just as a comment, I was at the "new years event" and it was very
full. I don't know anything about numbers so I can't say that there
were 14,000 or not. However, ALL the seats were not filled. Some
still miss the point, and don't get the real significance, because you
don't know the real truth behind the happenings. How many attending
were org, mission and S.O. staff that HAD to be there? Ordered to be
there. A lot of seats were filled by staff I'm sure. And the literal
push and hype and constant confirming to fill the place up was mind-
boggling. It is an out-point in itself that so much effort and very
hard work has to go on to PUSH people to an event and fill it up.
Weeks and months of work went into that. It would be very interesting
to see what would happen at a major event if no heavy call-in was
done. (To be honest, it was a disappointing event for me as it simply
covered history for the 5 decades, and told nothing new for 3 hours.)
Here are some things that maybe someone can help me with.
1. I read somewhere that Hubbard had a (psychiatric) drug in his system
at the time of his death. Is this true and documented someplace?
Coroner's report??
2. Are there really non-Scientologists that are legally bound into CST
in any contolling fashion? Is this factual documentation somewhere?
3. What's considered to be the most authoritative accurate (actually
documented?) source of Hubbard's past?
4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)? Most of
the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
in the 60's.
5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
his later years (70s and 80s)? I wanted to talk to someone who is not
paid for working against the church. I heavily considered Vaughn
Young, as I remember him from his days in the church and think I could
believe him. But then I thought I read some controversy somewhere
about Stacy leaving him and going off with this Minton fellow. Whats
the story there? Credibility wanes with things like that. But then
again, I admit I do not have any real data or facts either.
I know one last truth that I did learn from Hubbard (1952). High
ethics is high-toned. Serious is likely to be short on ethics. For
those of you that know what I'm talking about, go read that quote
again. And you can apply it in two ways. Look at how truly serious
the church gets and then also realize how un-serious you need to be.
The extreme seriousness and solidity is just another one of those out-
points that I continually spotted about management (and seemingly
Hubbard in his later years too, though someone refuted this on some web
site I think) to make me really look for myself. You will be much more
effective in your efforts if you are at the same time being honest
through and through.
Sorry for going on so long. Not sure my long ramblings will make much
of a first impression. And I'm sure that I am not saying anything new
or revelatory here. There is a huge mound of postings and sites, etc.
and I certainly don't pretend to know all that is out there and said.
But, I certainly felt like I just needed to say something.
Thanks for that.
Jewel - the names have been changed to protect the innocent :)
Spiritual Research Workgroup
>Stacy Brooks, I do not mean to attack you, but in the reading I have done
>here, you have never before made such a claim. (the ethical Scientologist
>in PT claim) I would be interested to hear what people like Safe think on
>the topic. I also wonder what the Critics--the people who continually
>mock scientology and scientologists-- think of you being an ethical
>scientologist in PT.
I think it is true and I admire her greatly.
Stacy's course is a path of constant evolution and optimization.
Not that of a person stuck in habits or any fixed pattern. She
is a person who is truly spiritually alive.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Safe ... www.fza.org
well. I'm sure that somebody with the data will answer your questions. If
not, please post this same message in a separte message so you don't get
missed. I'm sending your comment to Theta...@hushmail.com . I think that
is a good terminal you may want to communciate to.
Safe
<jewels...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8616ap$mpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
in thread "Re: Stacy Brooks, my response you your comments", on Tue, 18 Jan
2000 07:56:13 GMT, :
Dear Jewels:
Thanks for this delightful post!
Comments within.
>Hello,
>
>This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
>myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
>on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
>history.
You can start your OWN thread, you know!
>I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
>in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
>to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
>website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
>accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
>honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
>would have.
"When the Seeker is ready, the newsgroup will appear!"
>"Hmmmmm ... oh my God, a squirrel SP site!" But, I could not help but
>stick around long enough to look at some things just for a laugh. The
>first thing I opened was "Answers for Scientology Kids" and I was
>actually immediately offended and thought that this guy really IS nuts
>and an SP. The truth is my kids are awesome, honest and ethical beyond
>belief - and I don't need someone talking to my kids like that. They
>get plenty of time from me, etc. His comments are a slap in the face
>of those of us that ARE good parents and good people. So then I
>realized that maybe Heldal-Lund's message to kids are meant for S.O.
>kids (who HAVE been a problem). Maybe he doesn't realize that they
>don't have computers and certainly no time for the internet.
Or maybe he DOES realize that?
>But, it isn't my intention here to waste a lot of time with what I
>agree with or not on his or other's sites. For some reason I stayed on
>the site longer and read more of the links out of sheer curiosity.
"C" *IS* the top level of "CDEINR"!
>You
>know what hit me between the eyes first?? The alleged lies about
>Hubbard. I grappled with that for quite some time. The seemingly well-
>documented war history and medical records of Hubbard by Chris Owen and
>others hit me. For the last 6 weeks I have read and viewed practically
>everything I could find (at least there) and some on the Freezone site
>and elsewhere.
GOOD FOR YOU!
You have come up to DOUBT!
>I only yesterday found out about deja.com and ars here. I had read
>about ars, but am a dummy when it comes to newsgroups. (Is this
>deja.com ars the same as the ars I've read about on other sites? Is
>there an easier way to access ars than this?)
deja.com is a REALLY awkward method of accessing ARS.
You want a NEWSREADER like Free Agent, available as a
free download from Forte, Inc, to post and read news directly.
>I have read some really stupid, pure rage stuff (not based on any facts
>or experience) in my recent wanderings on the net. And I have read
>some truly eye-opening things that ring true and seem well documented.
ALL kinds of BS, just like IN the cult!
>I see ars here too, so I sift and sort and wade through the crap to get
>to some of the intelligent postings. It didn't take long at all to
>figure that out. Just as an aside, I had a brief impression that some
>of the mockery, snideness, and hate type stuff was actually a cover for
>some church-going people (read PR types) to make the anti-church people
>look stupid and "dead agent" them. Do you get what I mean here?
Yes. We see that all the time.
>I had to reflect recently on what got me to this point. I mean, for
>those of you that know, reading this stuff in itself would be ummm how
>would I say ... very much frowned upon.
You BAD! :-)
>A direct violation of my own
>ethics that has been ingrained in me.
It sounds like you have a little confusion on this.
If it is YOUR ethics, it comes OUT of you.
If it is INGRAINED IN you, it is an IMPLANT, and
is NOT your ethics, but DUB-IN from elsewhere.
>(However, I have an extremely
>high sense of integrity and can make my own judgements. And I am quite
>a light, fun person with high ethics anyway!) So, here's what I came
>up with as the reason that I was intrigued and why I sorted through the
>crap to find a few truths in all this.
Love of truth?
Real curiosity?
>The church promises "total freedom." This is no idle claim as you
>know - it directly states that there IS total freedom in this church
>and you will NOT find it anywhere else. Well, for quite some time -
>before I ever found that site last month - I had already been taking a
>serious look at the fact that not one single person in 50 years has
>achieved total freedom. No true OT has EVER been created that has
>attained Total Freedom, and it appears that this is even true of
>Hubbard if you believe even some of the reports of his later years and
>death. That's particularly significant because this is being observed
>by someone who IS in the church right now.
GOOD FOR YOU!
You ARE up to LOOKING!
That IS significant!
The actual stats of $cientology are:
50 YEARS OF LIES!
NOT ONE "CLEAR"!
NOT ONE "OT"!
>There is not much more that keeps people here other than the outright
>promise of total freedom and total cause.
YES!
That is the plastic worm on the hook!
>If we professed to be just a
>group that gave sincere and real help to others and that was all we
>stated and then delivered on that, I would be much better about the
>whole thing.
Yes! Honesty IS a radical idea!
>But total freedom? Am I missing something?
You got it!
>We could get
>into a whole discussion on this I am sure (and it has probably already
>been done), but if absolute total freedom for the peoples of earth were
>documented and true, then I would think a humanitarian would do
>whatever possible to make it more available now to help the planet
>right here and now. Not make it hard to attain. I believe in helping
>the able become more able and then going from there - but that can and
>is being carried to extremes - particulary if someone is really holding
>the key to total freedom. And even those "really able" people at the
>top aren't any evidence of total cause.
You got it!
>Beyond simply making my first stab at posting, here is my point. I
>think that some of the people here are missing the point if you really
>want to bring the message home with some truth to others who have been
>like myself for so long. First, having absolute documented facts about
>Hubbard's past with no attention to suppositions or other narrative is
>important. For example, NO ONE knows that he had another wife in the
>late forties, early fifties, (if true) while still married to his first
>wife.
Not true!
Lots of us know that!
It's just those poor wretched souls IN the cult who are ignorant.
>That and the war information is what rocked my world initially
>as stated earlier. It is doubly important to compare those with HIS
>actual written and spoken words, so as not to confuse this with the
>possibility that "the overly zealous staff embellished his past." As
>we know the truth WILL set you free. Keep everything truthful and keep
>the opinions out.
YOU were READY to read, look, and see.
>Next is the very fact about "Total Freedom." Perhaps I'm missing it,
>but pointing out truths of this promise and the actual statistics. Who
>has ever experienced total freedom in the last 50 years? Who has ever
>reached "total cause" to the extent stated and promised, etc.??
50 YEARS OF LIES!
NOT ONE "CLEAR"!
NOT ONE "OT"!
[BTW, I am a former "OT".]
>Now,
>don't get me wrong. I know many who have become MUCH better and MUCH
>more at cause as a result of the subject. I do believe, by actual
>observation, that there are some incredibly workable and useful pieces
>of work in this subject that help people immensely - and maybe that is
>what gets us all hooked on the dream that everything else is true as
>well, because those things do work - but, if I was to step outside the
>box for a minute, I don't have to look very far to see that there is
>not one individual who has attained (and probably not even close to
>attaining) TOTAL FREEDOM.
50 YEARS OF LIES!
NOT ONE "CLEAR"!
NOT ONE "OT"!
>There are other points, of course, but those are the two biggest ones
>for me personally. And I think that they would be the bigger issues
>with other's in the church too. The entire "confidential materials"
>deal is another issue, but why bore you further with that. We already
>know that people don't die or go crazy by being exposed to them. But
>for critics to hit on the issues of "UFO religion" and those materials
>that talk about that stuff is not taken with much credibility by your
>average Scientologist.
. . . who will NEVER participate in this conversation,
because he is terrorized into NOT talking with "SPs".
You are NOT "the average $cientologist."
YOU came *UP* to DOUBT!
>That might make someone new to the subject or
>thinking about joining think twice, but it has no effect on a current
>member, in my humble opinion.
That is totally correct, because he does
NOT participate in conversations with "SPs".
>You have to hit right into the face of
>the average member with truth and factual information, and not rhetoric
>and hate of the organization alone.
OR . . . THEY have to SEEK real information.
>I personally am not "against" the subject of Scientology and a lot of
>what Hubbard wrote and lectured on. There IS a difference in that and
>what later became the organization. Too many people confuse the two
>and refute any good done by the subject because they can't see through
>the current organization and it's flaws. It is very true for me that
>much of the subject has merit and can help people. It is essentially
>making knowledge about man and his existence, etc. available to the
>common layman and out of the hands of so-called experts. I think the
>revelation and why Dianetics was such a hit is that "Hey, I myself can
>do something about my condition and the condition of others!! I don't
>have to be a victim anymore or depend upon the so-called experts." It
>just got quite a bit out of hand after that fact. Only my opinion
>though!!
However, the Universal Clearing Process does all that and
MUCH MORE in MUCH less time than the cult stuff, AND
ALL the materials for a co-audit are available FREE online.
See the web site URL posted at the bottom of this article.
Dianetics and $cientology are effectively COMPLETELY OBSOLETE.
>Also, just as a comment, I was at the "new years event" and it was very
>full. I don't know anything about numbers so I can't say that there
>were 14,000 or not. However, ALL the seats were not filled. Some
>still miss the point, and don't get the real significance, because you
>don't know the real truth behind the happenings. How many attending
>were org, mission and S.O. staff that HAD to be there? Ordered to be
>there. A lot of seats were filled by staff I'm sure. And the literal
>push and hype and constant confirming to fill the place up was mind-
>boggling. It is an out-point in itself that so much effort and very
>hard work has to go on to PUSH people to an event and fill it up.
>Weeks and months of work went into that. It would be very interesting
>to see what would happen at a major event if no heavy call-in was
>done. (To be honest, it was a disappointing event for me as it simply
>covered history for the 5 decades, and told nothing new for 3 hours.)
Thanks for your observations and insights.
>Here are some things that maybe someone can help me with.
>
>1. I read somewhere that Hubbard had a (psychiatric) drug in his system
>at the time of his death. Is this true and documented someplace?
>Coroner's report??
VISTARIL.
I believe it is in the analysis of the post-mortem blood sample.
He also had a mark on his butt where it was probably injected.
>2. Are there really non-Scientologists that are legally bound into CST
>in any contolling fashion? Is this factual documentation somewhere?
Yes. I think veritas has the full details.
Only 1 of the 4 even PRETENDS to be a $cientologist.
>3. What's considered to be the most authoritative accurate (actually
>documented?) source of Hubbard's past?
ALL of the anti-hubbard biographies add to the picture.
PLUS there are MANY affidavits and other documents on ARS.
>4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
>(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)?
MUCH of it he simply STOLE.
>Most of
>the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
>back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
>in the 60's.
Yes. The 50's WERE the high point.
The tech and organization went downhill with his psychotic case.
>5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
>can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
>his later years (70s and 80s)?
Read ARS and judge for yourself.
>I wanted to talk to someone who is not
>paid for working against the church.
Do not fear!
There are VERY FEW of us indeed who are
bankrolled by the Marcabs and the PSYCHS!
>I heavily considered Vaughn
>Young, as I remember him from his days in the church and think I could
>believe him. But then I thought I read some controversy somewhere
>about Stacy leaving him and going off with this Minton fellow. Whats
>the story there? Credibility wanes with things like that. But then
>again, I admit I do not have any real data or facts either.
Gosh! They all have cases!
At least they are not psychotic shrieking paranoid criminals
. . . obsessed with doing away with all of their "Fair Game "
ENEMIES quietly in the dead of night without sorrow!
>I know one last truth that I did learn from Hubbard (1952). High
>ethics is high-toned. Serious is likely to be short on ethics. For
>those of you that know what I'm talking about, go read that quote
>again. And you can apply it in two ways. Look at how truly serious
>the church gets and then also realize how un-serious you need to be.
>The extreme seriousness and solidity is just another one of those out-
>points that I continually spotted about management (and seemingly
>Hubbard in his later years too, though someone refuted this on some web
>site I think) to make me really look for myself. You will be much more
>effective in your efforts if you are at the same time being honest
>through and through.
Yes. Too bad he never learned his own lesson.
>Sorry for going on so long. Not sure my long ramblings will make much
>of a first impression.
An EXCELLENT first impression!
>And I'm sure that I am not saying anything new or revelatory here.
>There is a huge mound of postings and sites, etc.
>and I certainly don't pretend to know all that is out there and said.
>But, I certainly felt like I just needed to say something.
>
>Thanks for that.
>
>Jewel - the names have been changed to protect the innocent :)
Thanks for posting!
Welcome to the Free World!
Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok...@net-prophet.net>
FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Monica Pignotti
we might have known each other. I was around from 1970-1976, first in
Salt Lake City at what then was a mission, then training on the SHSBC
and upper levels in LA, and after that joining the SO (AOLA), then Flag
and after that, AOLA again. I was on the Apollo from 1973-1975 when
LRH was there so I do have some first-hand knowledge of some of the
things that were going on in the 1970s.
I agree with you about some of the things here being "pure rage stuff"
and am glad you were willing to look past that to get the facts, which
are there for anyone who takes the time to look, which you obviously
have. You mentioned you were interested in finding a well-documented
source about LRH. There's a book which is on-line that provides such
documentation called Barefaced Messiah and can be found at:
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/books/bfm/
I also want to acknowledge that it took a great deal of courage to
engage in the search you have and to care about the facts and what is
true, above all else. If you'd like to contact me backchannel, I can
be reached at: pign...@worldnet.att.net
Monica Pignotti
In article <8616ap$mpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Ian Rennie
answer who can provide more documentation than me. All I want to say here
is partly to welcome you to the group, partly to advise that you talk to
Safe. He's a scientologist who posts here but is not part of the church
or even a mamber of the church. He's done a lot for the opinions many
critics have of Scientology, and from the emminently readable style of
your post I'd argue you would get along well with him. As far as a source
of events for Hubbard's life, Gerry Armstrong was one of Hubbard's
archivists before he left the Church, and took a large amount of
verifiable files with him when he left. These formed the basis of,
amongst other things, Russell Miller's book 'Bare Faced Messiah'. I'd
advise you take a look at this, although at points it may seem far fetched
it is backed up by dedicated research. To answer one point specifically,
Hubbard DID marry another woman while still married to his first wife
Polly. This woman, Sarah Northrup, had previously been the girlfriend of
a friend of his Jack Parsons. There are details of this in Bare Faced
Messiah and the documentation exists elsewhere.
Once again, welcome to alt.religion.scientology.
Ian
Dobe R Mann
>
>This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
>myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
>on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
>history.
>
>I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
>in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
>to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
>website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
>accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
>honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
>would have.
(chomp, mmmmm good)
Welcome Jewel, to ARS. Glad to see you posting here.
DM
Bob Minton
>Hello,
>
>This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
>myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
>on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
>history.
>
>I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
>in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
>to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
>website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
>accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
>honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
>would have.
(BIG SNIP) of this very informative post.
>5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
>can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
>his later years (70s and 80s)? I wanted to talk to someone who is not
>paid for working against the church. I heavily considered Vaughn
>Young, as I remember him from his days in the church and think I could
>believe him. But then I thought I read some controversy somewhere
>about Stacy leaving him and going off with this Minton fellow. Whats
>the story there? Credibility wanes with things like that. But then
>again, I admit I do not have any real data or facts either.
Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data. Vaughn will
be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange a talk
for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
>
>I know one last truth that I did learn from Hubbard (1952). High
>ethics is high-toned. Serious is likely to be short on ethics. For
>those of you that know what I'm talking about, go read that quote
>again. And you can apply it in two ways. Look at how truly serious
>the church gets and then also realize how un-serious you need to be.
>The extreme seriousness and solidity is just another one of those out-
>points that I continually spotted about management (and seemingly
>Hubbard in his later years too, though someone refuted this on some web
>site I think) to make me really look for myself. You will be much more
>effective in your efforts if you are at the same time being honest
>through and through.
>
>Sorry for going on so long. Not sure my long ramblings will make much
>of a first impression. And I'm sure that I am not saying anything new
>or revelatory here. There is a huge mound of postings and sites, etc.
>and I certainly don't pretend to know all that is out there and said.
>But, I certainly felt like I just needed to say something.
>
Thank you for stepping forward!
Bob Minton
Tilman Hausherr
<8616ap$mpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>The
>first thing I opened was "Answers for Scientology Kids" and I was
>actually immediately offended and thought that this guy really IS nuts
>and an SP. The truth is my kids are awesome, honest and ethical beyond
>belief - and I don't need someone talking to my kids like that. They
>get plenty of time from me, etc. His comments are a slap in the face
>of those of us that ARE good parents and good people. So then I
>realized that maybe Heldal-Lund's message to kids are meant for S.O.
>kids (who HAVE been a problem).
I am the author of that FAQ, not Andreas. The segment "My parents almost
never have time for me" does have a disclaimer that you can skip it if
you parents have time :-)
However, saying your kids are "awesome, honest and ethical" can mean
anything. For example, a scientologist who makes a revenge picket on the
children of Therese and Bob Minton is also considered "ethical" in the
world of scientology. In the real world, however, such a person is
considered scum.
Besides, my FAQ does not make any attack on the children. At most, it
criticizes some of the parents, and of course scientology itself.
>Maybe he doesn't realize that they
>don't have computers and certainly no time for the internet.
It applies to all scientology children. But Sea Org children and
children of staff members are less likely to get the care they need.
Btw you were asking about the psych drugs in Hubbard's body. I don't
know if someone has scanned the coroners report, but here is a posting
from someone who read it. Try also searching the WWW for the word
VISTARIL and scientology.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Path: unlisys!news.snafu.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!204.122.16.44!news.eskimo.com!writer
From: wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
Subject: RVY Update by RVY (Robert Vaughn Young)
Date: 2 Sep 1998 04:34:34 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Lines: 857
Message-ID: <6sihsq$vsj$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: unlisys alt.religion.scientology:479124 alt.clearing.technology:53176
X-Agent-Group: alt.religion.scientology
INTRODUCTION: The length of this post is relevant to its subject. It does
include some Scientologese. If you find a word you don't understand, call
your local Dianetics or Scientology organization and ask them to define
it. They like people to do this. Be sure to tell them you are reading
alt.religion.scientology.
Hi, guys. Long time no write, which is what this post is really about.
I've been posting to ARS for a few years now and then I disappeared,
although I was occasionally in touch with several of you via email. I
want to tell you what's been going on. Plus it will give the criminal cult
something to whine, bitch, carp, natter, scream, cry, rant about which
might get someone's stats up there so they can get a day off to do their
laundry. (Boy, do I remember that routine!)
For those who don't know me, I was in the cult for nearly 21 years. (I
know that Martin Hunt has archived some of my posts at
<http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/rvy/rvy.htm>.) Because I spoke out,
they had to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last five
years trying to silence me and probably even think they finally did it.
Right. Read on.
If you can manage about 7,000 words, this post will tell you more than the
cult wants you to know.
TRAVELS WITH JESSE
You've heard about Jesse Prince. Well, I was with him having a great time
in Southern California back in July, when he was at Dan Leipold's law
offices. Of course, we were being followed by the Church of Paranoia's
criminal Dept. 20 and typical of their ineptness, we slipped in behind
them and followed them for awhile. It was hilarious they way they
panicked, zipping and dashing about through traffic while we kept on their
tails, sometimes bumper-to-bumper, reading license plates and laughing our
heads off in this darling red Mustang convertible, with the top down.
(Hey, do it in style!) If this was a paid PI, Rinder should ask for a
refund as they were a pathetic joke. Anyway, we did it for a while and
then tired and left them, wondering if they would tell the truth in their
report how they screwed it up. Again.
Later I went back to Minneapolis, where Jesse lived. We spent a few days
there while he wrapped up things and then we toodled on over to Chicago to
visit relatives and hung out in the Windy City for a few days, checking
out everything from the music clubs to Lake Michigan. I had my dog Mac
with me and we romped on the sands and down in the water, having a great
time. (Meanwhile someone told me the OSA sock puppets on ARS were saying
how I've disappeared. Yup. With Jesse in a red Mustang convertible. LOL!)
From there we went south to visit more relatives, caring less if the
paranoid criminal cult was tracking us. Let em spend Travolta's money to
get nuttin'. After a few days here and there, we turned west and ambled
across Kansas (spare me from EVER driving across Kansas again) and into
Colorado.
HELP! RVY IS MISSING!
So while the OSA sock puppets were claiming I was missing, they were lying
to you. (I'm shocked!) They knew I was with Jesse. (In fact, we enjoyed it
that they knew. It's called "critical mass.") They just hated it that two
very good friends were having such a good time!
I should have mentioned that earlier. Jesse and I go back many years, into
the cult. He and I are old buddies and it was great spending many weeks
with him. He is as outrageous as ever. Runt leader David Miscavige was
always afraid of him and as evidenced by the tantrums of his sock puppets,
he's still afraid. (By the way, if you ever want to see a good portrayal
of the runt-punk, watch Al Pachino's character in the movie "Scarface,"
who can't complete a sentence without three forms of the word "fuck." But
perhaps the best example of life with DM is truly Kevin Spacey's abusive
character in the movie "Swimming With Sharks," which takes place in
Hollywood. Small world. But then so is DM.)
ON BEING A WRITER
As to what I else I have been doing and will be doing, I am doing some
intense writing and in such an effort - for those of you who haven't had
the experience - it requires considerable time and solitude. And in my
case, more than usual, as you will find out.
It was no accident that I chose the handle "writer" when I set up my
Eskimo.com account years ago. I've been writing all of my life. It is
not only a love of the Muse but it can be a curse, as many a writer will
tell you. Mine was both.
I did a lot of writing in the cult, but there is little there of any
pride. Since then, I won some awards but nothing else captivated me until
now. So sit back and let me tell you how it happened. I think some of you
will find some of this interesting.
THE HUBBARD ARCHIVES
Let's start in late 1981, when I happened to acquire the archives that
contained Hubbard's private papers. (These were the ones that Gerry
Armstrong started.) The truly essential material came down to perhaps 15
linear feet of paper. Over the months, with nothing else to do, I had a
chance to read private letters, papers and manuscripts (including the
three, yes, three, versions of the infamous Excalibur, which has to be the
most overblown piece of hype he EVER produced and, no, it has NOTHING to
do with OT3), which also gave me the full uncensored view of this man. I
read everything from love letters to (and from and about) his mistresses,
his girlfriends (such as Fern, who gave him the clap, forcing him to
secretly take sulfa), his private pornographic ramblings (he liked to draw
penises and vaginas around the margins in red ink, which gave the page a
grisly look), his black magic material, his letters to family, wives (in
the early 1950s, while having mistress Barbara on the side and at the same
time preaching about the dangers of illicit relationships), editors and
even to himself, as journals.
There was one problem with what I read. It didn't match what we
(collectively then, meaning the organization) were saying about Hubbard
and what Hubbard, based on what he had say to say. When I tried to gently
point this out, the Shinola hit the fan. It didn't matter that it was in
Hubbard's own hand. It didn't match the story he put out so - straight out
of "1984" - it didn't exist. (These documents were later confiscated and
sealed away to make sure no staff see them but enough of us did -
including a few still on staff (hi, guys!) - so it can be verified
someday, if it comes to that. But that is another story.)
WRITING FOR HUBBARD
In the years that followed, Hubbard and I had a fascinating relationship
because I was intrigued with him as a writer and I found I could easily
mimick his style, which came in handy later.
But in 1982, drawing from the archival material, I proposed the idea of
the "Ron" magazines. Hubbard loved the idea and we cranked out the first
issue which is a serious collector's item. (Because Stacy and I produced
it, it no longer officially exists. It is an Orwellian non-mag.)
BIOGRAPHIES AND GHOSTS
At one point I was tagged to be his biographer but the biography went the
way of all the other attempts, ranging from Omar Garrison to Fletcher
Prouty. (Meanwhile I was identified as such, from the San Luis Obispo
paper to the Washington Post in Scientology-produced stories that it is
difficult for the cult to rewrite.)
I also ghosted for Hubbard, meaning I wrote material for which he was
credited, which was not uncommon. I wrote everything from these short
little greetings that were sent to events (staff and public always thought
that Hubbard was writing to them, which always showed us how gullible they
were) to policy letters (I wrote the current disconnection policy with
some help at the end of it by Ray Mitoff, who ghosted a lot of the
technical material and issued it under Hubbard's name) to ghosting
sections of his "Mission Earth" series, while I was editing it. (And boy,
is THAT another story! Whew!)
HUBBARD'S DEATH
When Hubbard died, everything changed. (duh) I went to the death site (his
ranch at Creston, near San Luis Obispo CA) that night along with David
Miscavige and some attorneys. Since none of us - including Miscavige - had
ever been there, we were met at a restaurant by Pat Broeker who took us to
the ranch. We arrived at perhaps 4 a.m. (Hubbard was found dead at about 8
p.m. I was told at 10. We left LA at perhaps 1 a.m. I wasn't always
watching the clock, given the circumstances.)
What's amusing in the cult's attempt to DA me is their saying that I went
to the ranch along with some gardeners and cooks. Right. Gardeners and
cooks were the first to be rushed up that night, before the authorities
were called or the body taken away. ROFL! Don't you just love these guys!
Creston was where the story was put together that he had moved on to the
next level of research, or however it was worded, when it was announced at
the Palladium and to the world. The event was so carefully constructed
that no one noticed that something essential was missing, but Ill get to
that in a moment. But during the event, I stayed at the ranch to deal with
any media who might show up or call. None did and less than 48 hours
later, the Challenger space shuttle blew up, bumping news of his death and
any serious questions from the media. I was monitoring the TV news via a
satellite dish and watched it happen and reported it. While the rest of
the world was in shock, DM was happy because we had been bumped from the
news. But that is how one comes to view the world at that echelon.
THE NEWBERRY RANCH
I later moved to another ranch Hubbard owned, at Newberry Springs, east
of Barstow CA and stayed there for a couple of months. Hubbard never
visited it (it was merely a fallback location for him) and I never did see
that anyone learned about this one, even the media. I guess they were all
hung up on the Creston property, near San Luis Obispo, where he died.
The most lasting benefit of my stay at Newberry was that that was where I
stopped smoking. One day DM, Mitoff, Pat Broeker, Mike Eldridge and I were
sitting around and we all agreed to stop smoking, although Broeker was the
only non-smoker. Mitoff had a horrible time of it. He ended up on Skoal
Bandits, spitting disgustingly into a bucket while driving back and forth
to LA, and also addicting me to the little cusses. In the end, I was the
only one who stopped, making me wish we had put some money in a pool.
In the months I spent between the Creston and Newberry ranches, Pat and I
became good friends. He had been Hubbard's closest and most trusted aide
and confident for those final years. With what I already knew about
Hubbard, Pat and I had the greatest talks. Sometimes Pat and I were the
only ones at the ranch, so we eould chat while moving horses or going to
town to shop. I began to learn about the life Hubbard had lead while in
hiding for those last years, moving between towns in the Bluebird bus and
finally settling down in Creston. (BTIAS)
THE STRUGGLE STARTS - WHO WILL REPLACE HUBBARD?
Meanwhile, a power struggle was brewing to see who would take control of
Scientology and Newberry was the place where many of the discussions
occurred while DM stayed either in LA or in Hemet. (Jesse will have
something to say about that someday because he was seriously involved in
the ensuing explosion.) It would result in a number of people fleeing
(such as Jesse) or going to the RPF (such as me).
A key element in the power struggle was Hubbard's last message to the
rank-and-file. Those who were in the cult back in 1986-87 will remember
this incident. It was a message from Hubbard that was issued as a Sea Org
directive. It said goodbye, wishing them well and establishing a new
rank/position called Loyal Officer or LO. (The term is taken from OT3.)
Pat was to be the LO1 and his wife Annie was to be LO2 and it basically
turned the management of the Sea Org over to them. And since the SO ran
Scientology, that meant they were at the top of the heap. DM was not
mentioned in the directive. It was later was issued to all staff -
with DM's approval and authority - reduced in size and put in a small
fram with a photo of Hubbard for the desk of every staff member.
In the meantime, Pat began to slowly take control. I would often get phone
calls from him. He would never identify himself on the phone, going back
to his years of tight security, but merely would say, "Hi, it's me."
I won't try to give the details of the ensuing power struggle because I
was in LA and it was happened at Creston, Newberry and Hemet. (I leave it
to Jesse, who was there.) But the outcome was that Miscavige won. And
typical of any political coup, there was a sudden purge as he consolidated
his power. Anyone DM thought might be a friend of Broeker's who would pose
a threat were sent to Scientology's equivalent of Lubayanka Prison or
Siberia: the RPF, so I went. For 16 months and three escape attempts.
Now here is where it gets interesting, folks.
MISCAVIGE CANCELS HUBBARD'S MESSAGE
While I was on the RPF, a directive came out from Miscavige saying the
supposed final message from Hubbard that named Broeker was a forgery by
Broeker and it was being canceled. That same day, Annie Broeker appeared
on the RPF. This was not the Annie I had come to know. What stumbled into
the RPF was a completely broken person. She was pale and hollow and her
eyes were empty. There was no mistaking it. She had been broken and only
now was she being thrown away into the trash heap called the RPF. Even
then, she was kept under guard, just to be sure.
TWO IMPORTANT OMITTEDS
With the cancellation of the message from Hubbard, there were now two
vital things missing that were 100% Hubbard and 100% standard tech and
yet no one seemed to notice or, if they did, no one dared to remark on it.
But then, as Hubbard correctly pointed out, the hardest thing to notice is
the thing that is omitted.
What was now missing was (1) something from Hubbard to all Scientologists
saying goodbye and what he was doing and (2) something that passed his
hat, which is one of the most basic tenets in the organization. They had
been missing at the event announcing his death but with the cancellation
by Miscavige, they were missing more than ever.
WHERE WAS HUBBARD'S MESSAGE?
One does not require much knowledge about L. Ron Hubbard to know that it
would be completely unlike him to simply leave - especially if the story
about his going off to do more research were true - and not leave a
message. So if he HAD left as Scientologists were told, where was the
message if the other was a forgery?
But perhaps more importantly, where was the hat turnover? I don't mean the
volumes of policies and bulletins. I mean something that says, I hereby
appoint Joe Blow to take over as... Would Hubbard leave the planet and not
pass on the command? Hardly.
Or let's put it in one of the most basic tenets from Hubbard: if it isn't
written, it isn't true.
(Note: Hubbard's will was hardly a Scientology hat turnover and has not
been issued to the rank and file as policy.)
So the question became (to those of us who wondered), if the LO directive
was a forgery, where was the real one? Where were Hubbard's wishes IN
WRITING?
MISCAVIGE HAD NOTHING FROM HUBBARD
Of course, DM never provided anything and no one was willing to ask and
risk being sent to the RPF with the rest of us. He said it was a forgery
and that was that. End of discussion.
For the rest of my stay in the cult, Pat Broeker was never mentioned
because, in the cult, you learn what to not talk about. Pat became what in
Orwell's "1984" is a non-person. He had been written out of history, with
anyone who cared (such as me) being sent to the RPF or interrogated
(security checked) until they got the point, which meant (per the head on
a pike policy) that everyone else got the message.
So without a shred of WRITTEN evidence from Hubbard and by canceling what
even DM had first agreed was from Hubbard, Miscavige was now in control
while Broeker had disappeared.
Can you say, "coup"?
But hold on! It gets better.
READING THE MATERIAL ANEW
After Stacy and I fled the cult in 1989, I put it all behind me. I simply
wanted my life back and the last thing I needed was to think about the
cult. They had taken enough of my life without my adding more. But after a
couple of years of drying out, Stacy and I were invited to help with some
legal cases and this gave us a chance to handle the material that once
handled us. We could now read Hubbard and TALK about the material, which
is completely forbidden in the cult. It was like back-flushing a radiator
and watching what comes out.
I came across a copy of Miscavige's cancellation of Hubbards final message
and I began to kick it around with Stacy. As we talked, I started to
comment on the various little oddities, starting with the cancellation
itself. I began to remember a few others that I had packed away at the
time. We were having a conversation that Sea Org staff could no more do
than a loyal Communists might question the a change of power in the
Kremlin, and for the same reasons.
AN "ACCEPTABLE TRUTH" IS FED SCIENTOLOGISTS
In the weeks and months that followed, I couldn't shake the events
surrounding Hubbard's death and DM's takeover. Little oddities took on
forms like pieces of a jig saw puzzle. I felt like an amnesiac trying to
recover his memory yet what was there to recover? I was there at the
ranch. I was there when Hubbard's body was taken out. I was there when the
execs were called up the ranch and told to get an event together, but not
being told why. I was there when the attorneys reported his death and then
scurried to get the body through the coroner. Etc, etc, etc. So what was
the problem? Yeah, the next higher level of research story was the sort of
pap we used to feed the rank-and-file all the time but it wasn't as if we
LIED to them. (Sort of the way Clinton said he didn't LEGALLY lie.) We
didn't LEGALLY lie, did we?
Per Hubbard's policy, they were given an "acceptable truth" because of
"the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." What that means
in plain speak was that there would be panic and disaffection in the ranks
if it was thought that Hubbard - the OT of all OTs, of course - was not at
cause over life and death. If the tech couldn't help him, how could it
help others? That was the myth that had to be protected at all costs and
that was what the story did when his death was announced. It fed the myth
that everyone so wanted to believe. (And it kept the money coming in.)
WORKING WITH PUZZLE PIECES
While in the cult, I had done a lot of investigative reporting and some of
the best I did was working on some of the CIA's mind control documents
created under the code name MK ULTRA. When the CIA released them, much was
blanked out and working with a team of people hand-selected by Stacy, we
went through documents that the media had skipped past because they were
so fragmentary and so heavily deleted. In one file, for example, there
were receipts for the installation of mufflers on a 1953 Mercury, a tiny
battery-powered motor, elevator tickets to the Empire State Building, nose
plugs, a receipt for someone to attend a Microscropy convention, etc.
Bit by bit, we struggled to give them meaning until one piece cracked
another, like breaking a code. We came up with the experiment and got
national news on Operation Big City where bacillus were released (through
the mufflers) to test for bacterial warfare. (The elevator tickets were so
agents could go up and measure the amount of released bacteria.) It is a
story the cult still likes to cite, along with several others I did for
them, under my byline in the Freedom rag. Since then, per Orwell, my name
has been deleted, of course.
Pouring over those heavily deleted CIA documents was how I felt like while
I chewed on the oddities around Hubbard's death, such as nothing in
writing from him, Broeker missing, the fact that Denk (Hubbard's physician
at the time of death) had also disappeared, Annie's appearance and little
things that I had seen and learned at the ranch.
THE BLUE FLASH
And then it hit me. It was what Hubbard calls a blue flash, the sudden
insight.
Hubbard didn't die.
He was killed.
I fell back in my chair, completely stunned. In all of the years since
1986, I had never once considered that possibility. Even with my being
long out of the cult and directing criticism at various practices and
policies, the thought had never crossed my mind that Hubbard might have
been killed.
I got a sheet of paper and began to take notes, my heart pounding and my
breathing hurried. That nagging feeling had turned into an adrenaline rush
that I couldn't explain.
Who was there at the Creston ranch when Hubbard died?
* Pat Broeker - MIA.
* Annie Broeker - broken, under their control.
* Two Scientology ranch hands. While trusted to work on the ranch, I
came to see how much they were kept out of the loop.
* Gene Denk - Hubbard's personal physician. (And mine. Small world.)
Denk had disappeared for a year after the death, which was one of those
oddities, before returning to his practice up the street from the main
Hollywood complex.
End of list, a too-short list so I started to add who went up that night
in the three-car caravan that included DM, some attorneys and a couple of
us "gardeners and cooks." Nothing there.
I looked at the list. Pat Broeker was the only possibility, if he was out
and alive. For all I knew, he was dead or locked up somewhere and in a
mental state that approximated cold oatmeal. There was no middle ground.
He wouldn't have been given a safe back-lines job or I would have heard
about it.
SEARCHING FOR BROEKER
So how would I find Pat Broeker, if he was alive. I racked my memory,
trying to dig out some clue he might have given me in the months that we
were together but I came up with nothing. My tendency to not inquire about
a person's personallife had just sold me short. I didn't even know what
state he was from. Who might? Who would know where he came from or where
he was born? I needed some clue to start the search and the problem was
the security that Pat used for his job. He had explained to me how any
trace of him had been wiped out, to ensure that no one could find Hubbard
by finding him. Plus if Pat had escaped or fled, he was skilled enough to
hide from any search as that was what he had been doing for years to hide
Hubbard from the authorities.
I finally remembered one location he told me about and sent a message
there saying that I was trying to reach him but no reply came. After a few
months I sent another and waited. The months turned into nearly a year and
I basically gave up until one day when the phone rang.
"Hello?" I said.
"Hi," came a voice. "It's me."
I paused, saying nothing.
"Pat?" I finally said with some incredulity. "Is that you?"
"Yeah," he said, with what I swear was a twinkle in his voice. "How are
you?"
What a question!
RINDER WAKES UP
Let's jump ahead a few years when I was in a deposition in Denver, in the
FACTNet case. The usual goon squad was there, including Mike Rinder, who
proudly heads up the criminal Dept. 20 where Scientology's felons are
produced. Rinder was struggling to stay awake in the corner while the cult
attorney was going through a list of names, wanting to know if I had
spoken with any of them. Rinder's head was bobbing as the attorney asked
monotonously, "Pat Broeker?"
I glanced at Rinder. I had to enjoy this one.
"Yes," I said.
I couldn't have gotten a faster reaction with a bucket of water. Rinder
jumped awake and looked at me in shock, fear and hatred. I smiled.
The questions about my involvement with Broeker were routine, from a list
that they asked for each person I named but Broeker wasn't routine. They
soon stopped to take a break. Like the good sock puppet that he is, Rinder
dashed out of the room, obviously to call DM. (I so wish I could have
watched DM's face too.) About 15 minutes later, Rinder returned and shoved
some questions at the attorney and the depo continued. But little was
gained and not one question was asked about what Pat might have told me
about Hubbard's death, if he had at all. They clearly didn't want it
on the record, under oath. I found it amusing, this great powerful cult
was so terrified of the subject, not to mention Broeker.
So let me tell you a little bit about Pat: he's doing fine and his sense of
humor has improved. End of a little bit.
THE CORONER'S REPORT
Now lets back up a tad, before Pat and I spent several days together,
going over old times. I went to San Luis Obispo, the county seat for where
Hubbard died. It was there that I got the full coroner's report from a
very friendly deputy sheriff. I poured over the pages and noticed that
something called Vistaril was found in Hubbard's blood. Since the cause of
death was a stroke, I assumed it was a stroke medication so I didn't
bother further. Several days later, I called a physician friend and was
going over the documents and the medical language.
"By the way,? I asked casually, "what's Vistaril?"
"A psychiatric tranquilizer," he answered matter-of-factly.
I nearly dropped the phone.
"Excuse me," I said in near-shock, "but what did you say?"
"Vistaril is a psychiatric tranquilizer, usually injected through the
buttocks."
I flipped to the document where the Coroner had examined Hubbard's body. I
read it to my friend, about the needle puncture wounds found on the left
buttock, under a band-aid. "Could that be the Vistaril shots," I asked.
"Probably," he said. "That's where they are usually given."
I looked at the Coroner's report and the blood sample report.
Holy shit, I said to myself, in my best French. Holy fucking shit.
THE AUTOPSY IS PROHIBITED
I pulled out another document, signed by Hubbard. It prohibited any
autopsy of his body on religious grounds, which was legally binding on
officials. DM and attorney Earle Cooley had shoved it at the coroner to
stop him, leaving him to take only blood samples, which turned up the
Vistaril.
So, I thought, L. Ron Hubbard, the man who fought psychiatry since 1950
and who railed against the dangers of any psychiatric drugs had died with
them in his brain while signing a new last will.
Plus even the coroner was suspicious of the will as it had been signed by
Hubbard just before he died. Coincidences like that tend to make coroner's
worry. (I wonder what the coroner would have thought had he known that
Denk was gambling at Lake Tahoe when Hubbard had his stroke, as several
people can attest. The impression the coroner had was that Denk was "in
attendence" with Hubbard not only at death but was there at the stroke,
having stayed at the ranch for months. Hmmm....)
I fell back in my chair, trying to catch my breath.
OUTPOINTS? WHAT OUTPOINTS?
Okay, I said to myself, lets see if we understand this. Hubbard signs a
will while on the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril and then dies. The
coroner cannot conduct an autopsy because Hubbard also signed a paper
(also while on Vistaril?) prohibiting an autopsy on religious grounds. The
Scientologist doctor who was in attendance (except when he went to Lake
Tahoe and Hubbard had the stroke) signs the death certificate as the
physician attending to Hubbard and then disappears for a year. Then even
though David Miscavige has nothing else in writing from Hubbard, he
cancels Hubbard's last message and hat transfer to trusted aide Broeker
and ousts Broeker, who disappears while his wife is turned into a
compliant vegetable, leaving DM in charge.
Nope, nothing wrong here, I facetiously thought. No outpoints, borrowing
Hubbard's word for oddities.
I had to take a walk.
STARTING WITH A TITLE
I don't know when it was but I clearly remember a particular moment when I
sat down at my computer keyboard. I am one of those writers who needs
either the opening words of the article or a working title in order to
really start. I had a working title, not for an article, but a book, and I
typed it out. Then I leaned back in my chair, took a deep breath and read
it. It said, "Who Killed L. Ron Hubbard?"
I leaned back and my eyes roamed over each word and letter. I took in the
question and then the words and letters and back to the question. I even
digested the tiny pixels on the screen, as if I hoped the answer would
leap from the phosphorescence but nothing changed but the black cursor
blinking at me, almost mocking my effort. Yes, I thought, it is a
pretentious question but it was the one I had to try to answer, if there
was an answer.
Then I had the exact moment for the opening words. It was on the night
that Terri Gamboa - former Executive Director of Author Services, Inc.
and now out of Scientology - called me to DM's office where I was told
that Hubbard had died and that I would be going to his ranch.
THE WRITING STARTS
I leaned towards the keyboard and began to write. To my amazement, the
words and the scene poured out effortlessly. I wasn't striving for
literature. I merely had to capture the scene.
As the cursor flitted across the screen, I began to remember how it
happened that night and into the days that followed. There was more that I
needed to remember but for now, this would do. Let it roll, I told myself.
Let it roll. It was as if I was regaining myself.
Perhaps six or so hours later, I finally stopped, exhausted and
sufficiently satisfied for the moment. But even then, I found it difficult
to sleep as my mind kept returning to the ranch, Broeker, DM, the RPF, the
Challenger disaster, Newberry, the ambulance taking away his body. I was
searching for pieces of a puzzle that had no comprehension.
And how could I possibly answer the question?
HOOKED ON HUBBARD
What ensued over the next few years was more of a personal journey than a
professional quest, meaning - as I came to learn very recently - because
it was as much a search for closure on part of my life as it was a search
for the story. But then, that is so often the case with writers, as anyone
who has studied literature knows.
As I pursued it/him/me, it took me around the country and into subjects
that I never expected, such as meeting with police who were involved in
the investigation of the odd suicide of Flo Barnett, David Miscavige's
mother-in law. She was found with several shots to the chest with the coup
de grace to the temple, all from a rifle. (At one point, the cult grilled
me in a deposition about her death, asking if I had any evidence of any
foul play. No, I said, which made them happy. They failed to ask me if
anyone else has any evidence. Scientology: Knowing how to know. Yup.)
I even came across people who claimed to know about Miscavige's
in-the-cult-sex life, via accounts from his wife Shelly. (Scientology
confessional methods have an interesting rippling effect.) If true, I felt
sorry for her.
THE WRITING STALLS
But when I tried to continue my writing, it stalled and I struggled. At
one point I became so disillusioned that I killed the idea for nearly a
year as a ridiculous obsession but then like a weed taking root, it
sprouted again but only to wither and die in my inspirational drought. Was
it the subject or was it me? Had my disregard of the Muse prompted a like
response?
I had not written anything truly worthwhile since 1991, when my article
for San Diego Magazine won two journalism awards, from the Society of
Professional Journalist and the San Diego Press Club. The article was
about the dangers in the flight pattern of the San Diego airport, from the
perspective of the pilots who flew it.
When we fled the cult in 1989, we settled in Ocean Beach, on the Point
Loma Peninsula because of the nearby Dog Beach where a hundred canines
would romp on any given summer day. The downside was that Ocean Beach was
in the westerly flight path of Lindbergh Field and the roar of the jets
above us garnered enough attention to prompt my learning that the flight
path was the target of a citizens group. They in turn introduced me to
pilots who were concerned about the safety of the eastern approach and my
journalistic tendencies took over and the magazine accepted my query.
The article was woven around a hypothetical flight approaching Lindbergh
Field that I had constructed from interviews with a dozen experienced
commercial pilots, moving the reader from cockpit to the airport back to
cockpit to FAA regulations and back to cockpit and then to buildings that
loomed in the pilot's eyes as he seemingly navigated them like the cars a
few hundred feet below. The pilot's called it a "white knuckle landing."
Braiding these elemtns was a thrill and a challenge and the article drew
more letters of praise than anything the magazine had published in years,
the editor told me, prompting them to publish letters for the next three
months. They received only one critical letter, from a Coast Guard pilot
who liked the approach. I guess he loved the thrill.
WRITING FOR THE REAL WORLD
When my name was announced as the best news magazine article at the awards
banquet for the San Diego Press Club, I was stunned for two reasons. Yes,
winning was a thrill. But there was a more important reason: I had
succeeded as a writer. I hadn't written it according to "policy" or to
fulfill some program step or as an amends project or to attack some
imagined enemy. My editor didn't require that I include certain buttons and
attack phrases and the article didn't need i/a or issue authority to be
certain that it forwarded the most current Party Line. It was MY article
and I had chosen the style and techniques and my professional peers
applauded as I walked to the podium to accept the plaque.
THIS was what writing was about, I realized: the freedom to write without
propaganda or Party Line, without a Big Brother looking over my
shoulder, as if I am the old Soviet Union.
Suddenly there was a separation between what I had been doing for 20 years
in the cult and what writing truly was about. All one has to do is pick up
any Scientology publication, especially their rag called Freedom and watch
the propaganda drip off the page like the rotting garbage it is. What
astounded me was how I had come to believe that this was writing, not
unlike how writers for Pravda probably felt during the Communist regime.
But writing for Pravda or Freedom is to writing what prostitutes are to
love and for the same reason.
RETURNING TO THE MUSE
And so I began to long to return to my greatest and dearest love and I
realized that just as the cult had drained my creativity by demanding
propaganda instead of art, so had my post-cult days. A piece that I wrote
for Quill magazine about how Scientology manipulates the media
(http://www.scientology.no.net/archive/media/young-quill.html) was
informative but it was hardly satisfying to me as a writer. Another that I
wrote for Der Spiegel magazine about the top secret Snow White program
(http://cisar.org/g50925ae.htm) was as satisfying as eating cardboard
because it appeared in German. How can a writer see and judge the final
piece if he/she cant even read it? At least it hd some photos.
I began to ask myself, what am I doing? In the cult they wanted propaganda
pieces attacking imagined enemies that made the cult executives feel good
when they read them. (That is always the most important audience for such
propaganda. It makes the members feel as if this is reality and truth when
it is nothing but one's own sock puppet show.) And outside of the cult, I
was writing stories and giving sound bites about Scientology, whether it
be for a newspaper, magazine or TV show. Where was I as a writer, other
than as an email address? So I turned more to cats than cults. At least
they purred.
HOW IT WENT OFF THE RAILS
With some help, I began to see what had happened to me. During my nearly
21 years in the cult, I had sold my creative soul as certainly as if I had
worked for a money-grubbing ad agency, and in that regard, the two aren't
any different. My proudest achievement - the San Diego story - came after
the cult and before I started consulting on Scientology cases and writing
about the cult. As a writer, I had moved from one cult to another. It was
no wonder that I had spun my wheels for years on that book. I realized
that if I am to regain that joy of writing so the Muse can inspire me to
the completion of any effort, it had to recapture what I was free to do a
few years earlier. But to do that, to entice the Muse to return, I have to
step away from this arena for as long as it takes, whether it be a month
or a year. The Muse works not by deadlines.
How did I come to all of this? At a little retreat called Wellspring in
southern Ohio, where I was able to relax and write and walk with Mac and
talk with friends about any subject I pleased. I could arise in the middle
of the night, as I often did, to pound out something on my laptop until I
wanted to crash until my next inspiration, whatever the hour. Meanwhile,
the kitchen downstairs was stocked for any meal or snack, or prepared for
me if I wanted to devote my time to my own recovery rather than making
dinner. Or I could walk the rolling hills with Mac and a few others of his
species and enjoy the fading purple Ironwood flowers, indicating the end
of summer. Or if the silence was too much, I could watch TV or go into
nearby Athens (a college town, for Ohio University) and enjoy a coffee
house, movie or a good used bookstore, the kind found only in college
towns.
CULTS VS. CREATIVITY
Yes, I realized, this is definitely the type of place that Scientology
would hate for it allows freedom and creativity. They would have to hate
it and pump the propaganda just as Pravda attacked the institutions west
of the Berlin Wall that represented the antithesis of the official Kremlin
Party Line. Any true freedom challenges boundaries, especially those that
pretend to be otherwise, as Communism pretended to be the bastion of true
peace and freedom. One can even find and measure totalitarian systems by
their knee-jerk party lines and Scientology is among the best. I know
because I did it for so very long from inside, and then became their
target from this other side.
Wellspring was important because they know what it is like to try to be
free in an abusive environment, whether it be a marriage or a cult or a
job. (They work with a lot of abused women.) Abuse is abuse. Terror is
terror. It differs by degrees and it rips away individuality and
creativity and future for the individual.
But at Wellspring, I was free to write and to peel away the barriers to my
own creativity that included not only the cult but post-cult and pre-cult
experiences, even back to the days when I wrote for school papers or for
the anti-war movement in San Francisco or a political campaign, of which
there were several for me in the 1960s. It was no wonder I was so
qualified to produce propaganda for an abusive cult. I had been writing
propaganda for years!
This is what my two weeks at Wellspring gave me, amongst other insights.
(Results will vary, as label disclaimers remind us.)(laugh) But it was
what I needed to regain a personal integrity that any abusive system,
especially a cult, despises.
BACK TO THE FUTURE
So that is what I was doing, am doing and going to do and it will require
concentration and reflection and time which is why I've not been on ARS
and won't be, for as long as I must.
My apologies to many friends who have left messages or sent me mail and
gotten no reply. It's difficult to explain why one is so involved with an
idea or a project or any creative effort, so that virtually nothing else
exists. I usually don't even like to talk about it or discuss it. Stacy is
an exception because she has followed this journey since it started. It
was when she told me how many were reaching her to ask about me that I
realized it would be rude to continue to say nothing, given the role I
have played in this endeavor. (I even shared this post with her before
sending it.)
So don't take it personal if you get no reply. Consider it just the
eccentricity that some writers get into when they latch onto an idea and
lock themselves away or take long walks or won't talk to anyone and get up
at all hours of the night (it is 4:30 a.m. as I type this), chewing on an
idea, a style, a voice, a scene, a thread and then throwing it all away
and starting again or merely prowling for more information or even
traveling with a friend or a dog to take a break.
My intention is merely to restore and rebuild the creative self I touched
earlier and then decide on my direction. It is not a matter of disdain for
hack writing. That is snobbery. There is a place and time for classic hack
writing just as there is a place for great B movies. Few of us can live on
pure diets of Shakespeare, Mozart and Kant.
KEYBOARDS AND FREEDOM
What does this have to do with the original idea that I was writing about?
The best answer I can give is, we'll see. Besides, there is more to write
about, including fiction. Or I might find another airport.
Besides, with HTML and the Net, writing (not to mention publication) has
changed. One no longer needs a footnote or an appendix with documents when
HTML can link to a document, a map, a photograph or even a video. A writer
who knows HTML - which I have had the good fortune to learn - has greater
opportunities and options and freedoms.
It used to be said that freedom of the press belonged to those who owned
one. Well, with the Internet, that freedom can now belong to anyone with a
keyboard and THAT is what dries the mouth, puckers the hole and strikes
fear in the heart of every tyrant. What Tom Paine could have done today!
So there you are, a writer's account of himself, past, present and future.
It is long because it is easier than ever to write. Never has a keyboard
felt so clean and comfortable. I hope each of you, especially those in a
cult or out of a cult, have a chance to find YOUR true talent and purpose.
It is what the world needs.
Keep the faith.
Robert Vaughn Young
with a keyboard as a wri...@eskimo.com
P.S Wellspring has a web page at <wellspring.albany.oh.us>.
mw...@my-deja.com
b...@minton.org wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
> McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
Vaughn will
> be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange
a talk
> for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
snip
> Bob Minton
What a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's (Stacy)
ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy? I guess Bob
doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by Stacy
anyway to go this way or that way. And what counts for Stacy is the
money. I have to admit I don't know what it is that counts for Vaughn.
From Dateline we know that Bob does not think that Vaughn would
consider him an angel anymore. He probably fills the role of the
village idiot.
Michael Wallace ---
"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
--- Publilius Syrus
Monica Pignotti
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> It applies to all scientology children. But Sea Org children and
> children of staff members are less likely to get the care they need.
I don't believe that the gross neglect and horror stories apply to
~all~ Scientology children. There are public Scientologists who's
children do get all the love and the care they need. The horror
stories apply mostly to the kids of Scientology staff and especially
Sea Org members, although some public Scientologists who have sent
their kids to Scientology schools have reported that they tested behind
their peers on achievement tests. If Jewel says this wasn't her
experience with her children, I believe her.
Monica Pignotti
Safe ... www.fza.org
> In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> b...@minton.org wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Hello,
>
> > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
> > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> Vaughn will
> > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange
> a talk
> > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> snip
> > Bob Minton
>
> What a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's (Stacy)
> ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy? I guess Bob
> doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by Stacy
> anyway to go this way or that way. And what counts for Stacy is the
> money. I have to admit I don't know what it is that counts for Vaughn.
> From Dateline we know that Bob does not think that Vaughn would
> consider him an angel anymore. He probably fills the role of the
> village idiot.
Michael, why do you seem so bothered by Bob Minton trying to help somebody?
I'm sure you're not against the concept of help. I personally don't give a
shit about Bob's romantic life. What's important is that he's trying to
reach scientologists who want to know the whole truth. I believe he's
sincere and going in the right direction to do that.
Certainly you don't mind him wanting to open up communication lines for more
data, correct?
Safe
> Michael Wallace ---
> "Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
> --- Publilius Syrus
>
>
Lronscam
To start off, you are going to get a lot of responses. Critics love these
kind of posts.
>Hello,
>
>This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
>myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
>on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
>history.
>
>I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
>in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
>to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
>website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
>accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
>honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
>would have.
I believe that this is what most Scientologists are faced with: a total, one
sided view of Scientology. You can't make a valid decision about something
if you don't know all the facts; if you don't know both sides. What you are
describing is a jury of many folks who only hear the prosecution, or the
defense if that is your consideration. I guarantee you that one the
viewed side will always win.
>
>"Hmmmmm ... oh my God, a squirrel SP site!" But, I could not help but
>stick around long enough to look at some things just for a laugh. The
>first thing I opened was "Answers for Scientology Kids" and I was
>actually immediately offended and thought that this guy really IS nuts
>and an SP. The truth is my kids are awesome, honest and ethical beyond
>belief - and I don't need someone talking to my kids like that. They
>get plenty of time from me, etc.
I believe this is true. Some critics do make blanket statements about
Scientology. Some are wrong. I estimate that 75% of the information about
Scientology on this NG and on the web sites are accurate. That is just my
opinion, and mostly it is not the opinion of the person who webs something.
> His comments are a slap in the face
>of those of us that ARE good parents and good people. So then I
>realized that maybe Heldal-Lund's message to kids are meant for S.O.
>kids (who HAVE been a problem). Maybe he doesn't realize that they
>don't have computers and certainly no time for the internet.
Maybe he did. It would be nice to see what page on the Internet you are
talking about. It is customary to include the URL.
>
>But, it isn't my intention here to waste a lot of time with what I
>agree with or not on his or other's sites. For some reason I stayed on
>the site longer and read more of the links out of sheer curiosity. You
>know what hit me between the eyes first?? The alleged lies about
>Hubbard. I grappled with that for quite some time. The seemingly well-
>documented war history and medical records of Hubbard by Chris Owen and
>others hit me. For the last 6 weeks I have read and viewed practically
>everything I could find (at least there) and some on the Freezone site
>and elsewhere.
I believe what you are experiencing is a well known 'scientifically
validated phenomena' called information shock. I believe this is what most
Scientologists come to the realization when they are on their way out of
Scientology.
It is a shame that you have accepted so many lies about Scientology. In
fact, it is well documented the lies they portray. Why do you think so many
people *know* something is wrong with Scientology?
LRH QUOTE:
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE
TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big
letters.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
Technique 88
As a matter of fact, there are some Scientologists here who know that
Hubbard lied about his past and they know that Scientology lies about the
amount of members it has. 8 million is way over board, don't you think?
>
>I only yesterday found out about deja.com and ars here. I had read
>about ars, but am a dummy when it comes to newsgroups. (Is this
>deja.com ars the same as the ars I've read about on other sites? Is
>there an easier way to access ars than this?)
Yes there is. I will send you my Free Agent FAQ on how to get to ARS through
a free news reader. It may be better off to buy a subscription to Newsguy at
http://www.newsguy.com, only because the feed may be more reliable and you
may remain a little more private than you already are.
>
>I have read some really stupid, pure rage stuff (not based on any facts
>or experience) in my recent wanderings on the net.
I haven't seen much in this regard. If you mean people have exaggerated, I
will agree with you. Some people may leave the extreme of Scientology's
'perfectness' and become extremely angry at Scientology and defy it
extremely.
> And I have read
>some truly eye-opening things that ring true and seem well documented.
>I see ars here too, so I sift and sort and wade through the crap to get
>to some of the intelligent postings. It didn't take long at all to
>figure that out. Just as an aside, I had a brief impression that some
>of the mockery, snideness, and hate type stuff was actually a cover for
>some church-going people (read PR types) to make the anti-church people
>look stupid and "dead agent" them. Do you get what I mean here?
No, but it could be. There is no one here on ARS with the same agenda as
anyone else. As some have put it, it is an anarchy that somehow has the same
goal in exposing Scientology for what it is. Some times, people's effort may
be misguided.
>
>I had to reflect recently on what got me to this point. I mean, for
>those of you that know, reading this stuff in itself would be ummm how
>would I say ... very much frowned upon. A direct violation of my own
>ethics that has been ingrained in me.
I thought your ethics was to promote the truth?
I do get the impression what you are saying about ethics. It is a word that
only has meaning in the context of the group which you belong to. In a few
posts above, I defined ethics in Scientology how I interpreted it. My
interpretation ended up with ethics meaning production for Scientology.
>(However, I have an extremely
>high sense of integrity and can make my own judgements. And I am quite
>a light, fun person with high ethics anyway!) So, here's what I came
>up with as the reason that I was intrigued and why I sorted through the
>crap to find a few truths in all this.
Please, allow me to break this down into my interpretation of what is said.
>
>The church promises "total freedom."
Freedom can't exist without barriers. One can only be free if they know
where truth lies. The only freedom I see Scientology grants is to the group.
The group is senior to all other dynamics. Like the 3rd dynamic is a huge
portal to total freedom. This is a huge subject here.
>This is no idle claim as you
>know - it directly states that there IS total freedom in this church
>and you will NOT find it anywhere else.
That isn't unusual for a 'church' to act that way. That goes with all
'religions'.
> Well, for quite some time -
>before I ever found that site last month - I had already been taking a
>serious look at the fact that not one single person in 50 years has
>achieved total freedom. No true OT has EVER been created that has
>attained Total Freedom, and it appears that this is even true of
>Hubbard if you believe even some of the reports of his later years and
>death. That's particularly significant because this is being observed
>by someone who IS in the church right now.
After 30 years you finally discovered that? That is no major feat by my
definition.
>
>There is not much more that keeps people here other than the outright
>promise of total freedom and total cause. If we professed to be just a
>group that gave sincere and real help to others and that was all we
>stated and then delivered on that, I would be much better about the
>whole thing.
That sounds like a business to me; a self help group. Hubbard couldn't have
that. I agree with you on this issue, but Hubbard *had* to go all the way.
Gambling all or nothing. You can't promise people to cure their ills without
being a doctor. However, you can promise to cure a person's spirit.
>But total freedom? Am I missing something? We could get
>into a whole discussion on this I am sure (and it has probably already
>been done), but if absolute total freedom for the peoples of earth were
>documented and true, then I would think a humanitarian would do
>whatever possible to make it more available now to help the planet
>right here and now. Not make it hard to attain. I believe in helping
>the able become more able and then going from there - but that can and
>is being carried to extremes - particulary if someone is really holding
>the key to total freedom. And even those "really able" people at the
>top aren't any evidence of total cause.
I agree with you here. Maybe Hubbard bit off more than he could chew.
>
>Beyond simply making my first stab at posting, here is my point.
You did very well.
> I
>think that some of the people here are missing the point if you really
>want to bring the message home with some truth to others who have been
>like myself for so long. First, having absolute documented facts about
>Hubbard's past with no attention to suppositions or other narrative is
>important. For example, NO ONE knows that he had another wife in the
>late forties, early fifties, (if true) while still married to his first
>wife. That and the war information is what rocked my world initially
>as stated earlier.
It would be nice to have a route for curious Scientologists to go through.
That isn't possible. People do what they can and many here want to
contribute their part. I think there is too much information on the net
about Scientology. So much that it will confuse and intimidate event he most
ardent critic. I, for one, have never ventured to read all of the web sites.
> It is doubly important to compare those with HIS
>actual written and spoken words, so as not to confuse this with the
>possibility that "the overly zealous staff embellished his past." As
>we know the truth WILL set you free. Keep everything truthful and keep
>the opinions out.
Easier said than done.
>
>Next is the very fact about "Total Freedom." Perhaps I'm missing it,
>but pointing out truths of this promise and the actual statistics. Who
>has ever experienced total freedom in the last 50 years? Who has ever
>reached "total cause" to the extent stated and promised, etc.?? Now,
>don't get me wrong.
It is on the net, but you just have to find it. And, I don't know how anyone
can really get a grip of any actual statistic.
>I know many who have become MUCH better and MUCH
>more at cause as a result of the subject. I do believe, by actual
>observation, that there are some incredibly workable and useful pieces
>of work in this subject that help people immensely - and maybe that is
>what gets us all hooked on the dream that everything else is true as
>well, because those things do work - but, if I was to step outside the
>box for a minute, I don't have to look very far to see that there is
>not one individual who has attained (and probably not even close to
>attaining) TOTAL FREEDOM.
I don't even believe you have witnessed anyone who has attained even remote
freedom. People who leave Scientology and are harassed by Scientology
because they have become outspoken, you would never hear about it. People
who bear negative witness against the tech, are thrown out immediately. They
become instantly PTS and a downstat.
>
>There are other points, of course, but those are the two biggest ones
>for me personally. And I think that they would be the bigger issues
>with other's in the church too. The entire "confidential materials"
>deal is another issue, but why bore you further with that. We already
>know that people don't die or go crazy by being exposed to them. But
>for critics to hit on the issues of "UFO religion" and those materials
>that talk about that stuff is not taken with much credibility by your
>average Scientologist. That might make someone new to the subject or
>thinking about joining think twice, but it has no effect on a current
>member, in my humble opinion. You have to hit right into the face of
>the average member with truth and factual information, and not rhetoric
>and hate of the organization alone.
The number issue of how many Scientologists there are is right in the face
of Scientology. For some, that doesn't even do any good. It depends on the
person.
I agree that UFO cult and the 'dead space alien' bit, is impossible for a
Scientologist to agree to.
>
>I personally am not "against" the subject of Scientology and a lot of
>what Hubbard wrote and lectured on. There IS a difference in that and
>what later became the organization. Too many people confuse the two
>and refute any good done by the subject because they can't see through
>the current organization and it's flaws. It is very true for me that
>much of the subject has merit and can help people. It is essentially
>making knowledge about man and his existence, etc. available to the
>common layman and out of the hands of so-called experts.
Only the rich layman has access to it. LRH made the wealthy more important.
It is a shame that LRH traded one esoteric group for another one.
>I think the
>revelation and why Dianetics was such a hit is that "Hey, I myself can
>do something about my condition and the condition of others!! I don't
>have to be a victim anymore or depend upon the so-called experts." It
>just got quite a bit out of hand after that fact. Only my opinion
>though!!
>
>Also, just as a comment, I was at the "new years event" and it was very
>full. I don't know anything about numbers so I can't say that there
>were 14,000 or not. However, ALL the seats were not filled. Some
>still miss the point, and don't get the real significance, because you
>don't know the real truth behind the happenings. How many attending
>were org, mission and S.O. staff that HAD to be there? Ordered to be
>there. A lot of seats were filled by staff I'm sure. And the literal
>push and hype and constant confirming to fill the place up was mind-
>boggling. It is an out-point in itself that so much effort and very
>hard work has to go on to PUSH people to an event and fill it up.
>Weeks and months of work went into that. It would be very interesting
>to see what would happen at a major event if no heavy call-in was
>done. (To be honest, it was a disappointing event for me as it simply
>covered history for the 5 decades, and told nothing new for 3 hours.)
Agreed with you on this. I believe the max there could have been there was
11,000 to 12,000 people. Probably 5,000 were staff (just a guess).
I wrote a FAQ on that as well.
>
>Here are some things that maybe someone can help me with.
>
>1. I read somewhere that Hubbard had a (psychiatric) drug in his system
>at the time of his death. Is this true and documented someplace?
>Coroner's report??
This is all I have.
http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru/deathoflrh/
Vistaril, a powerful ani-psychotic medication.
>
>2. Are there really non-Scientologists that are legally bound into CST
>in any contolling fashion? Is this factual documentation somewhere?
Here is a search engine of all the critics sites. It will help immensely.
http://www.xenu.cx/
It is down right now, but may be back up shortly.
>
>3. What's considered to be the most authoritative accurate (actually
>documented?) source of Hubbard's past?
A Piece of Blue Sky, written by Jon Attack. He was taken to court and
nothing he said was found to be false but he was found guilty of libeling
another Scientologist.
>
>4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
>(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)? Most of
>the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
>back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
>in the 60's.
>
>5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
>can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
>his later years (70s and 80s)? I wanted to talk to someone who is not
>paid for working against the church.
There is no one who is paid for against the church. If you are referring to
the Lisa McPherson Trust, then you can consider them paid. I assume you
don't want to talk to any of them. I can't give you verifiable information
about Hubbard. It is somewhere, but I don't have it organized.
> I heavily considered Vaughn
>Young, as I remember him from his days in the church and think I could
>believe him. But then I thought I read some controversy somewhere
>about Stacy leaving him and going off with this Minton fellow. Whats
>the story there? Credibility wanes with things like that. But then
>again, I admit I do not have any real data or facts either.
Minton and Stacy are a couple now. I don't know the whole story either, so I
won't get into it all.
>
>I know one last truth that I did learn from Hubbard (1952). High
>ethics is high-toned. Serious is likely to be short on ethics.
I assume you agree with this. I don't agree with it totally, but can see his
point.
There is no one more serious than the management of Scientology, Rinder,
Miscavage et al.
> For
>those of you that know what I'm talking about, go read that quote
>again. And you can apply it in two ways. Look at how truly serious
>the church gets and then also realize how un-serious you need to be.
God point.
>The extreme seriousness and solidity is just another one of those out-
>points that I continually spotted about management (and seemingly
>Hubbard in his later years too, though someone refuted this on some web
>site I think) to make me really look for myself. You will be much more
>effective in your efforts if you are at the same time being honest
>through and through.
I agree with you 100%
>
>Sorry for going on so long. Not sure my long ramblings will make much
>of a first impression. And I'm sure that I am not saying anything new
>or revelatory here. There is a huge mound of postings and sites, etc.
>and I certainly don't pretend to know all that is out there and said.
>But, I certainly felt like I just needed to say something.
If you really want answers to Scientology, ARS is not the exact place for
it. Not that people are wrong here, but there is too much noise to
information ratio.
Here is the place to start.
Book List [Martin Hunt]
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/books.htm
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library
GO Documents [Chris Owen]
http://www.entheta.net/entheta/go/go.htm
The GO papers document Hubbard's creation and control of the Guardian
Office, the Co$' criminal
dirty-tricks unit.
Government Reports on Scientology [Chris Owen]
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/reports.html
Scientology vs. the IRS [Chris Owen]
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/irs.html
Chris Owen: http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/index.htm
[Chris Owen]:
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/reports.html
And here, if you really want to get confused.
http://www.entheta net.
>
>Thanks for that.
>
>Jewel - the names have been changed to protect the innocent :)
BTW, Hubbard never gave the church of Scn to Miscavage. Apparently, he
wanted Anne and Pat Broeker to be the head. Here is when Hubbard's death was
announced.
Dave Bird
>Hello,
>
>This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
>myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
>on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
>history.
>I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
>in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
>to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
>website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
>accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
>honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
>would have.
I read this with a lot of interest.
>But, it isn't my intention here to waste a lot of time with what I
>agree with or not on his or other's sites. For some reason I stayed on
>the site longer and read more of the links out of sheer curiosity. You
>know what hit me between the eyes first?? The alleged lies about
>Hubbard. I grappled with that for quite some time. The seemingly well-
>documented war history and medical records of Hubbard by Chris Owen and
>others hit me. For the last 6 weeks I have read and viewed practically
>everything I could find (at least there) and some on the Freezone site
>and elsewhere.
This is interesting too. I can see it disturbs some of the long-time
staff I talk to at demos. What did you make of Lisa MacPherson --
I'm not trying to attack and say "you ought to condemn the CofS over
this", I'm genuinely interested whether you were outraged against
management or whether you just wrote it off as "shit happens".
>I only yesterday found out about deja.com and ars here. I had read
>about ars, but am a dummy when it comes to newsgroups. (Is this
>deja.com ars the same as the ars I've read about on other sites? Is
>there an easier way to access ars than this?)
>I have read some really stupid, pure rage stuff (not based on any facts
>or experience) in my recent wanderings on the net. And I have read
>some truly eye-opening things that ring true and seem well documented.
>I see ars here too, so I sift and sort and wade through the crap to get
>to some of the intelligent postings.
Indeed. Are you used to newsgroups? There is a lot of rubbish
and general chit-chat as well as the key events. The big stories
currently must be the "Lisa MacPherson Trust" and the "faked photos".
A lot of the personal attacks are from OSA, or one or two people
that do it maliciously to pursue quarrels with particular critics.
Do you think their DeadAgenting works effectively or rebounds on them?
>There is not much more that keeps people here other than the outright
>promise of total freedom and total cause. If we professed to be just a
>group that gave sincere and real help to others and that was all we
>stated and then delivered on that, I would be much better about the
>whole thing.
From my POV I never see any genuine giving of (practical) help
to poor, sick, uneducated, etc, people. CofS never does anything
except for gain.
>Beyond simply making my first stab at posting, here is my point. I
>think that some of the people here are missing the point if you really
>want to bring the message home with some truth to others who have been
>like myself for so long. First, having absolute documented facts about
>Hubbard's past with no attention to suppositions or other narrative is
>important. For example, NO ONE knows that he had another wife in the
>late forties, early fifties, (if true) while still married to his first
>wife. That and the war information is what rocked my world initially
>as stated earlier. It is doubly important to compare those with HIS
>actual written and spoken words, so as not to confuse this with the
>possibility that "the overly zealous staff embellished his past." As
>we know the truth WILL set you free. Keep everything truthful and keep
>the opinions out.
Good idea. I have written elsewhere about facing two ways, one towards
the wog public and people who have been on staff only a few months and
are still wogs (tell 'em the space alien stuff and they'll run a mile)
versus long time members (a much softer approach needed, they may want
to continue the Tech while rejecting the management).
>
>Next is the very fact about "Total Freedom." Perhaps I'm missing it,
>but pointing out truths of this promise and the actual statistics. Who
>has ever experienced total freedom in the last 50 years? Who has ever
>reached "total cause" to the extent stated and promised, etc.?? Now,
>don't get me wrong. I know many who have become MUCH better and MUCH
>more at cause as a result of the subject. I do believe, by actual
>observation, that there are some incredibly workable and useful pieces
>of work in this subject that help people immensely - and maybe that is
>what gets us all hooked on the dream that everything else is true as
>well, because those things do work - but, if I was to step outside the
>box for a minute, I don't have to look very far to see that there is
>not one individual who has attained (and probably not even close to
>attaining) TOTAL FREEDOM.
My estimation is that all that stuff is delusory. But so is any
other religion.
>
>There are other points, of course, but those are the two biggest ones
>for me personally. And I think that they would be the bigger issues
>with other's in the church too. The entire "confidential materials"
>deal is another issue, but why bore you further with that. We already
>know that people don't die or go crazy by being exposed to them. But
>for critics to hit on the issues of "UFO religion" and those materials
>that talk about that stuff is not taken with much credibility by your
>average Scientologist. That might make someone new to the subject or
>thinking about joining think twice, but it has no effect on a current
>member, in my humble opinion.
It doesn't bother a ** longterm ** member.
>I personally am not "against" the subject of Scientology and a lot of
>what Hubbard wrote and lectured on. There IS a difference in that and
>what later became the organization.
"Later"? Hubbard set up the organisation as it is, personally founded
the RPF while on the Apollo, etcetera. But it is possible to reject
his organisational materials yet accept large parts of the tech. The
former are vicious and unacceptable. The latter is IMO untrue but
largely nonsense. Who cares what rubbish people choose to believe
if they do no harm to others....?
>Also, just as a comment, I was at the "new years event" and it was very
>full. I don't know anything about numbers so I can't say that there
>were 14,000 or not. However, ALL the seats were not filled. Some
>still miss the point, and don't get the real significance, because you
>don't know the real truth behind the happenings. How many attending
>were org, mission and S.O. staff that HAD to be there? Ordered to be
>there. A lot of seats were filled by staff I'm sure. And the literal
>push and hype and constant confirming to fill the place up was mind-
>boggling. It is an out-point in itself that so much effort and very
>hard work has to go on to PUSH people to an event and fill it up.
>Weeks and months of work went into that. It would be very interesting
>to see what would happen at a major event if no heavy call-in was
>done. (To be honest, it was a disappointing event for me as it simply
>covered history for the 5 decades, and told nothing new for 3 hours.)
I strongly suspect that public were not heavily regged, and public
were shown into the lower seating area; after staff who had been
heavily pushed were herded into the upper seating area. Having got
the thing pretty full some of the time, though, it is beyond me why
they then faked a photo of a time when it was less full.
>
>Here are some things that maybe someone can help me with.
>
>1. I read somewhere that Hubbard had a (psychiatric) drug in his system
>at the time of his death. Is this true and documented someplace?
>Coroner's report??
Yes, try searching for Hubbard AND Vistaril; also see Bare Faced
Messiah.
>
>2. Are there really non-Scientologists that are legally bound into CST
>in any contolling fashion? Is this factual documentation somewhere?
There is a particular small free-zone group that INTERPRETS the
presence of a senior wog lawyer on the CST board, whom CofS say
just deals with corporate law issues not daily management, in
such a way. I think they're out to lunch myself.
>
>3. What's considered to be the most authoritative accurate (actually
>documented?) source of Hubbard's past?
I could be wrong but Jerry Armstrong's biography project was
the one that led to Jon Atack's "Piece of Blue Sky", then
there is Russel Miller's "Bare Faced Messiah" for which
Chris Owen has the research notes, and Monica Pignotti's account
of the Apollo is pretty good though she was not in the circle
of people directly around Ron. Jerry, Chris, and Monica are
active on ARS.
>
>4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
>(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)? Most of
>the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
>back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
>in the 60's.
Where did he meet Father Christmas? nowhere.
>
>5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
>can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
>his later years (70s and 80s)? I wanted to talk to someone who is not
>paid for working against the church. I heavily considered Vaughn
>Young, as I remember him from his days in the church and think I could
>believe him. But then I thought I read some controversy somewhere
>about Stacy leaving him and going off with this Minton fellow. Whats
>the story there? Credibility wanes with things like that.
Well, not Vaughan's in any case. Not Stacy's, I would have thought,
as her private life has nothing to do with what she observed then.
>Sorry for going on so long. Not sure my long ramblings will make much
>of a first impression.
No problem; I was interested, anyway.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Chris Leithiser
> IWhat a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's (Stacy)
> ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy? I guess Bob
> doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by Stacy
> anyway to go this way or that way. And what counts for Stacy is the
> money. I have to admit I don't know what it is that counts for Vaughn.
> From Dateline we know that Bob does not think that Vaughn would
> consider him an angel anymore. He probably fills the role of the
> village idiot.
Angling for the job, Mikey? How about this spin on it: Bob apparently
maintains close-enough relations with Vaughn that he feels he might be able
to make the connection happen. Sounds a _lot_ healthier than Hubbard's "I
never had a second wife" statements.
Beverly Rice
> What a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's (Stacy)
> ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy?
No, it's called people "getting on with life".
Unlike Hubbardites who are stuck in the Co$'s mind-numbing LRH
thought processes of staying stuck in labeling and judging of
others in order to keep from having to think critically and
look at what is going on in their immediate surroundings, wogs
and those who have gotten out of Co$ can actually move on with
their lives.
> I guess Bob doesn't really care one way or the other.
Your guesses carry no substance other than in your own mind.
Not caring one way or the other would be more along the line
of the HubTOAD neglecting to care for his family while he was
out running around feeding his own selfish and lusty desires
for adulterous sex, ritualistic sex magick, and getting high.
That is an exemplification of not caring one way or the other
for you.
> He's just being run by Stacy anyway to go this way or that way.
Being run, as on all the mindless Hubbardites that were led
and ~run~ like farm animals between their vans and Co$ buildings
being told not to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil,
like the little monkeys Co$ was able to turn them into?
~That~ is what "being run" is.
> And what counts for Stacy is the money.
You mean money counting as in the HubTOAD's policy of
make money, make more money, and make others make more money?
The HubTOAD never GAVE anything, all that parasitic, whining,
flim-flam man ever did was take.
> I have to admit I don't know what it is that counts for Vaughn.
Well, I'm sure you'll be told what to say about Vaughn soon enough.
God ~FORBID~ you should have to actually sit here and ~THINK~ for
yourself what to say about him.
Wait for the "party line", idiot.
> From Dateline we know that Bob does not think that Vaughn would
> consider him an angel anymore.
I think that Bob would be the first to tell you he is no angel.
I really don't know ~any~ body that is an angel (okay, I ~have~
known a few "Hell's Angels").
Hey, mw, are ~you~ an angel?
> He probably fills the role of the village idiot.
Hmmmmm. Filling the role of "village idiot". You mean like ~this~:
A Sacred Dropping From the Dead Bloated TOAD:
But there's the incident called "The Obscene Dog" with it's just a
little bit later than Incident One. And sometimes actually by running
it, why you can get the PC into Incident One.
The Obscene Dog was a sort of a brass dog in a sitting position and
anybody who got around to the front of the dog got caught in some
electronic current and passed through the dog to the dogs rear end and
spat out.
Thetans didn't like this.
"Assists" Lecture. 3rd October 1968. #10 of the confidential Class
VIII series
So, Mike Wallace dear, does the "Thetan Within You" not like passing
through to the "dogs rear end" and getting spat out?
Yep, that Hubbard, a ~real~ "Village Idiot".
Beverly (loving the OT in Mr. Wallace)
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <862bh8$i91$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> b...@minton.org wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Hello,
>
> > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
> > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> Vaughn will
> > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange
> a talk
> > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> snip
> > Bob Minton
>
> What a comedy:
And we keep on laughing at you, every post you make!
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBOIUMg7ztfgpKlX7qEQIvXwCg4y6LsyTGc99ukDab6hhexKWBBNgAoOnT
gH6K9k3LBVQ+OD36r7jMSY64
=AO1O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"By the taping of my glasses,
something geeky this way passes" Captain Nerd
cpt...@nerdwatch.com
http://www.nerdwatch.com
mw...@my-deja.com
"Safe ... www.fza.org" <Sa...@scientology.at> wrote:
> <mw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:862bh8$i91
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > b...@minton.org wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hello,
> >
> > > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the
Lisa
> > > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> > Vaughn will
> > > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to
arrange
> > a talk
> > > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> > snip
> > > Bob Minton
> >
(Stacy)
> > doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by
Stacy
> > anyway to go this way or that way. And what counts for Stacy is the
> > money. I have to admit I don't know what it is that counts for
Vaughn.
> > From Dateline we know that Bob does not think that Vaughn would
> > village idiot.
>
> Michael, why do you seem so bothered by Bob Minton trying to help
somebody?
> I'm sure you're not against the concept of help. I personally don't
give a
> shit about Bob's romantic life.
Sure, just close your eyes. Re-labelling "out-ethics" as being
"romantic" is a good justification. But then you have never had a great
liking for ethics. No squirrel has ever had. I am sure you have a
similar good reason for your cooperation with psychologist Margret
Singer. But then this is what it is all about, isn't it.
--
Michael Wallace ---
"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
--- Publilius Syrus
ThomLove
It good to have you here. If you keep searching the various links for
web sites, you will get all your questions answered.
Also, for technical stuff, shift on over to ACT newsgroup.
All of LRH is on the internet, nearly all, and it is unaltered and
unedited. Pure for those who want it. You could twin your way up to OTV
right now, starting today, if you wanted.
Good luck to you.
ThomLove
Ted Mayett
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <vn798scqf3g8couei...@4ax.com>,
> til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>> It applies to all scientology children. But Sea Org children and
>> children of staff members are less likely to get the care they need.
>
>I don't believe that the gross neglect and horror stories apply to
>~all~ Scientology children.
It certainly does not apply to the children in Vegas.
Rob Momper
>Sure, just close your eyes. Re-labelling "out-ethics" as being
>"romantic" is a good justification. But then you have never had a great
>liking for ethics. No squirrel has ever had. I am sure you have a
>similar good reason for your cooperation with psychologist Margret
>Singer. But then this is what it is all about, isn't it.
>
>--
>Michael Wallace ---
>"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
>--- Publilius Syrus
What makes me think you've never got an ack on your sig?
Keith Henson
> In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> b...@minton.org wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Hello,
>> Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
>> McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> Vaughn will
>> be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange
> a talk
>> for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> snip
>> Bob Minton
> What a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's (Stacy)
> ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy? I guess Bob
> doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by Stacy
And here we have a UFO cult member who does not have the *slightest* idea
of how off planet people run their lives. Keith Henson
Shy David www.xenu.net
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
> myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
Typical OSA Dev-T drivel.
---
"When life is confronting you with DIANETICS, your mind is your
best weapon." -- Boudewijn van Ingen
Ian Rennie
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <862bh8$i91$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> > b...@minton.org wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hello,
> >
> > > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
> > > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> > Vaughn will
> > > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange
> > a talk
> > > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> > snip
> > > Bob Minton
> >
> > What a comedy:
>
> And we keep on laughing at you, every post you make!
do you think he realises how laughable he is?
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <8630op$2l2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Sure, just close your eyes. Re-labelling "out-ethics" as being
> "romantic" is a good justification. But then you have never had a great
> liking for ethics. No squirrel has ever had. I am sure you have a
> similar good reason for your cooperation with psychologist Margret
> Singer. But then this is what it is all about, isn't it.
No, what it's all about is ridding one's self of all those dead
space alien spirits that keep clogging up your real self: a dead
space alien spirit! And anything that a dead space alien spirit
does that keeps this secret from getting out, is justified, since
not every dead space alien spirit can handle it, and there are
all kinds of evil psychs out there trying to deny that we are
all dead space alien spirits!
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBOIWJALztfgpKlX7qEQLcUgCdE4OwjYkbrcRIPjshWrfDNBcVtIgAn0+6
HMqTBgDx1BiaYw5VR0UHo8i1
=vRtd
Safe ... www.fza.org
<mw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8630op$2l2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3884c...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> "Safe ... www.fza.org" <Sa...@scientology.at> wrote:
> > <mw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:862bh8$i91
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > b...@minton.org wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hello,
> > >
> > > > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the
> Lisa
> > > > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> > > Vaughn will
> > > > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to
> arrange
> > > a talk
> > > > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> > > snip
> > > > Bob Minton
> > >
> (Stacy)
> > > ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy? I guess Bob
> > > doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by
> Stacy
> > > money. I have to admit I don't know what it is that counts for
> Vaughn.
> > > From Dateline we know that Bob does not think that Vaughn would
> > > consider him an angel anymore. He probably fills the role of the
> > > village idiot.
> >
> > Michael, why do you seem so bothered by Bob Minton trying to help
> somebody?
> > I'm sure you're not against the concept of help. I personally don't
> give a
> > shit about Bob's romantic life.
>
> "romantic" is a good justification. But then you have never had a great
> liking for ethics. No squirrel has ever had. I am sure you have a
> similar good reason for your cooperation with psychologist Margret
> Singer. But then this is what it is all about, isn't it.
You are really out there. I have no idea who Margret Singer is. Boy does
your hate speak loudly. I really feel bad for you. I hope that someday you
will be able to raise your ability to confront for your own sake.
May the Supreme Being have mercy on your soul.
Safe
>
> --
> Michael Wallace ---
> "Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
> --- Publilius Syrus
>
>
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.95L.10001...@mailer.york.ac.uk>, Ian
Rennie <ir...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Captain Nerd wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > In article <862bh8$i91$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> > > b...@minton.org wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hello,
> > >
> > > > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the
> > > > Lisa
> > > > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> > > Vaughn will
> > > > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to
> > > > arrange
> > > a talk
> > > > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> > > snip
> > > > Bob Minton
> > >
> > > What a comedy:
> >
> > And we keep on laughing at you, every post you make!
>
> do you think he realises how laughable he is?
I don't think dead space alien spirits have much of a sense
of humor. In the wog world, being able to find the laughable
in one's own self is healthy, but amongst crusaders (and not
just dead space alien spirit crusaders out to clear the planet)
it's rarely found. It's either "suppressive" or "radical"
or "a waste of energy" or "detracts from our noble goal" or is
"irrational" to laugh at one's self-generated inanity.
Maybe one day "Travis" and "Dorothy" and "Michael" will be
able to laugh at themselves again, and will rejoin the world
of the mentally healthy. Maybe they'll even acknowledge that
they really believe in the dead space alien spirit clogs, and
will join us in a healthy laugh at our own respective beliefs
(or lack thereof).
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBOIWNULztfgpKlX7qEQLXdQCfQc7w95FrZEAzuOBVK4UN6MYYuUQAnRx1
Ioh65WDYnjIHWtAc09uvY9rm
=KxUO
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <38858...@news2.lightlink.com>
"Safe ... www.fza.org" <Sa...@scientology.at>.
From: Lightlink Internet.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Stacy Brooks, my response you your comments:
>
><mw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8630op$2l2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <3884c...@news2.lightlink.com>,
>> "Safe ... www.fza.org" <Sa...@scientology.at> wrote:
>> > <mw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:862bh8$i91
>> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > > In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
>> > > b...@minton.org wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >Hello,
>> > >
>> > > > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the
>> Lisa
>> > > > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
>> > > Vaughn will
>> > > > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to
>> arrange
>> > > a talk
>> > > > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
>> > > snip
>> > > > Bob Minton
>> > >
Do you mean God?
Can a Scientologist take the word God in his mouth for once, instead of
this "Supreme Being" bad excuse for saying Hubbard or 8th dynamic?
Sten-Arne, yours for not being fooled by ANY type of scientologist
scumbag.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Second Dynamic" is one Scientology book not being pushed in
bookstores, in fact it is very hard to find. The reason is most
obvious on page 20, where Hubbard writes: "--- society begins its
sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an
equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this
means that the men are decadent and the women are no longer women."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
**** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm *****
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy
So you're accusing Safe of trying to seduce somebody he has never even
*met*? Hoo boy! You *are* a looney tune. Sorry to be so blunt, but you
are almost all the way up the bridge to Total Insanity. Be sure and honk
when you get ready to pass Koos.
Tommy
--
Thank you for your very detailed letter regarding
Scientology. We haven't yet found a way to attack
these jackals who feed on children and young adults
who are too emotionally weak to stand by themselves
when they reach the age of consent.
Congressman Leo J. Ryan, shortly before being gunned down
by another cult in Jonestown
Monica Pignotti
>does your hate speak loudly. I really feel bad for you. I hope that
>someday you will be able to raise your ability to confront for your
>own sake.
Margaret Singer is a psychologist who is an expert on cults who has
been in this field since the 1950s. She has written a book entitled
*Cults in Our Midst* (publisher Jossey-Bass)and has helped thousands of
people who are struggling to recover from their experience in a wide
variety of destructive cults and thus, has become a target for the CofS
who has (no surprise here!) labelled her as a major SP. I've met and
spoken with her on several occasions and she is a very kind and caring
person who bears no resemblance at all to how the CofS has portrayed
her. I highly recommend her book.
Monica Pignotti
J. R. Ford
<snap><snap><snap>
>Sure, just close your eyes. Re-labelling "out-ethics" as being
>"romantic" is a good justification. But then you have never had a great
>liking for ethics. No squirrel has ever had.
"Squirrel"? Oh, that's right, I forgot. Being as you are some kind
of "SoooPer ReeeLigiz Protected Species" it is OK for you to call
people names. But, when one of us calls you a clam it's religious
bigotry.
Well, clammy boy, it's time to switch accounts. You fucked up with
this one.
.............sig.............
visit these URLs to get the real story
JimDBB
>been in this field since the 1950s. She has written a book entitled
>*Cults in Our Midst* (publisher Jossey-Bass)and has helped thousands of
>people who are struggling to recover from their experience in a wide
>variety of destructive cults and thus, has become a target for the CofS
>who has (no surprise here!) labelled her as a major SP. I've met and
>spoken with her on several occasions and she is a very kind and caring
>person who bears no resemblance at all to how the CofS has portrayed
>her. I highly recommend her book.
>
>Monica Pignotti
Very well said. Margaret Singer's book , "cults in our Midst" is a classic and
should be read by everyone.
JIMDBB
mw...@my-deja.com
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom6.netcom.com> wrote:
> mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> > b...@minton.org wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hello,
>
> >> Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the
Lisa
> >> McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> > Vaughn will
> >> be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to
arrange
> > a talk
> >> for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> > snip
> >> Bob Minton
>
> > What a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's
(Stacy)
> > ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone. Or is it a tragedy? I guess Bob
> > doesn't really care one way or the other. He's just being run by
Stacy
>
idea
> of how off planet people run their lives. Keith Henson
I had not known that Bob and Stacy and Vaughn are "off planet people".
BTW why are you not posting from lmt.inc? Your application was accepted
you know, so you should have access to your email address. Or does the
trust not have enough funds?
Michael Wallace ---
"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
--- Publilius Syrus
jewels...@hotmail.com
notes on some of the questions and comments, and just don't have the
time to do so at this time. Though, with the way I am, I'll probably
have the time to go on forever below, so grab a cup of coffee. Here
are some more thoughts.
No, I am a real person who has no connection to OSA. I thought I might
get that reaction from someone. LOL! I know that it is very hard to
discern factual data here sometimes, and I suppose all you can do is
judge for yourself. But you, and many others, would be surprised at
how truthful I am being and who I really am. I'm sorry that, at the
moment, I cannot be more specific. What I told is true - I AM just an
individual who has been a long-time member of the church - and I did
just happen to literally stumble onto some of this "anti-church" data
on the web.
To answer a question about my children; they are ethical and
responsible in a manner that is respected by myself, our friends - non-
scientologists, christians, non-christians, etc. They are just plain
good kids. You see, it is not all so clearly black and white within
the ranks of the "public scientologists." I personally know some kids
that are horribly neglected and unethical (and I've said so to the
parents) and I know many more kids that are incredibly bright and
responsible by anyone's definition.
What did I think of the Lisa McPherson situation? Shock and surprise.
I, of course, wanted to read as much about it and get the data after
that initial surprise to make sure the info was accurate. I am very
dismayed of that happening within a group that I am a member - it makes
me want to apologize, though my lonely voice hardly means anything in
the context of this matter. I do not know ANY scientologist that knows
about the LM death (or any other deaths for that matter), and I'd
venture to say that those I know in Clearwater probably do know about
it, but never mention it to others.
My comments about "pure rage" stuff was in reference to those that ONLY
seem to post the silly reactionary comments to most anyone or anything
relating to the subject(bloated toad, space alien cult, etc.). Hey, I
believe in freedom of expression so it doesn't bother me. It's just
that those kind of things accomplish nothing at all in my opinion. I
am far from an experienced news grouper (my 2nd post in history!) and
so know that much more has gone on before me entering the scene. I can
imagine that you get all types in this kind of forum and, considering
the evident history here, it also becomes hard at first to know who to
trust, etc. Probably makes some people pretty jaded about anyone and
anything to do with the subject after awhile. Just remind yourself
from time to time that there are honest-to-God real and good people
stumbling into here with real feelings and real confusions and,
hopefully, real intelligence. I, too, can have a sense of humor about
most anything, but a newbie doesn't get what's behind certain snide and
seemingly demeaning comments right away and that just further alienates
them from your way of thinking. (I can already see someone playing
with my words such as "space alien-ates them" LOL!)
There is a solid fact of how hard it is to go even this far after 30
years - the lifetime friends I've made, the appearance of a real
solution for helping others (I love to help others in their lives), and
I could go on. Someone made the comment about how slow I am (30
years) - well, i've already seen that some here have no understanding,
and as a result no compassion, for those very real people who have been
so internally involved for so long. Hey, I laugh about it myself
sometimes and just get on with it - and try not to take myself quite so
seriously.
And, at this point, it is not my intention to simply join one "side" or
the other with the only purpose in mind of attacking the other side.
Whatever choices I make, I still want to help people do better in
whatever way possible. The honest feeling that maybe I was doing
something good for people is the only thing that has really kept me
involved with the church. At the point where I slowly came around to
my current realizations is where the "safety net" so to speak
of "helping others" started to disappear. Maybe someone will know what
I'm talking about.
Whether you agree or not, I believe that at the very least Hubbard
brought an understanding of spirituality to many in the western world -
myself included. It's already been proven and theorized, etc. on all
the wrong-doing and decay of that professed spirituality within the
organization, so no need to beat me up on my opinions here. But I do
believe many of you out there, even former members, would not have
realized a certain level of spirituality if not through your original
contact with the church. So, whether he stole, borrowed or whatever of
the actual spiritual side of the subject - it has helped open my and
other's eyes to more than just this material world and I am better
because of that. It's just very sad that there was much bad baggage
attached to the actual subject/organization by Hubbard and then others.
So a major factor for someone like myself who is coming to terms with
certain realities is what would I find that would very honestly replace
the "philanthropist" inside me. Many of you do not understand, I know,
while others that have been there will know what I'm talking about. I
am not entering into all of this with the idea in mind of joining
another group, "squirrel," groundhog, or LMT, etc. First, I'm weighing
heavily on the factors involved of what all this means regarding
something I've spent the vast majority of my adult life involved with.
I don't really have a need to say this, but for the devout church
members that might question me, here's some truth to know lest you
accuse me of violating ethics, etc. to even do so much as communicate
here. Within the ranks I am considered a "very ethical member" who has
greatly contributed over the years. If you only knew!! I have been a
huge disseminator for nearly my entire 30 years with great success. I
have a big trove of commendations from several sectors of the church.
I do, in fact, have very "clean hands" in my life. My husband and I
are successful and honest citizens and church members. We have
great "stats." I actually had no reason to go looking for what I ended
up finding here on the net, and as I have said, I ran into all of this
quite by accident.
But as Hubbard states in his personal integrity article, code of honor
and elsewhere, I very much believe in having my own understanding of
things and am entitled to such. "Critical thinking" as some put it
here, or as I call it, "accurate observation and evaluation" is vital.
No one should ever depend on someone else telling them what to believe
or what should be true for them or what data and information they
should look at. I can see a news report about a tornado in Kansas and
evaluate for myself whether all of Kansas is devastated as depicted by
the scenes on TV, or perhaps just two houses were blown down. It is
important (to me anyway) that I am able to see ALL sides of the story
and come to my OWN conclusions. Censoring, hiding, etc. information is
not something that fits the philosophy I have grown to accept.
The only thing with me is that I happened to see things that do match
up with some of the distinct out-points that were already evident to
myself and other current members. Here's just a couple of minor
examples - How many people do you know in other religions that have a
separate "private" phone line that is not given to the church staff for
the very reason of keeping registrars, recruiters, etc. at bay, while
their "public" number is used for screening calls. I know
several "upstats" of the church that does that very thing. I put no
significance on it beyond that it is an out-point that ANYONE would
feel the need to do so in the first place.
Though I don't have much experience in other church's events, I have
never seen any church event whereby there was such tight security as
the new year's event. Metal detectors to walk through and staff with
the metal detector hand-wands just like at airport security. Lots of
individuals with obvious ear pieces firmly standing in place observing
attendees. I'm not sure that the management realizes what a surprising
and eerie atmosphere that creates for "us clueless members" - and I
never even commented on it until some other friends brought it up to me
first.
Third, and last, is several months ago I was reading at the end of the
day. I had out a bunch of the "Ron series" type publications, flipping
through pages and reading different articles. Very surprisingly I
found the same photograph in two different publications where something
about the photos caught my eye. I searched backed to find the first
book I found the picture in, and lo and behold, though the picture was
the same - one was very different from the other. One has been touched
up with people added or taken out, heads within the photo changed,
etc. I actually don't know which one is the original! More than
likely the earlier one perhaps. This is the photo of Hubbard standing
by the car talking to a group of people (page 18 of "The Auditor - from
research to application" and page 6 of "A Profile"). I quietly kept
flipping back and forth between the books going "WTF??" When I finally
showed my husband, his comment, after the initial surprise and staring,
was "Boy, the squirrels would have a field day with this!" We really
scratched our heads and all we could say was how weird it was and ask
ourselves why. Then last month I found this exact same photo
comparison on one of the websites!! LOL!
Well, as you can see, I like to communicate. Maybe even too much for
some of you <smile>. Why am I posting here? I had to ask myself this
too. I just need to put my thoughts into words and talk is all, and
there is nowhere else to do that except to myself at the moment. And I
honestsly DO want to know the truth. I certainly am not trying to rile
the troops or contribute anything new - particularly after you have
mostly all have been here for so long.
I'm just communicating. Thanks for the outlet!
Jewel
Jim Byrd
>BTW why are you not posting from lmt.inc? Your application was accepted
>you know, so you should have access to your email address. Or does the
>trust not have enough funds?
BTW why are you not posting from scientology.org? You have paid them tons of
money, so you should have access to an email address. Or does the criminal cult
not have enough funds?
Ed
you with the PR folks because your comm is open and honest.
Ed
Gerry Armstrong
Mann) wrote:
>In article <8616ap$mpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
>>myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
>>on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
>>history.
>>
>>I have been a Scientologist for nearly three decades. I am currently
>>in good standing and have been an active member the entire time. Prior
>>to early December 1999, I had never seen or read any "anti-Scientology"
>>website or posting before. Period. Only by a completely unplanned
>>accident did I happen upon a website - the Heldal-Lund site - and quite
>>honestly I had the same reaction any current, active church member
>>would have.
>
>
>(chomp, mmmmm good)
>
>Welcome Jewel, to ARS. Glad to see you posting here.
>
>DM
Very nice.
Jewels:
This is not the DM when you think of DM. That DM has been lying to you
and having his underlings lie to you for the last 14 or so years, and
L. Ron Hubbard lied to you and had his underlings lie to you for the
rest of your time in $cientology before that. The lies they told are
small, huge, pervasive, and not intended to assist you or free you as
a spirtual being, but to enslave you. You and every $cientologist has
been told, and tricked into believing, so many lies, that the way
through and out of the lies and enslavement to lies, can be long,
difficult, and in too many tragic cases never achieved. But it's a way
worth taking. A.r.s. is a great place to start.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong
<Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <8608lg$2go$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Monica says...
>>
>>In article <200001171823...@nym.alias.net>,
>> An0n <anond...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and
>>>offer to talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no
>>>way in the world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all
>>>this will, so it was a positive gesture anyway.
>>
>>Why not? What stops you from being able to call Stacy? I know Stacy
>>and can vouch that she sincerely means it when she says she's willing
>>to talk to Scientologists. It would be a good way to get all your
>>questions to her answered and a chance for you to find out and judge
>>for yourself what's true and what's not true regarding the allegations
>>against her, as well as the truth of what she's saying. Isn't
>>Scientology all about deciding for yourself what's true for you, rather
>>than taking the word of an authority? If the organization is stopping
>>you from doing that and asking you to take their word for what is being
>>said against her, what does this say about their respect of you, as an
>>individual, to make up your own mind?
>>
>>Monica Pignotti
>
>
> "when in doubt communicate" (c) LRH
And because $cientologists are prohibited -- by order, by policy, by
group pressure, by fear, by lies, by any number of aberrations -- from
communicating they are never allowed above doubt. They're stuffed back
down, with regards to reality (themselves, their families, their human
relationships, matter, energy, space, time, and pretty well everything
else), in a condition of enemy.
Which was where Hubbard wanted $cientologists because he was at war
and we fought it for him. DM is at war and $cientologists fight his
war for him. He's a coward, and they shouldn't take one more order
from him, but should put in his ethics. If they don't they will
continue in a condition of enemy.
And when they doubt that they're an enemy at war, they'll try to
communicate. And again they'll be suppressed, back into the ranks of
the $cientology army and navy at war. But occasionally people will
break free and communicate. The doubt indeed disappears.
Heh, all you $cientologists at war with us wogs (R), stop being an
enemy to us. Find out you're not an enemy, and don't let $cientology
or its implanters tell you you're an enemy. Quit being an enemy, and
when in doubt communicate.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
> arnie
> tel 703 241 1498
>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>Secrets are the mortar binding
>bricks as lies together into prisons for the mind.
>I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
>The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
>The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com
>
Rod Keller
: What did I think of the Lisa McPherson situation? Shock and surprise.
: I, of course, wanted to read as much about it and get the data after
: that initial surprise to make sure the info was accurate. I am very
: dismayed of that happening within a group that I am a member - it makes
: me want to apologize, though my lonely voice hardly means anything in
: the context of this matter. I do not know ANY scientologist that knows
: about the LM death (or any other deaths for that matter), and I'd
: venture to say that those I know in Clearwater probably do know about
: it, but never mention it to others.
Yours is one voice, and you were not involved in any of the events that
led to Lisa's death. But your desire to apoligize for something you only
participated in as part of a large group is deeply appreciated. It's what
Scientology management should have done years ago.
I think I'll forward your message to a member of Lisa's remaining family.
I expect they will appreciate it also.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece / Killer Rod
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Bigot of Mystery / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Steve A
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
[amazing maiden post snipped]
I think you and Safe need to talk! :-)
Oh, and welcome to a.r.s.
--
There is no legitimate reason to send email to nu...@castlsys.demon.co.uk
Mail to this address will be treated as SPAM/UCE and reported accordingly
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1, non-Mintonista.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Steve A
> In article <9sr88ss2m8ht9mn8r...@4ax.com>,
> b...@minton.org wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:56:13 GMT, jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Hello,
>
> > Get a phone card to protect your anonymity and call Stacy at the Lisa
> > McPherson Trust today at (727) 467-9335 and get some real data.
> Vaughn will
> > be in Clearwater in a couple of days and Stacy MAY be able to arrange
> a talk
> > for you. You can email her at stacy...@mciworld.com
> snip
> > Bob Minton
>
> What a comedy: Here is the lover (Bob) introducing his girl's (Stacy)
> ex-husband (Vaughn) to someone.
If you'd only step out of your tramline mindset for long enough to see
the situation from a different angle, you'd see that, far from being a
comedy, this is just a few people getting over their differences and
working together to achieve something they consider worthwhile.
I never cease to be amazed by the smutty amusement official
Scientologists seem to derive from the personal lives of other people.
Beverly Rice
> No, I am a real person who has no connection to OSA. I thought I might
> get that reaction from someone.
If you didn't get that reaction, then this would not be a.r.s. :-)
I've been accused of being OSA too. Happy initiation. Hahahahaha!!
> moment, I cannot be more specific. What I told is true - I AM just an
> individual who has been a long-time member of the church - and I did
> just happen to literally stumble onto some of this "anti-church" data
> on the web.
Don't worry if anybody doubts you, that also is common.
On a.r.s., as with a lot of other NG's, it is a "time will tell"
type of thing :-)
> They are just plain
> good kids. You see, it is not all so clearly black and white within
> the ranks of the "public scientologists."
Public Co$ members are a totally different story than most of
the readers here are familiar with. Publics are rather like
"innocents", they really don't know what is going on inside and
if they did . . . they would be gone.
That is why there is so much PR aimed more at publics even than
to the general public, and why staff, PRO's, and Sea Org are so
well trained in how to handle and behave around publics.
> I personally know some kids
> that are horribly neglected and unethical (and I've said so to the
> parents) and I know many more kids that are incredibly bright and
> responsible by anyone's definition.
Children are wonderful, period.
> What did I think of the Lisa McPherson situation? Shock and surprise.
That is understandable, it's not like Co$ broadcasts their "LOSSES"
like they do their "WINS".
> I, of course, wanted to read as much about it and get the data after
> that initial surprise to make sure the info was accurate.
That is nice.
You would be surprised at how many Co$'ers do ~not~ want to see,
hear, or know ~any~ thing about it, other than party line which they
only get when it is discovered they have heard about it from "entheta"
sources.
> I am very
> dismayed of that happening within a group that I am a member - it makes
> me want to apologize, though my lonely voice hardly means anything in
> the context of this matter.
I hear you, but you had nothing to do with it now, did you.
Of course, a public like you that is still in touch with reality
and not so lost in the tech and policy and is still able to think
and act on their own without being blinded by "superiors" and
orders would never have been allowed to participate in what Co$
normally uses on people like Lisa in the first place.
You are getting to see the side of scientology that they keep
hidden.
> My comments about "pure rage" stuff was in reference to those that ONLY
> seem to post the silly reactionary comments to most anyone or anything
> relating to the subject(bloated toad, space alien cult, etc.).
Hubbard is a dead bloated TOAD (the TOAD is in caps <g>)
He is dead, a ~man~, yet he is worshipped and held as unquestionable,
and unchangeable, and all-knowing.
My purpose for the remineder of the dead, is Co$ needs to confront
honestly, is this just a man who is fallible, or is he infallible.
Bloated TOAD is an antiquated usage of a figure of speech denoting
a characteristic from an object or animal or other source to a being
(serpent = Satan for example).
You may not like it, and I don't really care, (not meant personally,
but so many people here haven't approved of things I've done and/or
said and I can't be controlled by their thoughts and opinions, been
there, done that, and I promise, I'm really not as big of a meanie
as I may appear to be <g>) Hubbard was a lying, deceitful, egotistical,
selfish being, and "bloated TOAD" is quite an adequate description,
and I will use it many more times.
If ya don't like it, don't read it!! :-)
Hubbard laid down policies and tech of lying and mental and emotional
manipulation, harassment, and intimidation. He was not even close to
being the "great humanitarian" that he was made out to be.
As far as the positive side of "The Tech", try reading (pardon
my spelling) Korzybski Science and Sanity.
It is a facinating book, Hubbard got a lot of his facts about the
way the mind operates from Korsybski. The book is older, and may
be hard to find, but a good library will get it for you.
Also, it is ~very~ complicated reading, but if you really want to
see and know where theory came from from the more logical side
of Hub's stuff, read it.
As for the "space alien" stuff . . . fine, but is sure gets the
truth out about the core spiritual beliefs about the condition of
one's Thetan and man's aberration that Co$ hides.
> Hey, I
> believe in freedom of expression so it doesn't bother me. It's just
> that those kind of things accomplish nothing at all in my opinion.
Lots of people read here of all different mindsets, it accomplishes
quite a lot. I might not acomplish anything for you, and that is why
there is so much flavour on a.r.s., a little something for everyone.
Now you are here, and can add yet even more flavour to the pot <g>.
> am far from an experienced news grouper (my 2nd post in history!) and
> so know that much more has gone on before me entering the scene.
Oh heck, that's a reality not just in NG's, but in life. Jump on,
pick your spot, and have fun.
> Just remind yourself
> from time to time that there are honest-to-God real and good people
> stumbling into here with real feelings and real confusions and,
> hopefully, real intelligence.
All kinds of people come in and out of here. And, just remind
~your~self that there are honest-to-God read and good people
who post here in a.r.s.
> I, too, can have a sense of humor about
> most anything,
Believe me, it will get put to the test.
> but a newbie doesn't get what's behind certain snide and
> seemingly demeaning comments right away and that just further alienates
> them from your way of thinking.
Well, believe it or not, I'm a flowery kind of person as well, and
I see what you are trying to say, but an entire NG can't be controlled
to revolve around one type of person.
Newsgroups are a great place for people to come and grow up.
However, for beginners, alt.good.morning may still exist.
Whatever you do, ~don't~ go to alt.fan.howard-stern, I even think
those guys can be rough, and I don't get offended easily :-)
> (I can already see someone playing
> with my words such as "space alien-ates them" LOL!)
Well, no, actually you are the first I have seen to use that term.
Very well done, and you even put the LOL afterwards.
See, you are already contributing offensive entheta!! Hahahaha!!
> There is a solid fact of how hard it is to go even this far after 30
> years - the lifetime friends I've made, the appearance of a real
> solution for helping others (I love to help others in their lives), and
> I could go on.
This is something that unless someone has gone through it that
doesn't get conveyed easily. No matter how many words you may
use, words just seem to fall short. :-(
Consider this, though. REAL ~FRIENDS~ are those that are going to
stick by you, no matter what you choose to do.
If they don't they weren't your freinds to begin with, they were just
people that tolerated you because you fit within their mind-set.
I have been through lots of crap in my years, in and out of lots of
things, and my very best and closest and hardest friends are the ones
that stuck by me through all of it, through my joining things they
wanted nothing to do with, or my leaving things they felt I shouldn't,
whatever, I ended up with really great friends.
And ya know what else? After leaving Co$, I made even more friends.
It's not as hard as it appears at first.
That may be, also, why I come across as a bit hard here, I'm not
going to bow this way or that to what this one or that one thinks
I should or should not say.
If you're going to like me, then like me, if not, okay, that's fine
too.
You'll see.
You are going to get so much stronger than you thought you ever
could.
Every day is going to be another step for you.
Hmmmm . . . using my eSP powerz . . . I predict soon you will be
J&D'ing here also. :-)
> Someone made the comment about how slow I am (30
> years)
I missed that. Whoever made the comment, well, that was their
opinion. Let it pass by. You weren't "slow", you were just
"determined". Hahahahahahaha!
> - well, i've already seen that some here have no understanding,
> and as a result no compassion, for those very real people who have been
> so internally involved for so long.
Don't be surprised by that fact, just keep expressing yourself.
> Hey, I laugh about it myself
> sometimes and just get on with it - and try not to take myself quite so
> seriously.
Good girl!! Laughter is good for one.
My "BIG RED FLAG" went up super-duper fast on the communications
course when I saw that the rist thing Co$ and LRH tech required of
one was to stifle their "laugh" reflex.
Oh, of ~course~ the ~reasons~ for doing so were made to seem so
logical.
But that is BS.
I saw the result of stifling out true laughter from the heart, and
I wanted no part of it.
Anyway, back to laughing at yourself, have at it. I do it all the
time.
Especially at my age, I get up in the morning between 5 and 5:30 am,
I walk in the bathroom, I look in the mirror, and there's this old
lady looking back and me, and I just open my mouth in amazement and
say "~WHO~ the ~FUCK~ are ~YOU~!!" . . . and then I laugh and laugh.
Hahahahaha!! And she laughs back with me. Hahahahaha!!
> And, at this point, it is not my intention to simply join one "side" or
> the other with the only purpose in mind of attacking the other side.
Please don't, join ~your~ side.
> Whatever choices I make, I still want to help people do better in
> whatever way possible. The honest feeling that maybe I was doing
> something good for people is the only thing that has really kept me
> involved with the church.
I hear you.
That's why I stuck with the Co$ front Applied Scholastics school,
I really wanted to make a difference with children and teens. That
was my heart.
I allowed my heart to only let me see what I wanted to see for
quite a long time.
> At the point where I slowly came around to
> my current realizations is where the "safety net" so to speak
> of "helping others" started to disappear. Maybe someone will know what
> I'm talking about.
Yep, not a very pleasant feeling, is it.
Okay, I'm going from my own experience, don't know if you can
identify, let me know if you felt like this too . . .
It made me sick to realize that it was not really what I had hoped
and believed, and then the realization that ~I~ was a part of the
whole scam really made me heart sick. I mean, there are more words
for it, but verbiage is not my forte' and I can't quite hit the nail
on the head about the feeling you have when you realize that you
contributed so much to something that was not what you thought it was,
and at least with me, I realized it was actually ~HURTING~ the very
children I wanted to help. :-(
> Whether you agree or not, I believe that at the very least Hubbard
> brought an understanding of spirituality to many in the western world -
> myself included.
Sorry, but there is no way that I have seen that be true at
all.
> It's already been proven and theorized, etc. on all
> the wrong-doing and decay of that professed spirituality within the
> organization, so no need to beat me up on my opinions here.
> But I do
> believe many of you out there, even former members, would not have
> realized a certain level of spirituality if not through your original
> contact with the church.
Co$ did nothing for me spiritually, I already had that before I
got involved with them. It did make me sick in my spirit, however,
but seeing people used in that way does that.
> So, whether he stole, borrowed or whatever of
> the actual spiritual side of the subject - it has helped open my and
> other's eyes to more than just this material world and I am better
> because of that. It's just very sad that there was much bad baggage
> attached to the actual subject/organization by Hubbard and then others.
Why not go and look in to the sources that Hubbard used and claimed
as his own?
There's a lot of FZ stuff out there.
> So a major factor for someone like myself who is coming to terms with
> certain realities is what would I find that would very honestly replace
> the "philanthropist" inside me.
There's a lot out there, a lot, and that do it not for stats, PR,
or recruitment.
What areas in particular are you interested in?
> Well, as you can see, I like to communicate. Maybe even too much for
> some of you <smile>.
Oh no, don't worry about that . . . as you can see, there are
~lots~ of communicators here.
> Why am I posting here? I had to ask myself this
> too. I just need to put my thoughts into words and talk is all, and
> there is nowhere else to do that except to myself at the moment. And I
> honestsly DO want to know the truth.
Just keep looking.
> I certainly am not trying to rile
> the troops or contribute anything new - particularly after you have
> mostly all have been here for so long.
The only people that get riled, are the ones that let themselves get
riled.
> I'm just communicating. Thanks for the outlet!
No problem.
Feel free to e-mail me, and even call me if you wish.
Beverly
Chris Owen
>So then I
>realized that maybe Heldal-Lund's message to kids are meant for S.O.
>kids (who HAVE been a problem). Maybe he doesn't realize that they
>don't have computers and certainly no time for the internet.
I'm intrigued. What's the problem with SO kids?
>I only yesterday found out about deja.com and ars here. I had read
>about ars, but am a dummy when it comes to newsgroups. (Is this
>deja.com ars the same as the ars I've read about on other sites? Is
>there an easier way to access ars than this?)
Deja.com is a (commercial) web-based front-end to Usenet, a vast
bulletin board-style system with tens of thousands of forums - of which
this is one - carried over the Internet. Nobody runs Usenet - it just
is. It's much older than the Web, incidentally. Every Internet Service
Provider (ISP) that I know of carries a Usenet feed which you can access
through a program called a newsreader. I use Turnpike, which is quite a
good one; another popular program is Forte Agent, a free version of
which is available from their website (www.forteinc.com). Speak to your
ISP - they can tell you more about your local newsfeed.
>I have read some really stupid, pure rage stuff (not based on any facts
>or experience) in my recent wanderings on the net. And I have read
>some truly eye-opening things that ring true and seem well documented.
>I see ars here too, so I sift and sort and wade through the crap to get
>to some of the intelligent postings.
That's the Internet for you; dross and gold in the same place, so the
user has to sort it all out.
>I had already been taking a
>serious look at the fact that not one single person in 50 years has
>achieved total freedom. No true OT has EVER been created that has
>attained Total Freedom, and it appears that this is even true of
>Hubbard if you believe even some of the reports of his later years and
>death. That's particularly significant because this is being observed
>by someone who IS in the church right now.
Well, this is a tricky one. What *is* "Total Freedom"? Plenty of
people have described exteriorisation. Hubbard promised that OTs would
have paranormal powers, and Advance! magazine has for many years printed
exotic accounts of OT powers in use (for such useful things as turning
traffic lights green and preventing car accidents). What Scientology's
critics are arguing is that no *verified* evidence of OT abilities has
ever been presented. Personally, I'm quite happy to keep an open mind.
I'm willing to accept that OTs may indeed have extraordinary abilities
over "matter, energy, space and time". But I can't accept that they
actually *do* until they put themselves to the test in an objective,
verifiable fashion. I'm not aware of that ever having happened in over
30 years of producing OTs. The whole OT thing reminds me of the
character Invisible Boy in the film "Mystery Men" - he can turn
invisible, but only when nobody's looking at him...
>Beyond simply making my first stab at posting, here is my point. I
>think that some of the people here are missing the point if you really
>want to bring the message home with some truth to others who have been
>like myself for so long. First, having absolute documented facts about
>Hubbard's past with no attention to suppositions or other narrative is
>important. For example, NO ONE knows that he had another wife in the
>late forties, early fifties, (if true) while still married to his first
>wife.
Hubbard actually stated in a 1960s interview with Britain's Granada
Television (which you can find on the web - try www.xenu-tv.com) that he
had a first wife and a third wife, but no second wife. Try to work that
one out if you can. His second wife died only fairly recently, by the
way. I believe she remarried after divorcing him.
> That and the war information is what rocked my world initially
>as stated earlier. It is doubly important to compare those with HIS
>actual written and spoken words, so as not to confuse this with the
>possibility that "the overly zealous staff embellished his past."
Absolutely. "Ron The War Hero" is constructed to a large extent from
what he actually said and wrote. We can actually hear him on tape
saying things which are demonstrably false, and which he knew to be
false. There's a word for people who knowingly tell untruths.
>There are other points, of course, but those are the two biggest ones
>for me personally. And I think that they would be the bigger issues
>with other's in the church too. The entire "confidential materials"
>deal is another issue, but why bore you further with that. We already
>know that people don't die or go crazy by being exposed to them. But
>for critics to hit on the issues of "UFO religion" and those materials
>that talk about that stuff is not taken with much credibility by your
>average Scientologist. That might make someone new to the subject or
>thinking about joining think twice, but it has no effect on a current
>member, in my humble opinion. You have to hit right into the face of
>the average member with truth and factual information, and not rhetoric
>and hate of the organization alone.
I agree. In my experience, current members tend to dismiss the leaked
confidential materials as being "taken out of context" or "legitimate
albeit unusual beliefs" or simply not true (in which case they have a
shock coming). However, it's important to recognise that the
confidential materials do greatly discredit Scientology in the eyes of
the outside world. The beliefs of the Heaven's Gate group were heavily
covered by the media following their mass suicide, and were held up as
showing that they were barking mad. Scientology's confidential
materials have a definite resonance with that in the public mind. I
don't say that it's a fair or accurate comparison; but it's one that
will be made by the man in the street.
>Here are some things that maybe someone can help me with.
>
>1. I read somewhere that Hubbard had a (psychiatric) drug in his system
>at the time of his death. Is this true and documented someplace?
>Coroner's report??
Yes, Vistaril (a tranquiliser, I believe). Check on Altavista.com for
the following strings: Vistaril +Hubbard or Vistaril +Scientology
>2. Are there really non-Scientologists that are legally bound into CST
>in any contolling fashion? Is this factual documentation somewhere?
>
>3. What's considered to be the most authoritative accurate (actually
>documented?) source of Hubbard's past?
The best-written one is, by common agreement, "Bare-Faced Messiah", by a
veteran British journalist and biographer. It's on various websites -
try http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/books/bfm/ for a
copy. The author (Russell Miller) did not have any particular axe to
grind when he wrote it, originally as part of a Sunday Times project to
find LRH when he was in seclusion in California. It is awesomely well
researched and documented.
I'm in an unusual position in that I've been able to verify what Miller
wrote; I live only about 30 miles from him, obtained permission to put
it on the Web and created the first version of it several years ago.
(Others have since developed it considerably). Miller also gave me his
original source documents - several crates' worth - so I have been able
to go through his original notes, tape-recorded interviews and source
papers to corroborate what he says in the book. I was also academically
trained as an historian (I graduated with honours from Oxford
University) so I have the skills to spot when an historical question
doesn't add up. Bare-Faced Messiah checks out in virtually every
regard. It's also very well written and highly readable.
>4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
>(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)? Most of
>the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
>back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
>in the 60's.
Good question. Another good book on Scientology, "A Piece of Blue Sky"
(by Jon Atack, a British ex-Scientologist), which is also available on
the Web, suggests that LRH borrowed various bits of Scientology and
Dianetics from others. Certainly he used in the early days to credit
people such as Freud, Korzybyzski, etc as inspirations, and indeed
Dianetics used to be described by LRH as a variant of Freudian
psychology. Such mentions were eradicated many years ago, though.
Personally I think LRH's ideas came from a mixture of borrowing,
adaptation and (the major element IMO) his own fertile imagination.
It's hard to imagine anyone else coming up with the OT3 mythos.
>5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
>can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
>his later years (70s and 80s)? I wanted to talk to someone who is not
>paid for working against the church.
I'm happy to answer whatever questions I can...
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <865212$ich$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <863c1p$9dn$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom6.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > And here we have a UFO cult member who does not have the *slightest*
> idea
> > of how off planet people run their lives. Keith Henson
>
> I had not known that Bob and Stacy and Vaughn are "off planet people".
Hubbard says we're all dead space alien spirits, brought here by
Xenu and nuked in volcanoes 75 million years ago.
> BTW why are you not posting from lmt.inc? Your application was accepted
> you know, so you should have access to your email address. Or does the
> trust not have enough funds?
lmt.inc is an invalid domain name, and thus not accessible by
name.
HTH.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBOIbV5LztfgpKlX7qEQJQoACgiTwiJp7kfyym5QHk1wvoqW4Ka2QAnRz0
Ru8YsvRzs7VOubJFY4+efqVB
=vN2L
ref...@bway.net
<chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
>>(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)? Most of
>>the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
>>back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
>>in the 60's.
>
>Good question. Another good book on Scientology, "A Piece of Blue Sky"
>(by Jon Atack, a British ex-Scientologist), which is also available on
>the Web, suggests that LRH borrowed various bits of Scientology and
>Dianetics from others. Certainly he used in the early days to credit
>people such as Freud, Korzybyzski, etc as inspirations, and indeed
>Dianetics used to be described by LRH as a variant of Freudian
>psychology. Such mentions were eradicated many years ago, though.
>Personally I think LRH's ideas came from a mixture of borrowing,
>adaptation and (the major element IMO) his own fertile imagination.
>It's hard to imagine anyone else coming up with the OT3 mythos.
I stumbled across something which may be yet another small
piece in the puzzle. As we all know, Hubbard was hospitalized
in a military hospital during World War II, and claimed he
observed mental patients while he was a patient there.
Military psychiatry has (for some reason) become a hot topic
lately, with several books recently published about it. In
reading "Shook Over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam
and the Civil War," by Eric T. Dean (1997, Harvard University
Press), the author surveys the development of therapies for
"shell shock." He mentions the limited use of abreactive
therapy under pentothal in U.S. military hospitals during WW II.
Auditing IS abreactive therapy with an e-meter attached.
Here's what the book says: "The 'psychotherapy' utilized in World
War II seemed at times to vary slightly from that employed in World
War I: along with sleep and encouragement, some patients were
subjected to what was called 'Pentothal abreaction,' in which the
medical staff would administer pentothal and then lead the patient
through a reenactment of the battle scene that had produced the
breakdown."
The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
was doing it.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Ian Rennie
> jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > No, I am a real person who has no connection to OSA. I thought I might
> > get that reaction from someone.
>
> If you didn't get that reaction, then this would not be a.r.s. :-)
>
> I've been accused of being OSA too. Happy initiation. Hahahahaha!!
:( nobody ever accused ME of being OSA, even after I was nice to Russ.
Maybe I'm trying too hard.
[snipped rest of Bev's lovely post]
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
>
[snip]
>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>was doing it.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
if you actually did , it would be the first worthwhile thing you have
done in 4 years.
arnie
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 1999 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
ref...@bway.net
<Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <38873476...@enews.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
>>
>[snip]
>
>>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>>was doing it.
>>
>>Diane Richardson
>>ref...@bway.net
>
> if you actually did , it would be the first worthwhile thing you have
>done in 4 years.
Instead of tossing out ad hominem remarks like this, why not
be honest about your affiliation with the Liberty Lobby and
Willis Carto?
Your cloak of lies and deception about your relationship to
Willis Carto and his Liberty Lobby does much to destroy your
credibility on other matters.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Jim Byrd
>I stumbled across something which may be yet another small
>piece in the puzzle. As we all know, Hubbard was hospitalized
>in a military hospital during World War II, and claimed he
>observed mental patients while he was a patient there.
>
>Military psychiatry has (for some reason) become a hot topic
>lately, with several books recently published about it. In
>reading "Shook Over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam
>and the Civil War," by Eric T. Dean (1997, Harvard University
>Press), the author surveys the development of therapies for
>"shell shock." He mentions the limited use of abreactive
>therapy under pentothal in U.S. military hospitals during WW II.
>
>Auditing IS abreactive therapy with an e-meter attached.
>
>Here's what the book says: "The 'psychotherapy' utilized in World
>War II seemed at times to vary slightly from that employed in World
>War I: along with sleep and encouragement, some patients were
>subjected to what was called 'Pentothal abreaction,' in which the
>medical staff would administer pentothal and then lead the patient
>through a reenactment of the battle scene that had produced the
>breakdown."
>
>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>was doing it.
*very* interesting idea. I'll look forward to seeing the reference.
Thanks for digging up this one!
Chris Owen
>
>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>was doing it.
Very interesting. I look forward to seeing what you can turn up. RTWH
gives all the dates and hospital names you'll need.
Chris Leithiser
> In article <38873476...@enews.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
> >
> [snip]
>
> >The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
> >in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
> >1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
> >If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
> >chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
> >was doing it.
> >
> >Diane Richardson
> >ref...@bway.net
>
> if you actually did , it would be the first worthwhile thing you have
> done in 4 years.
>
> arnie
Actually, arnie, your post points out something I forgot to do.
Thank Diane for this timely and helpful information.
Thanks, Diane.
Gerry Armstrong
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:29:10 +0000, Chris Owen
><chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>4. Where did he come up with so much that does help people greatly
>>>(though perhaps he abandoned that approach later it seems)? Most of
>>>the "workable" subject appears to have been all written and lectured
>>>back in the 50's. Perhaps some refinements on techniques (the grades)
>>>in the 60's.
>>
>>Good question. Another good book on Scientology, "A Piece of Blue Sky"
>>(by Jon Atack, a British ex-Scientologist), which is also available on
>>the Web, suggests that LRH borrowed various bits of Scientology and
>>Dianetics from others. Certainly he used in the early days to credit
>>people such as Freud, Korzybyzski, etc as inspirations, and indeed
>>Dianetics used to be described by LRH as a variant of Freudian
>>psychology. Such mentions were eradicated many years ago, though.
>>Personally I think LRH's ideas came from a mixture of borrowing,
>>adaptation and (the major element IMO) his own fertile imagination.
>>It's hard to imagine anyone else coming up with the OT3 mythos.
>
>I stumbled across something which may be yet another small
>piece in the puzzle. As we all know, Hubbard was hospitalized
>in a military hospital during World War II, and claimed he
>observed mental patients while he was a patient there.
>
>Military psychiatry has (for some reason) become a hot topic
>lately, with several books recently published about it. In
>reading "Shook Over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam
>and the Civil War," by Eric T. Dean (1997, Harvard University
>Press), the author surveys the development of therapies for
>"shell shock." He mentions the limited use of abreactive
>therapy under pentothal in U.S. military hospitals during WW II.
>
>Auditing IS abreactive therapy with an e-meter attached.
>
>Here's what the book says: "The 'psychotherapy' utilized in World
>War II seemed at times to vary slightly from that employed in World
>War I: along with sleep and encouragement, some patients were
>subjected to what was called 'Pentothal abreaction,' in which the
>medical staff would administer pentothal and then lead the patient
>through a reenactment of the battle scene that had produced the
>breakdown."
>
>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>was doing it.
Oak Knoll? Oakland, CA? That's where he claimed he was doing his
"early research."
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Beverly Rice
> :( nobody ever accused ME of being OSA, even after I was nice to Russ.
> Maybe I'm trying too hard.
Okay, Ian . . . that's because it's not necessary to have to post
it, we ~all~ already ~know~ you are OSA!! :-)
Love and belated initiation from Beverly
Lronscam
If you don't mind this, I am going to comment on particulars here. I would
rather respond paragraph wise, but it would take too long.
First off, I would rather you answer me this one question than respond to
any of my comments below. How many members do you think Scientology has? How
many members do people in your immediate vicinity, or people you know, in
Scientology think it has?
>Someone made the comment about how slow I am (30
>years) - well, i've already seen that some here have no understanding,
>and as a result no compassion, for those very real people who have been
>so internally involved for so long. Hey, I laugh about it myself
>sometimes and just get on with it - and try not to take myself quite so
>seriously.
>
>
That was me. It was only in response to you suggesting that you were in the
*in* of Scientology, and you discovered the outness within the organization.
My comment was that it took you 30 years to do so. I hope you didn't
construe that as 'you are stupid'. There are reasons for this that I won't
get into.
I have surmised that much of what makes Scientologists ignorant is following
Hubbard's dogma (one such example is 'no verbal data' and 'what is real for
you is real...") It is a choice that you made and make every day you are
involved in it. I do have compassion for Scientologists. However, there have
been many I have tried to console into the 'truth' of Scientology. Not my
opinion, the truth. After awhile, one gets jaded by ignorant Scientologists.
If ignorance is bliss, then Scientology is heaven.
You have not seen the Dead Agent tactics and Spam posts that have resulted
here on ARS. Alt.religion.scientology is in a constant state of siege, if
you will, by OSA. Truth only comes with credibility, which comes with being
consistent. You have to develop a history here on ARS to gain credibility.
Once you lost credibility here, it is hard, if not impossible, to regain it.
I do know what you are talking about when you say you want to help people
with the tech. You can do that outside the Church of Scientology, in the
Freezone. The only barrier I see is disconnection from people you know in
Scientology.
PS
I believe you are not OSA. Please don't feel bad when you are called names
or are considered OSA by some. When I first got here, I was accused of being
OSA and was highly insulted by it. Everyone has their theory about different
people and events. There are over 500 posters (100 regular) here. You
couldn't get more of a dynamic group of individuals. Don't try to know them
all. It takes years on an NG, as opposed to real life.
>I don't really have a need to say this, but for the devout church
>members that might question me, here's some truth to know lest you
>accuse me of violating ethics, etc. to even do so much as communicate
>here. Within the ranks I am considered a "very ethical member" who has
>greatly contributed over the years. If you only knew!! I have been a
>huge disseminator for nearly my entire 30 years with great success. I
>have a big trove of commendations from several sectors of the church.
>I do, in fact, have very "clean hands" in my life. My husband and I
>are successful and honest citizens and church members. We have
>great "stats." I actually had no reason to go looking for what I ended
>up finding here on the net, and as I have said, I ran into all of this
>quite by accident.
So was Robert Vaughn Young, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince, Gerry Armstrong,
Vicki Aznaran, Jon Attack, Bent Corydon and *millions* of other folks.
Scientology is only in the 'present time'. It does not consider your past
deeds as credit for some future 'outness'.
Ethics only considers 'present time' to be of value. What have you done
*today*, might be its slogan. As soon as you become a downstat, like it or
not, you are on your way out. No matter if you break your leg, or if you
grow old, or if your business goes bankrupt and you have no other cash at
hand to spend on courses (temporary outness), or you consider Hubbard's
value system flawed, or you don't like the Authority having jurisdiction
over ethics. Look at the SO and their stats and it is relevant there, too.
Especially there.
You could test my theory out and see if I am correct. Write up a KR report
on yourself and tell them what you have told us.
>
>But as Hubbard states in his personal integrity article, code of honor
>and elsewhere, I very much believe in having my own understanding of
>things and am entitled to such. "Critical thinking" as some put it
>here, or as I call it, "accurate observation and evaluation" is vital.
>No one should ever depend on someone else telling them what to believe
>or what should be true for them or what data and information they
>should look at. I can see a news report about a tornado in Kansas and
>evaluate for myself whether all of Kansas is devastated as depicted by
>the scenes on TV, or perhaps just two houses were blown down. It is
>important (to me anyway) that I am able to see ALL sides of the story
>and come to my OWN conclusions. Censoring, hiding, etc. information is
>not something that fits the philosophy I have grown to accept.
Actions do speak louder than words. Both sides of any story do not always
come to you. Sometimes you must go to it. Again, my comment about the '30
years' stands. You can only be as critical as the information you have at
hand.
Furthermore, I do believe that 'censoring, hiding.. information' is what
fits in with the philosophy you have grown to accept. That is one of the
basic tenets of Scientology. Ignoring entheta (differing views can be
included in this), calling people SPs who disagree with Scientology,
believing the upper levels will kill you if you read them before you are
spiritually able to, Security Checking people to see if they have any
outpoints or even if they disagree with Scientology; all of these things
have to do with censoring and hiding negative data about Scientology.
Could it be said that there is no place better to hide something than in
plain view? I think you get my point.
Could it even be said that one can hide something better when it is
surrounded by many similar objects. As in Hubbard tech?
>
>The only thing with me is that I happened to see things that do match
>up with some of the distinct out-points that were already evident to
>myself and other current members. Here's just a couple of minor
>examples - How many people do you know in other religions that have a
>separate "private" phone line that is not given to the church staff for
>the very reason of keeping registrars, recruiters, etc. at bay, while
>their "public" number is used for screening calls. I know
>several "upstats" of the church that does that very thing. I put no
>significance on it beyond that it is an out-point that ANYONE would
>feel the need to do so in the first place.
I don't get this. Can someone here explain this to me?
>
>Though I don't have much experience in other church's events, I have
>never seen any church event whereby there was such tight security as
>the new year's event. Metal detectors to walk through and staff with
>the metal detector hand-wands just like at airport security. Lots of
>individuals with obvious ear pieces firmly standing in place observing
>attendees. I'm not sure that the management realizes what a surprising
>and eerie atmosphere that creates for "us clueless members" - and I
>never even commented on it until some other friends brought it up to me
>first.
I am glad you said this. I was wondering what Scientologists thought about
this tight security. I would have thought that management would have told
you a reason why they were doing such a thing. A bomb threat would have been
a good excuse for this. It would only be believable to me if there was some
evidence of the threat. I think the reason why they had such tight security
was to keep out the picketers who were threatening to get into the event.
Maybe they didn't want cameras inside, or tape recorders from the picketers
et al.
>
>Third, and last, is several months ago I was reading at the end of the
>day. I had out a bunch of the "Ron series" type publications, flipping
>through pages and reading different articles. Very surprisingly I
>found the same photograph in two different publications where something
>about the photos caught my eye. I searched backed to find the first
>book I found the picture in, and lo and behold, though the picture was
>the same - one was very different from the other. One has been touched
>up with people added or taken out, heads within the photo changed,
>etc. I actually don't know which one is the original! More than
>likely the earlier one perhaps. This is the photo of Hubbard standing
>by the car talking to a group of people (page 18 of "The Auditor - from
>research to application" and page 6 of "A Profile"). I quietly kept
>flipping back and forth between the books going "WTF??" When I finally
>showed my husband, his comment, after the initial surprise and staring,
>was "Boy, the squirrels would have a field day with this!" We really
>scratched our heads and all we could say was how weird it was and ask
>ourselves why. Then last month I found this exact same photo
>comparison on one of the websites!! LOL!
This is such an incredibly ironic statement by your husband. How can
squirrels have a field day with something that has not been duplicated
correctly? Perhaps, your husband's idea of squirreling is a squirreled
definition. ;)
I saw that one, too. This is just the tip of the ice berg, LITERALLY! There
are hundreds and thousands of such things in Scientology. So much that I
consider something wrong with the whole of Scientology.
From my experience, people's stable data is that the tech works. Just
because one has that as a stable data, doesn't mean you have to ignore all
other outpoints.
>
>Well, as you can see, I like to communicate. Maybe even too much for
>some of you <smile>. Why am I posting here? I had to ask myself this
>too. I just need to put my thoughts into words and talk is all, and
>there is nowhere else to do that except to myself at the moment. And I
>honestsly DO want to know the truth. I certainly am not trying to rile
>the troops or contribute anything new - particularly after you have
>mostly all have been here for so long.
>
>I'm just communicating. Thanks for the outlet!
I will be watching your posts. Being a former member, there is nothing more
worthy of my time than communicating to those members who wish to
communicate honestly and openly. As my name might give the wrong impression,
I don't bight. Well, sometimes..... <RoooooFFffgggghhhhhhhh> ;)
Dave Bird
>What did I think of the Lisa McPherson situation? Shock and surprise.
>I, of course, wanted to read as much about it and get the data after
>that initial surprise to make sure the info was accurate. I am very
>dismayed of that happening within a group that I am a member - it makes
>me want to apologize, though my lonely voice hardly means anything in
>the context of this matter. I do not know ANY scientologist that knows
>about the LM death (or any other deaths for that matter), and I'd
>venture to say that those I know in Clearwater probably do know about
>it, but never mention it to others.
Good.
>
>My comments about "pure rage" stuff was in reference to those that ONLY
>seem to post the silly reactionary comments to most anyone or anything
>relating to the subject(bloated toad, space alien cult, etc.). Hey, I
>believe in freedom of expression so it doesn't bother me. It's just
>that those kind of things accomplish nothing at all in my opinion.
It depends who to: they have just the right effect with people
who are "just outside" or "just inside" the doors of an outer Org,
they pretty soon wear it down to a hard-core or hard-nuts who
barely keep it going with very few students.
>So a major factor for someone like myself who is coming to terms with
>certain realities is what would I find that would very honestly replace
>the "philanthropist" inside me. Many of you do not understand, I know,
>while others that have been there will know what I'm talking about. I
>am not entering into all of this with the idea in mind of joining
>another group, "squirrel," groundhog, or LMT, etc. First, I'm weighing
>heavily on the factors involved of what all this means regarding
>something I've spent the vast majority of my adult life involved with.
Yes, I understand something very paralell in myself. I would not
direct it to any fantasy ("spiritual") activities which don't change
the world just make you feel good pretending you are. Part of it
is directed to fighting an evil organisation, guess which one, and
to fighting against censorship as the bit of oppressive behaviour
which most directly affects me and is most in my reach to oppose.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Dave Bird
<www.lermanet.com@?.?.com> writes:
>In article <38873476...@enews.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
>>
>[snip]
>
>>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>>was doing it.
>>
>>ref...@bway.net
>
> if you actually did , it would be the first worthwhile thing you have
>done in 4 years.
So don't be ungrateful about it!
Monica Pignotti
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8616ap$mpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jewels...@hotmail.com
> writes
> >So then I
> >realized that maybe Heldal-Lund's message to kids are meant for S.O.
> >kids (who HAVE been a problem). Maybe he doesn't realize that they
> >don't have computers and certainly no time for the internet.
>
> I'm intrigued. What's the problem with SO kids?
There are ~alot~ of problems with SO kids. Have you read any of the
articles on children in the SO, such as the one about what Dennis
Erlich's kids went through. In the SO, parents are only allowed to see
their children for a very limited time (approx. 1/2 hour) each day and
the rest of their time is spent with a SO nanny. There have been
numerous reports that conditions for SO children were highly unsanitary
which resulted in oubreaks of conditions such as hepatitis. In Tonja
Burden's affidavit (she was a SO child who later became a Commodore's
messenger) she reports picking maggots out of milk before it was given
to children to drink. There have also been numerous witnesses who saw
children on the Apollo being locked in the chain locker as punishment.
If I'm recalling this correctly, I believe it's in one of Hana
Whitfield's affidavits where she reports a child as young as 3 years
old being sent to the chain locker (this would have been in the late
1960s). In the later years on the Apollo (the early 70s), children
under 12 were not allowed on the Apollo. I was there after younger
children were no longer allowed on the Apollo, but I do clearly
remember seeing children as young as 12 and 13 years old being locked
in the chain locker as punishment. The older SO children (ages 12-17)
on the Apollo were made to work long hours and deprived of an education
past junior high, if they even had that.
The story of Dennis's children in Clearwater, which was a newspaper
article, is truly horrifying. I believe it is webbed somewhere but
don't know offhand what the URL is (possibly the Operation Clam Bake
website?). There's also information on SO children in Andre
Tabyoyoan's affidavit where he mentions a children's RPF. As you can
see, the list of abuses of children of all ages in the SO goes on and
on and I've only named a few of them as examples. There's alot of
information and consistent testimony of ex-SO members out there on this
topic.
Monica Pignotti
Ralph Hilton
>In article <38873476...@enews.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>>I stumbled across something which may be yet another small
>>piece in the puzzle. As we all know, Hubbard was hospitalized
>>in a military hospital during World War II, and claimed he
>>observed mental patients while he was a patient there.
>>
>>Military psychiatry has (for some reason) become a hot topic
>>lately, with several books recently published about it. In
>>reading "Shook Over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam
>>and the Civil War," by Eric T. Dean (1997, Harvard University
>>Press), the author surveys the development of therapies for
>>"shell shock." He mentions the limited use of abreactive
>>therapy under pentothal in U.S. military hospitals during WW II.
>>
>>Auditing IS abreactive therapy with an e-meter attached.
>>
>>Here's what the book says: "The 'psychotherapy' utilized in World
>>War II seemed at times to vary slightly from that employed in World
>>War I: along with sleep and encouragement, some patients were
>>subjected to what was called 'Pentothal abreaction,' in which the
>>medical staff would administer pentothal and then lead the patient
>>through a reenactment of the battle scene that had produced the
>>breakdown."
>>
>>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>>was doing it.
>
>*very* interesting idea. I'll look forward to seeing the reference.
>
>Thanks for digging up this one!
In chapter 7 of book 2 in "Dianetics" Hubbard talks about the use of drugs
in early Dianetic research.
He was obviously familiar with the use of pentothal in narcosynthesis as he
refers to its use on war victims in chapter 3 of "Evolution of a Science".
He decided early on in development of Dianetics that pentothal was
unworkable but continued to recommend benzedrine for some time after
"Dianetics" was written.
He was at Bethesda Naval Hospital which had a psychiatric facility according
to his statements in a lecture on 1 August 1958 entitled "Case Analysis -
Rock Hunting".
On 23 July 1958 he talked about his time at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital:
"I remember how I got in the medical library there; I saw a marine on
crutches outside the door and I said to the marine, "Come in in a couple of
minutes and say, 'How are things going today, Doctor?'" and gave him a wink.
And marines are usually prone to play tricks and that sort of thing and he
didn't even quite know what the joke was but he was perfectly willing to
play the joke. I walked in and stood at the desk of the head librarian who
was guardian of the library. The library is divided into two sections; the
general section and then the medical section. Well, nobody was allowed in
the medical section except the hospital doctors. And so the marine came by
in a couple of minutes and said, "How are things going today, Doctor? I feel
much better. Do you think we'll have to operate?" And I said, "Oh,
undoubtedly we'll have to operate." And he said, "Well that's sad," and gave
me the wink and walked on. And the librarian looked at me more fixedly and
saw I was only wearing one collar ornament. Obvious. And I said, "I think
I'll go into the library today." She said, "All right, sir." They don't call
patients "sir" no matter what their rank is, see. I went on into the medical
library and studied there for the next year.
But anyway-the barriers of this universe aren't as solid as they appear
sometimes.
Anyway, I used to get ahold of patients who were part of this experimental
series on hormone administration. And a doctor there whose name was the
incredible name of Yankeewitz- and he and I were good friends and he'd show
me the records once in a while and expostulate and so forth. And I'd pick
up, quick like a bunny, names on those who were showing no gain in
metabolism. You know? I'd make it my business to look them up and sit down
on a bench on the hospital lawn, you know, and quick slip them some
analysis, and I could change his records. In other words, analysis could
change his records but hormones couldn't. Ruined his theories; he didn't
know what was happening after a while. I never let him in on it. Oak Knoll
had a lot of research projects going-that was Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. In
view of the fact I wasn't sick, I was just banged up, why, I had a ball."
On 4 August:
"Last year of the war I spent getting patched up in a naval hospital. And I
used to drift over and bother the psychiatrists and I didn't belong in that
ward, and so they got upset with me. And I found out I could do things with
troops that were in Jap camps and so forth, nobody else could do.
And thought of myself as-the first time as somebody who actually had some
business in the field of practice as well as research. First time-because it
didn't matter how many hours they saw psychiatrists or psychoanalysts, you
see, they didn't get well. And I could patch them up sometimes fairly
adequately."
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
Ian Rennie
> Ian Rennie wrote:
>
> > :( nobody ever accused ME of being OSA, even after I was nice to Russ.
> > Maybe I'm trying too hard.
>
> Okay, Ian . . . that's because it's not necessary to have to post
> it, we ~all~ already ~know~ you are OSA!! :-)
:) now all I need is my Dead Agent pack and I'll feel like I've arrived
mw...@my-deja.com
gr...@gradyward.com wrote:
> >
> >BTW why are you not posting from lmt.inc? Your application was
accepted
> >you know, so you should have access to your email address. Or does
the
> >trust not have enough funds?
> "Veral" Wallace: your pathetic attempts at intelligence gathering are
> just that... pathetic.
You are supposedly the webmaster AND security director of the LMT, are
you not? For someone who posted perverted ideas with monotonous
regularity, that is quite a development.
Nontheless, they are TWO distinctly different positions. And your
fixation on a "Veral" Wallace when responding to postings indicates
that you may be suffering from a bipolar schizophrenic personality
phobia which expresses itself in the interpretation of double faced
values in all aspects of your life. Go and get one for real.
Michael Wallace ---
"Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so he is."
--- Publilius Syrus
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <86a6vq$bfk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <497c8ssu082pdmrac...@4ax.com>,
> gr...@gradyward.com wrote:
> > >
> > >BTW why are you not posting from lmt.inc? Your application was
> accepted
> > >you know, so you should have access to your email address. Or does
> the
> > >trust not have enough funds?
>
> > "Veral" Wallace: your pathetic attempts at intelligence gathering are
> > just that... pathetic.
>
> You are supposedly the webmaster AND security director of the LMT, are
> you not? For someone who posted perverted ideas with monotonous
> regularity, that is quite a development.
Not unlike the regularity which you post attacks on Grady, Keith,
and Bob, about how they're not worth the effort to reply to?
> Nontheless, they are TWO distinctly different positions. And your
> fixation on a "Veral" Wallace when responding to postings indicates
> that you may be suffering from a bipolar schizophrenic personality
> phobia which expresses itself in the interpretation of double faced
> values in all aspects of your life. Go and get one for real.
One what? Dead space alien spirit?
Your name may well be Vera, or at least one of the people who
post using the "mw...@my-deja.com" address might be named "Vera."
There might be a "Marty Rathbun" posting using that account,
too. There is no way of knowing which person is really "hatted"
to reply as "Michael Wallace," so you shouldn't be surprised
when someone mocks your pseudonym.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBOIiuWLztfgpKlX7qEQKVugCfQS1EIVSqw4w0zZcrPZ+mFNKo31oAnj4b
clQm7O52L5gcG675cU0QRA2t
=txaB
Joe's Garage
From Dr. Joseph Winter (http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/e510000.htm):
In July, 1949 I received a long letter from Mr. Campbell, in which he told
me of some investigations in which he thought I might be interested. He
told me that "L. Ron Hubbard, who happens to be an author, has been doing
some psychological research. . . . He's gotten important results. His
approach is, actually, based on some very early work of Freud's, some work
of other men, and a lot of original research. He's not a professional
psychoanalyst or psychiatrist . . . . . he's basically an engineer. He
approached the problem of psychiatry from the heuristic viewpoint -- to
get results. . . . . The following are conclusions he's derived.
"Basically, Hubbard finds, all psychological troubles stem from a
situation somewhere containing the following simple elements:
1.Strong physical pain.
2.A powerful threat (real or so believed by the organism) to the
survival of the organism.
3.A non-analytic state of the brain. This - and only this - type of
situation will implant a psychological jam which he calls an
'Impediment.'
"The important thing, he finds, is that most serious psychological jams
stem from some basic painful, dangerous experience when the subject was
unconscious or incapable of conscious, analytical thought.
"The important part of the unconscious experience is this: the analytical,
evaluational functions of the mind are not in gear. A statement made under
those circumstances is accepted timelessly, and without evaluation for
truth, reasonableness, or anything else. Here's the sort of thing that
happens:
"An amputee veteran, with loss of one foot and slight impairment of one
hand is in a hopeless despondency condition -- just can't adjust. The
psychiatrist takes him back to the war experience with sodium pentothal,
back to the time the mortar shell got him. Pain, and plenty of it -- badly
smashed left arm and leg, a number of painful, but relatively minor wounds
of body and face on that side. Makes him look like a bloody mess, though.
They take him through, to the period when he passed out, and pick up again
when he recovered consciousness in the aid station. Doesn't seem to clear
him up. He still insists he'd be better off dead.
"Hubbard took him through, through the shell burst, and through the period
of unconsciousness. That's when it happened. A medic had come along, seen
him and another injured man, said, 'This guy's hopeless -- he's better off
dead anyway. We'll take that man there.' A second medic team had brought
the patient in; he was badly injured, but nowhere near as bad as he
looked.
"With the conscious mind out of the circuit, a man loses the power of
evaluation, but not the power of memory. But he reacts on a lower-animal
basis. The stimulus is intense pain, acute danger -- and the calculating
machine in the skull, half a billion years ago, was designed to permit
mammals to learn to avoid danger. It classifies and remembers all
associated circumstances -- not all relevant circumstances -- as part of
the danger incident, and reacts powerfully to it. It's a timeless thing,
too; the statement 'He's better off dead anyhow' would, in a conscious
mind, be interpreted as 'He appears from here, and right now, as though he
might be better off dead.' and a conscious mind would evaluate and reject
it. The unconscious mind can't evaluate. But it records with the accuracy
and permanence of a phonograph."
------------------------------------------
Sounds like "Dr." Hubbard had been poking around in the psychiatric ward,
making helpful suggestions for the nut cases. That might explain his
later abhorence of "squirreling."
Joe C., escaped Scientology white slave turned pro-critic Rambo
"If you think the problem with Scientology is bad now,
just wait until we find out what it is."
http://members.tripod.com/cic_ops/counter_warfare
Steve A
> In article <497c8ssu082pdmrac...@4ax.com>,
> gr...@gradyward.com wrote:
> > >
> > >BTW why are you not posting from lmt.inc? Your application was
> accepted
> > >you know, so you should have access to your email address. Or does
> the
> > >trust not have enough funds?
>
> > "Veral" Wallace: your pathetic attempts at intelligence gathering are
> > just that... pathetic.
>
> You are supposedly the webmaster AND security director of the LMT, are
> you not? For someone who posted perverted ideas with monotonous
> regularity, that is quite a development.
I cannot see how the one is anything to do with the other. Grady has
only shown himself _capable_ of posts containing "perverted ideas"
(you prude), he hasn't demonstrated that he is incapable of posting
other kinds of posts. Furthermore, if you could see past what your
masters tell you about Grady, you'd find out that he's *admirably*
qualified to advise on matters relating to security, especially
involving computers. After all, even Scientology spent a lot of money
trying to find out what was on his computers. And failed. No OT's
there, then.
> Nontheless, they are TWO distinctly different positions. And your
> fixation on a "Veral" Wallace when responding to postings indicates
> that you may be suffering from a bipolar schizophrenic personality
> phobia which expresses itself in the interpretation of double faced
> values in all aspects of your life. Go and get one for real.
No, Grady's "Veral Wallace" allusions are a comment on the rash of
allegedly distinct individuals who post here from time to time,
inevitably forgetting at some point to make sure the sig line matches
up with the email address. Indeed, it is rare for Scientology to have
someone post here who *is* who he says, and isn't either forging a
critic's identity or masquerading as several people.
The possibility of your being Vera Wallace, Princess of Pique, is not
all that remote. For that matter, you might even be tiny David
Miscavige, except that your posts appear a little too far up the
screen for that to be likely.
Stacy Brooks
<thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Hello AnOn;
[snip]
Dear AnOn,
My apologies for the delay in responding to you. I've been off the
newsgroup for several days because of all the things that have to be
done to get the LMT up and running. I hope you don't mind if I answer
you even though I'm late, and please, in the future if I don't respond
right away please bear with me. Sometimes I'm not as fast as I should
be on this newsgroup :-(
I never did get your original post except as attached to ThomLove's,
so I have to respond to you as part of Thom's post, if you don't mind.
First I want to comment on what ThomLove said:
>
>It is impossible to 'reform' the CofS from the inside. As you well know,
>you are forbidden to even question any CofS policy or activity. To
>actually go so far as to 'disagree' gets you sent to the word clearer at
>best. To actually state a disagreement, gets you sent to ethics at best.
>To take a stand that something is 'wrong' and needs to be fixed, gets
>you Declared SP, at the very best.
I totally agree with what Thom says here. I found it utterly
impossible to get any of the execs to hear me. All they could hear was
that I was "disaffected" or "PTS" or "First Dynamic Oriented" or "in
Treason." Not even the possibility that perhaps I might have a valid
point. Never once did ANYONE ever actually say to me, "Hey, Stacy,
maybe we'd better look into these things. If you're right, we've got a
problem here." This was the case in every Scientology organization I
was a part of -- Peter Green's mission in Atlanta, AOLA, the US GO,
ASI, ITS, and OSA.
>
>It is a CofS ser fac.
Yes, it is.
>
>I can't speak for Stacy, but I saw many, many things while in the CofS
>that I found uncomfortable. I was unaware of any actual crimes or any of
>the criticisms of the CofS since in the CofS environment, such things
>don't exist. They sure were never discussed if anyone knew of them. It
>is not until coming here, and reading the links available, not the posts
>themselves, that was quite the eye-opener. I'm a much 'better'
>Scientologist as a result of being here.
>
Thom, I think that's so great that you're actually here and looking at
both sides of the coin. You are courageous to do so. I am curious to
know if you are currently on lines? Are you telling the org that you
are on a.r.s.? If so, what has the org's response been? I will be so
glad to hear it if you tell me that you are openly on a.r.s. and
continuing your auditing without being sent to ethics for subjecting
yourself to the critics on a.r.s.
Now I'll respond to AnOn's post (and again, AnOn, forgive me for my
delay):
>
>An0n wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stacy Brooks,
Hi AnOn,
>>
>> I have some real problems believing some of what you say in your post. The
>> biggest out point is that you claim to be an "ethical scietologist" in PT.
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "When I left the C of S and the Sea Org I did so because I felt it was
>> the only way to continue to be an ethical Scientologist."
I'm not a Scientologist in PT, AnOn. I have said at various times that
I felt I couldn't continue to work for Miscavige as an ethical
Scientologist, and that I finally felt I had to leave the Sea Org and,
therefore, the Church of Scientology, because I felt I would have to
do things that I considered to be unethical if I stayed. When I left
the Church in 1989 I was still a Scientologist. But I haven't been a
Scientologist for several years now. Let me tell you the rest of the
story.
When Vaughn and I left the Sea Org we were both dedicated
Scientologists. But the heavy-handed thug tactics of Miscavige and his
people shattered our commitment and made it utterly impossible for us
to continue to aid and abet them. In January or February of 1989
Vaughn was physically beaten by Norman Starkey, then Executive
Director of ASI, for asking for an order in writing so that he could
query it. As you know, to ask for an order in writing so that it can
be queried is straight out of the policy letter Orders, Query of. But
the response Vaughn got to this on-policy request was to be physically
beaten for being "insubordinate."
Marion Dendiu was the Org Officer at ASI at the time and she witnessed
the beating. After it was over and Norman had stalked out of the room,
Marion took Vaughn to her office and told him he was in a lower
condition for having upset Norman so badly. This is typical of the
attitude of these people who are now running the Church of
Scientology.
The next day Vaughn went to the Scientology clinic, Shaw Health
Center, and was examined by Dr. Gene Denk. Vaughn didn't tell Denk
what had happened, of course. One never reveals that such things are
going on in the inner circle of Scientology management. Vaughn told
Denk that he had fallen, to explain the bruises on his chest. Denk
said he had heart damage from the trauma and that he needed to be very
careful, to keep his level of stress very low, to allow it to heal or
he would risk a heart attack.
Vaughn didn't tell me what had happened at first, because Norman and
Marion both ordered him not to. So all I knew was that one night
Vaughn came home totally broken, sobbing, in pain, asking me to listen
to his heart to see if it sounded OK. In fact it sounded very erratic
and it frightened me so much that I wanted him to call 911
immediately. But he refused, and acted terrified at the idea of
telling anyone what was wrong with him.
Even though he didn't tell me what had happened, I could tell that he
had been terrorized in some way. I recognized the symptoms from my own
experience at ASI earlier.
Vaughn was put on MEST work at ASI, cleaning the kitchen, washing the
walls, you know. The usual stuff. He wasn't allowed to drive. Someone
drove him to and from the office every day. We had a guard posted
outside our door every night. Vaughn acted like a totally broken man.
He wouldn't speak to me about anything that was going on, and I didn't
ask, because I knew he would tell me when he felt he could.
Finally about three weeks later he came home one night and told me. He
whispered, because he was afraid our room was bugged. In fact, after
we had been out for several years we learned from someone who had been
there that Miscavige had indeed bugged our room in those final months,
so Vaughn was right to be concerned about it. Vaughn told me about the
beating, and then he told me he had told Marion that he wanted to
route off staff. Then I understood why he was under guard 24 hours a
day. With the information Vaughn had, he was considered a high
security risk.
I was glad he wanted to route off staff because I wanted to as well. I
had wanted to since I was sent to the RPF in 1982, but I wasn't
willing to leave without Vaughn because I was afraid Miscavige would
force Vaughn to divorce me. Vaughn wouldn't be able to be in the Sea
Org if I routed out, and it is common practice for people to be
ordered to divorce a spouse who either leaves the Sea Org or refuses
to join. (This is how Linda and Neal Hamel ended up divorced, for
example.)
But Vaughn said he wasn't making any progress on the routing out
routing form, and when he said that I knew that something was up. He
continued to do MEST work every day at ASI and I was basically put
under house arrest at OSA Int. No one ever said so but at the same
time Vaughn had originated wanting to route off staff I had suddenly
been called by my senior at OSA Int, Debbie Rossouw, and told that I
needed to work over at her office for a while. She said it was because
of some writing projects that needed to be done, but there was no
reason why I needed to be at OSA Int for that so I knew something was
wrong. When Vaughn told me he had originated wanting to route out I
understood why I was being kept at OSA Int every day.
I stayed on my best behavior, because I knew that if I let on in any
way that I was in agreement with Vaughn's desire to leave staff, they
would separate us and we wouldn't be able to talk to each other at
all. An eval had just been done and one of the steps of the handling
was to move the Freedom office to OSA Int. In order to do that, all
the Freedom staff, including Tom Whittle, Richard Wieland and me,
would have to get Int qualified. For me to be Int qualled I would have
to divorce Vaughn if he left the Sea Org, since you can't be married
to a non-SO member if you are at the Int level.
So every day Carol Martiniano would check with me about how Vaughn and
I were doing. I kept saying everything was fine and acting like I
didn't know anything. Then finally one night I was at OSA Int and
Carol came running into the office and said that the IG was on the
phone for me. The IG was the Inspector General, Greg Wilhere. It was
highly unusual for the IG to skip channels down to OSA Int at all,
much less to call for a lowly person like me. So all the OSA Int execs
were bug-eyed and everybody wanted to know what was up. I had a good
idea what was up, but I didn't say anything.
Greg told me to meet him and Vaughn at Gorky's, a restaurant a few
blocks away. OSA Int was in the management building on Hollywood Blvd,
so this meant I was going to be walking in downtown Hollywood alone at
10:00 at night, not a safe thing to do at all. But I had no choice. I
took off my little black tie and my SO jacket and rolled up my sleeves
to try to look as much like a normal person as possible, and walked to
Gorky's.
There were Greg and Vaughn at a booth. Right away I knew something was
wrong. I sat down next to Vaughn and Greg gave me a look that said,
"You better cooperate." Vaughn had obviously been crying but was now
acting manic -- very excited and happy. "Stacy," he said, "Greg and I
have been talking all afternoon. He came down from Int just to talk to
me and help me. Isn't that great?"
I knew damn well it wasn't great, that Greg was down there on
Miscavige's orders to get Vaughn straightened out. But I glanced at
Greg and he had his TRs totally on me, and I knew I was being tested.
Vaughn said, "Stacy, Greg wants me to go to Int with him tonight to
get on a handling program, so I can get some auditing to handle all
the charge about what happened with Norman."
Ah, I thought. That's what's happening. They want Vaughn where they
can keep him under total control, and they want him away from me.
"But Stacy," Vaughn continued, "I told Greg I won't go with him unless
you say it's OK. What do you think?"
Vaughn didn't realize it but he was putting me in a totally untenable
position. If I said no, I didn't think he should go, I'd be in
terrible trouble. Greg was still watching me, aware of the position
Vaughn was putting me in. I thought it was a terrible idea for Vaughn
to go with Greg, but I also could tell that Vaughn was still under
Greg's control and not ready to say, "No, I want to leave and I want
Stacy to come with me." He was still under their control. My job was
to wait till he was totally ready to leave, without any possibility of
being talked back in as Greg had just done to him.
So I said, without skipping a beat, "Well I think that's great,
Vaughn, for you to go to Int with him."
Silently I wished we could run out of the restaurant and never look
back, but I knew Vaughn wasn't ready to do that yet, and I knew we'd
be separated if I said anything but what I had said.
Greg is a very smooth-talking guy. He had Vaughn totally back under
his control and he had done it really skillfully. Now he casually
suggested that Vaughn should ride with him rather than me to go to the
Complex to get his things. So there was not a moment when Vaughn and I
were allowed to be alone from the time I saw him in the restaurant
until he and Greg drove away from the horseshoe entrance of the Main
Bldg at the Complex.
After Vaughn was taken away I was watched even more closely, and the
closer they watched me the more I acted like I was a happy, dedicated
staff member. I knew if I made any indication at all that I was also
disaffected, they would cut the line between Vaughn and me. Part of my
program to get Int qualled was to get through OT5, so I was getting
NOTs auditing every day and every day Carol Martiniano, the DCO
Internal OSA Int, was trying to persuade me to divorce Vaughn. "He's
going to hold you back, Stacy, if he routes off staff. You have so
much potential as an exec, but you know you won't be able to go any
further as long as you're married to him," she would say to me.
I just kept saying, "I'm sure he's going to come through this and stay
on staff. There's no need for us to discuss whether or not I'm going
to divorce him." And meanwhile, I was just waiting for Vaughn to get
out from under the control of Greg, DM and the others. But it wasn't
something I could do anything about; it was going to have to be
something Vaughn would come to on his own. All I could do was wait
for him.
I didn't want my auditor to get in trouble though. There is a policy
that if an auditor misses a withhold on a pc they are immediately
sent to the RPF. My auditor was really nice and I didn't want her to
be sent to the RPF because of me. So I pretended to have a big win in
session one day and made my TA float so she would C/S me to take time
off for my win.
Then I settled down to wait for Vaughn to let me know he was ready to
go. Every night between midnight and three in the morning someone
would come and knock on my door and I would have to get out of bed and
go up to the in-house attorney unit on the fourth floor of the ASHO
building to take a phone call from Mike Sutter. And every night it was
the same routine. He wanted to check on me to make sure I was
continuing to stay in line, and he wanted me to tell him what Vaughn
was saying to me on the phone. Basically I was supposed to be spying
on Vaughn for him, but I didn't do it. Vaughn was confiding in me and
it was none of Mike Sutter's business what he was saying to me. But I
didn't tell Mike that. I told Mike exactly what he wanted to hear,
which was that Vaughn was doing great on his program and I was sure he
would be back on post and producing in no time.
On a Wednesday afternoon Vaughn called to say he'd see me soon. He
didn't say anything else, but I knew what was going to happen.
The next few days were surreal for me. We had a Freedom submission
due, and I got the whole thing done ahead of schedule practically
single-handedly. I got it into the mail pack Saturday afternoon.
Vaughn called that evening to say he had gotten an approval to come
down the next day, Sunday, to see me. He didn't say anything else, and
I didn't ask any questions. I knew he'd explain everything when I saw
him.
The next morning he arrived and we took a drive down to Hermosa Beach.
On the way down there Vaughn told me what had happened up at Int.
He had been put on a repair program and Gelda Mithoff had been
assigned to audit him. Ray Mithoff was his C/S, and Greg Wilhere was
coming to see him every day to find out how he was doing. Everyone
left him alone. He was allowed to do whatever he wanted, and no one
ever told him to do any work or anything. Clearly they were worried
about what had happened and were trying their best to get Vaughn happy
again and back in the fold. But Vaughn wasn't changing his mind this
time about wanting to leave. Their pampering and cajoling weren't
working this time.
Finally one day when Greg Wilhere came to see him, Vaughn said his
auditing was fine, but when was he going to get started on his routing
out routing form? He had been at Int for two months and no one had
even mentioned his routing out.
He said Greg looked at him and said, "But Vaughn, you know we're not
going to let you leave."
Vaughn told me that when Greg said that he finally realized that he
was never going to be able to follow the standard policies for a
leaving staff member. They just weren't going to allow it. He said
Greg went on to talk about how valuable he was as a staff member, and
to say how much he had contributed, etc., etc. But Vaughn said that
for him, when Greg told him they weren't going to let him leave, all
Vaughn could think was, "Oh, really? You're not going to let me go?
Watch me."
After that, Vaughn became a model pc. He sailed through the rest of
his Int handling. He told his auditor he had cognited on what had been
wrong and now he was totally ready to get back to post and begin
producing again. Everything was fine. He convinced everyone that he
was totally handled. He attested to his Int Repair on Saturday
afternoon. On Sunday morning he got a CSW approved to come see me. Now
we were driving toward Hermosa Beach. Vaughn turned to me and said,
"Listen, I have to get out of here. Will you come with me?"
It was the first time he had ever talked to me about leaving. He was
obviously scared to death about what I was going to do. I was totally
surprised that he didn't already know how I felt, but then I realized
that we had never been able to talk openly to each other about how we
felt.
"Vaughn," I said, "of course I'll come with you."
He was so relieved he had to pull over to the side of the road. We
hugged each other and cried. Then we looked at each other and realized
the enormity of what we were contemplating. To blow was tantamount to
committing suicide, really. We would be declared SPs. We would be
banned from the tech. We would be out in the no-man's-land of the wog
world with no friends, no support, no way to get any auditing.
It was a horrifying future to contemplate, but it was better than
staying in the Sea Org and being subjected to any more lies,
deception, hypocrisy and abuse. Even being condemned to live in the
wog world was better than being under the control of David Miscavige
and his people.
AnOn, I'm telling you this story to try to give you a reality about
what I experienced that led me to leave the Church of Scientology. I
found myself in the untenable position of having to choose between
violating my own Code of Honor or violating the morality of David
Miscavige's Sea Org. I found myself having to choose between my own
second and third dynamics. I felt that I was being forced to make
choices that no one should be asked to make. Finally I chose to keep
my own counsel, as the Code of Honor says.
And so I left. I can't tell you exactly when it happened that I
realized I wasn't a Scientologist any more. Vaughn and I didn't talk
to each other about Scientology for nearly two years after we left. We
didn't want to natter, and we didn't want to do anything that would
come up on our sec checks when we got back on lines, some time in the
future when Miscavige was no longer in charge. So we didn't say a word
to each other for a long time.
Then finally one day we realized that there was no reason why we
couldn't talk to each other about anything we wanted, and it began to
occur to us that there was something terribly wrong with an
organization that could curtail our freedom of speech to such an
outrageous degree. We began to talk about our experiences, and we
began to enjoy exercising our basic rights, rights that we hadn't had
when we were in the Sea Org.
When we got out we didn't know anyone or any organization that could
help us. Maybe if we had known about other Scientologists who had also
left, and if we had hooked up with them, things would be different
now. Maybe I would still be a Scientologist. I guess I'll never know.
All I can tell you is that the level of abuse and deception I was
subjected to in the Sea Org was so horrific for me that it has made it
very difficult for me to be able to separate out my feelings about the
Sea Org from my feelings about Scientology in general. So I have
distanced myself from it altogether as an alternative for me.
For a while I was very bitter about Scientology and very much against
it generally. But in the past year I have been contacted by a number
of people who are current Scientologists and who are really good and
ethical people, and who feel the same way I do about the abuses that
need to be reformed.
So I find that I am continuing to rethink and re-evaluate my views of
Scientology. I respect people like Safe and others who are genuinely
willing to respect other people's points of view, something I never
was allowed to do when I was a Scientologist.
I do strive to be an ethical and humane person, to help people as much
as I can, and to be compassionate as much as I can be. I was never
urged to be compassionate when I was a Scientologist. I was only urged
to be productive and not to do anything that would harm Scientology.
But I was never urged to be compassionate or to help others for no
other reason than than they needed help, even if it wouldn't help my
stats. I don't think I am perfect, and I know I have made mistakes.
But I try to learn from my mistakes and gain humility to try to be a
better person.
And one thing I am sure of is this: to get Miscavige's Church of
Scientology to reform their abusive and deceptive practices would be a
positive contribution toward making this world a more humane place to
live. That's why I'm doing what I'm doing.
>>
>> This is what I believe:
>>
>> If you at one time were an ethical scientologist, then you no doubt
>> recognized when that stopped being true. At that time, if you tried
>> putting ethics in on yourself, without using actual tech of ethics, your
>> "handling" of your out ethics situation would put you exactly where you
>> are. . .charging that something was done to you which justifed your
>> out-ethics action.
I understand that this is the view of Miscavige's Church of
Scientology toward anyone who does anything that is not in keeping
with the rules and regulations of Miscavige's Church of Scientology.
May I suggest that there are real abuses being perpetrated by these
people and that you as a Scientologist in good standing need to take
responsibility for getting ethics in on your leadership. You need to
confront the fact that these people are abusing their power and
hurting people. I am just asking you to consider this.
>>
>> I apologize to any scientologist reading this who will have to read all
>> the attacks and Pretty Rotten Tnings which will no doubt be levied here
>> agianst me and my beliefs. I'm sure both will be quickly ridiculed,
>> complete with "clam" comments, scoffing, and as much entheta as can be
>> packed in a punch.
>>
AnOn, I will never attack your beliefs. You are free to believe
whatever you choose and I have no right to question your belief
system. But I do have the right to challenge anyone who violates or
threatens my rights or the rights of others. That is all I am saying,
and I think when it really comes down to it, that is all anyone else
is saying either.
>> Stacy Brooks, I do not mean to attack you, but in the reading I have done
>> here, you have never before made such a claim. (the ethical Scientologist
>> in PT claim) I would be interested to hear what people like Safe think on
>> the topic. I also wonder what the Critics--the people who continually
>> mock scientology and scientologists-- think of you being an ethical
>> scientologist in PT.
I hope I have clarified this for you now. I am not a Scientologist in
PT and have never claimed that I was.
>>
>> It raises some questions. Do you believe then, in the OT levels? What
>> does Arnie Lerma think of that if you do?
No, AnOn, I don't believe in the OT levels.
>>
>> You also say:
>> "I realize this sounds impossible to many good and ethical
>> Scientologists, especially after what Miscavige and his people have
>> told you about me. (...)I found myself in ethics trouble repeatedly for
>> protecting
>> standard tech against Miscavige's direct orders to me to use the tech
>> to hurt people."
>>
>> Can you give any examples please? I am most interested in any examples of
>> standard tech which were potentially used to hurt people. And yes, I have
>> not heard many positive things said about you. Ditto for this newsgroup.
>> Regarding the newsgroup, most all of what I've been told is true.
I just reposted a message a few days ago which detailed a number of
specific instances when I was ordered to use the tech to hurt people.
If you missed that post let me know and I will repost it again for
you.
>>
>> I actually logged on here because someone (not a scientologist) who knew I
>> was a scientologist, read ars and saw the Dorian posts. He asked me about
>> them, and for a long time I did nothing. Then I started reading them, and
>> the newsgroup itself. Pretty bad, and actually even worse than I had been
>> led to believe! How does this Dorian fit into your beliefs? I read it,
>> and frankly, I think you and Bob Minton are completely lying about this
>> person existing, and the walled room, and all that rot. How does such a
>> lie, such a series of lies and misrepresentations, fit into your PT
>> ethical scientologist beliefs? Do the people here have such short
>> memories? Do they just take at face value what money can buy?
AnOn, I have posted my views earlier about the Dorian material. Some
of what I read gave me some insights about my experience in
Scientology, that's all. I don't really want to make it a big issue
with you. It's not a big issue for me.
>>
>> I did not mean to take such a tone, but yes, this is very offensive to me.
>> And, contrary to what most people on ars seem to beleive, I have very
>> strong critical thinking skills and hold high standards for my beliefs.
>> (Come on critics, let me have it for this one! Dis my religion, call me a
>> moron, a clam, a bivalve, a cult member, a deluded adherent, stupid,
>> naive. . .I'm sure you'll think of more ;o} ...that's me trying to be
>> jovial Safe. It's hard to not be serious though, about something very
>> impt to my life.)
I don't mind your tone, AnOn, and I'm glad you have strong critical
thinking skills and hold high standards for your beliefs. I'm not
going to let you have it for saying that, and I'm not going to dis
your religion. I would like to have an open forum for discussion of
these topics with you and other Scientologists.
>>
>> I can believe that you became a scientologist for good reasons. Ihave no
>> reason not to believe you about that. Scientology draws people who want
>> to make the world a better place. (OK critics, hit me some more for that
>> one!...I"m trying to create affinity here Safe, as you suggested, with a
>> little smile and a good attitude ;o} )
I probably became a Scientologist for the same reasons you did, AnOn.
I did want to make the world a better place. I still do.
>>
>> Stacy Brooks, you say you tried to change things from the inside...how did
>> you try to do that? Did you use standard ethics/conditions tech to do so?
>> If indeed you applied them correctly, that should have worked, right? As
>> an ethical scientologist, you believe that, correct?
I tried Knowledge Reports, standard ethics, standard tech, everything
I knew of to bring about change. And yes, if I applied them correctly
they should have worked, but they didn't. That was the problem.
>>
>> Safe doesn't believe that you are trying to Reform Scientology, but
>> there's a whole string of posts with that heading, and many by you. Are
>> you trying to Reform Scientology?
I am trying to get the Church of Scientology to reform its abusive and
deceptive practices, AnOn. That is what I am trying to do.
>>
>> Has Bob Minton read anything by LRH? Safe didn't know.
Yes, Bob has read a lot of LRH material, actually.
>>
>> It seemed very benevolent of you to supply your phone numbers and offer to
>> talk to me, but I think you did so knowing that there is no way in the
>> world that I can do so. Maybe someone else who reads all this will, so it
>> was a positive gesture anyway.
But why is there no way in the world that you can do so, AnOn? Please
do call me. Call me collect if you need to. You have every right to
call me if you want to.
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions for Safe. It
>> seems a win that you invited him to be on the advisory board of the LMT.
>> I hope the other board members can be respectful of his beliefs. From my
>> vantage point tho, that seems very unlikely.
No, on the contrary, I think it's important for everyone on the board
to respect the beliefs of Scientologists. No one has the right to
dictate anyone else's beliefs. The only aspects of the Church of
Scientology that the LMT is concerned with are the abusive and
deceptive aspects. I hope Safe will work with us, as I hope you will.
>>
>> The critics here, or most of them anyway, claim to be for religios freedom
>> and say that it is not the belief system they are chastizing and
>> ridiculing. I'd like to ask you if you think that is true. Before you do
>> though, re-read some recent posts by Arnie Lerma, Captain Nerd, dave bird,
>> and roger gonnert, among others.
I think most of the critics feel they are chastising the practices
they feel are abusive. Perhaps there are some gray areas where one
person might consider something a belief and another person considers
it a practice. It would be good to have an open forum on that subject,
I think.
>>
>> So again, thank you. As I said, I read this newsgroup not too frequently,
>> but will look for any responses you might provide.
I hope you will find some of what I have said here interesting. And
again, I'm sorry it took me so long to respond but I hope I will hear
back from you!
Stacy
Mike O'Connor
[...]
>And your fixation on a "Veral" Wallace when responding to postings
>indicates that you may be suffering from a bipolar schizophrenic
>personality phobia
[...]
Holy cow, you sure seem extra upset! Is Vera your grandma or something?
You know, you sound just like a psychiatrist when you make those diagnoses
of yours. Is that the impression you wanted to give?
--
Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com>
<http://www.leptonicsystems.com>
Mike O'Connor
>>> "Veral" Wallace: your pathetic attempts at intelligence gathering are
>>> just that... pathetic.
>>
>>You are supposedly the webmaster AND security director of the LMT, are
>>you not? For someone who posted perverted ideas with monotonous
>>regularity, that is quite a development.
>>
>>Nontheless, they are TWO distinctly different positions. And your
>>fixation on a "Veral" Wallace when responding to postings indicates
>>that you may be suffering from a bipolar schizophrenic personality
>>phobia which expresses itself in the interpretation of double faced
>>values in all aspects of your life. Go and get one for real.
>
>I'll bet you don't even realize how hilarious this posting is! It's
>priceless!
>
>Anyone have any doubts about what the next few significant events will
>be, just before Veral goes silent?
I'm pretty sure he is about to insist his butt is NOT fat...
Joe's Garage
[...]
People have written that you can't have brainwashing without *physical*
pain or the threat of *physical* pain, yet pain, physical or otherwise, is
merely a side-effect of producing something more powerful: shame of self,
the feeling that something is wrong that nobody else can understand.
As abusive husbands say of their ex-wives, "Aw she didn't know how to
satisfy a man (and she couldn't cook, either)," Scientology says of its
former members, "Aw they didn't know how to be faithful (and there's only
a couple dozen of them, anyway)."
Suffering pain is nothing to be ashamed of. If you did not have pain, you
would not be alive.
Neither is being a slave anything to be ashamed of. Former POWs/ex-slaves
are just as committed to freedom as is everyone else.
e...@some.where
<stacybrooks@mciworld> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is what I believe:
> >>
> >> If you at one time were an ethical scientologist, then you no doubt
> >> recognized when that stopped being true. At that time, if you tried
> >> putting ethics in on yourself, without using actual tech of ethics, your
> >> "handling" of your out ethics situation would put you exactly where you
> >> are. . .charging that something was done to you which justifed your
> >> out-ethics action.
>
> I understand that this is the view of Miscavige's Church of
> Scientology toward anyone who does anything that is not in keeping
> with the rules and regulations of Miscavige's Church of Scientology.
> May I suggest that there are real abuses being perpetrated by these
> people and that you as a Scientologist in good standing need to take
> responsibility for getting ethics in on your leadership. You need to
> confront the fact that these people are abusing their power and
> hurting people. I am just asking you to consider this.
there is a serious fallacy in your argument:
mr. miscavage did not the church of scientology make. the "church" of
scientology was started by one mr. hubbard. and the organization was
equally fascistic when *he* was its fearsome leader. scientology, as a
belief system, is all about control - initially about ones own emotions
(the 'tech' of dianetics), and by inference, those of others (the
'tech' of the "church). there are, of course, other implications but
this it is at its most basic.
the fact that you were treated despicably by the organization is no
surprise, nor should it be. but the responsibility for that should be
placed where it belongs: mr. miscavage is but a product of...
scientology.
and now to the "respect beliefs" illogicalities, so popular hereabouts:
those poor heavensgate fucks that offed themselves for imaginary
spaceships... believed. i won't bother with other examples as my point
is made; "beliefs" are indeed to be questioned as more often than not
they are but imagination rampant.
-ef
Fredric Xenu L. Xenu Rxenu ixenu cxenu exenu Xenu
>On 20 Jan 2000 10:31:30 -0800, Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
><Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <38873476...@enews.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
>>[snip]
>>>The author provides a reference for this statement -- "Neuropsychiatry
>>>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>>>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>>>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>>>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>>>was doing it.
>>>Diane Richardson
>>>ref...@bway.net
>> if you actually did , it would be the first worthwhile thing you have
>>done in 4 years.
>Instead of tossing out ad hominem remarks like this, why not
>be honest about your affiliation with the Liberty Lobby and
>Willis Carto?
Instead of pretending his accurate summation of your behavior is
some how a personal attack, why not explain your behavior?
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP4
The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
Scientology Criminals: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/csindex.htm
What the Scientology cult doesn't want you to know: http://www.xenu.net/
Dave Bird
>ref...@bway.net wrote:
>>On 20 Jan 2000 10:31:30 -0800, Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>wrote:
>>>In article <38873476...@enews.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
>>>>
>>>>in World War II, vol. II, Overseas Theatres" (Washington, DC: US GPO,
>>>>1973). I believe I can locate a copy of this government publication.
>>>>If so, I'll see how frequently this was done and if there was any
>>>>chance that Hubbard may have been hospitalized at a facility that
>>>>was doing it.
>>>
>>>done in 4 years.
>>
>>Instead of tossing out ad hominem remarks like this, why not
>>be honest about your affiliation with the Liberty Lobby and
>>Willis Carto?
>
>Instead of pretending his accurate summation of your behavior is
>some how a personal attack, why not explain your behavior?
Indeed. Has the Liberty Lobby killed anyone deliberately, or by
neglect? if not, the Diane's behaviour in siding with the Chruch
of $cientology is a damn site worse than Arnie being involved with
the Liberty Lobby, and she better account for HERSELF first.
course I don't know how bad the Liberty Lobby is: is may even
openly advocate concentrations camps where its opponents can be
"collected and destroyed" to "dispose of them quietly and without
sorrow", though I doubt it has the power and size to have carried
this out yet in practice. Does its leader write in expulsion
documents that defectors "need injecting with of four ounces of lead
next time any member sees them" even though nobody has (yet) done it?
Kristi Wachter
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 jewels...@hotmail.com wrote:
> This is my first post here and I'm trying to sort some things out for
> myself - so bear with me. No particular reason for my first post being
> on this thread - it just seemed a good place to start. First, a little
> history.
Glad to have you here.
> first thing I opened was "Answers for Scientology Kids" and I was
> actually immediately offended and thought that this guy really IS nuts
> and an SP. The truth is my kids are awesome, honest and ethical beyond
> belief - and I don't need someone talking to my kids like that. They
> get plenty of time from me, etc.
I'm glad your kids are doing well and that you have a good relationship
with them.
About a month ago, I saw a young Scientologist distributing personality
tests on Market Street. I spoke with her briefly, and she said she'd been
a Scientologist for most (all?) of her life; she's 15 now. To use Scn
terms, she was higher-toned and had better confront than many of the adult
Scientologists I've spoken with. (On the other hand, I wasn't decked out
in picket regalia or carrying suppressive signage, so maybe that accounts
for the difference.)
> But, it isn't my intention here to waste a lot of time with what I
> agree with or not on his or other's sites.
Understood - but I hope that, if you come across something in particular
that you think is inaccurate, I hope you'll let us (or at least the
creator of the site) know. I actively solicit corrections on practically
every page of my site, and I think most others who have
Scientology-related web sites are also very interested in knowing if
there's incorrect information on their sites.
> For some reason I stayed on
> the site longer and read more of the links out of sheer curiosity. You
> know what hit me between the eyes first?? The alleged lies about
> Hubbard. I grappled with that for quite some time. The seemingly well-
> documented war history and medical records of Hubbard by Chris Owen and
> others hit me. For the last 6 weeks I have read and viewed practically
> everything I could find (at least there) and some on the Freezone site
> and elsewhere.
Chris's work is amazing.
Indeed, there's an astounding amount of excellent research at a number of
different sites.
> I only yesterday found out about deja.com and ars here. I had read
> about ars, but am a dummy when it comes to newsgroups. (Is this
> deja.com ars the same as the ars I've read about on other sites? Is
> there an easier way to access ars than this?)
One thing I'm not sure anyone's mentioned to you yet: one of the great
things about deja.com is that it archives past ars posts. On most
newsgroups, you only see the past few weeks' worth of messages; messages
"expire" over time and drop off the newsgroup. Deja.com archives these
messages, though, so you can go back and see what people were talking
about a year ago, or two years ago. If you find a person posting to ars
that you think makes a lot of sense, you can read that person's past posts
at deja.com.
You can also use deja.com to see first-hand the forged spam - the
"sporgery" - that flooded the newsgroup in the past. Thankfully, the
sporgery flood has stopped, but the evidence of it lives on at deja.com.
> for critics to hit on the issues of "UFO religion" and those materials
> that talk about that stuff is not taken with much credibility by your
> average Scientologist. That might make someone new to the subject or
> thinking about joining think twice, but it has no effect on a current
> member, in my humble opinion. You have to hit right into the face of
> the average member with truth and factual information, and not rhetoric
> and hate of the organization alone.
Personally, I'm mostly trying to reach people who haven't yet gotten
involved in Scientology, or those who have recently joined. I'm always
happy to talk with someone like you, who HAS been involved for a long
time, but you're not the main audience I'm trying to reach, for two
reasons: first, I respect your ability to decide for yourself what to
think, so I'm not trying to change your mind; and second, it's my
experience that long-time Scientologists are often unwilling to consider
that there really is a dark side to Scientology's history and actions, and
so they're often unwilling to communicate with me in any meaningful way.
I'm always delighted, though, when a Scientologist like yourself IS
willing to really look at the information that's out there and consider
the possibility that some of it - maybe even most of it - might be true.
> I personally am not "against" the subject of Scientology and a lot of
> what Hubbard wrote and lectured on. There IS a difference in that and
> what later became the organization. Too many people confuse the two
> and refute any good done by the subject because they can't see through
> the current organization and it's flaws. It is very true for me that
> much of the subject has merit and can help people. It is essentially
> making knowledge about man and his existence, etc. available to the
> common layman and out of the hands of so-called experts. I think the
> revelation and why Dianetics was such a hit is that "Hey, I myself can
> do something about my condition and the condition of others!! I don't
> have to be a victim anymore or depend upon the so-called experts." It
> just got quite a bit out of hand after that fact. Only my opinion
> though!!
I'm glad you chose to share your opinion here, and I'm glad you've had so
many good experiences with Scientology. I hope that, in addition to
embracing the parts of it that you find useful, you'll also be willing to
examine the organization's abusive acts, and even be willing to do
something about them.
> Also, just as a comment, I was at the "new years event" and it was very
> full. I don't know anything about numbers so I can't say that there
> were 14,000 or not. However, ALL the seats were not filled. Some
> still miss the point, and don't get the real significance, because you
> don't know the real truth behind the happenings. How many attending
> were org, mission and S.O. staff that HAD to be there? Ordered to be
> there. A lot of seats were filled by staff I'm sure. And the literal
> push and hype and constant confirming to fill the place up was mind-
> boggling. It is an out-point in itself that so much effort and very
> hard work has to go on to PUSH people to an event and fill it up.
> Weeks and months of work went into that. It would be very interesting
> to see what would happen at a major event if no heavy call-in was
> done. (To be honest, it was a disappointing event for me as it simply
> covered history for the 5 decades, and told nothing new for 3 hours.)
This, to me, is one of the more perplexing things about Scientology. If
Scientologists are truly self-determined, why the call-in and heavy
regging? Once a person has gone clear, why should that person ever be
regged again? Once the person has been informed that the organization is
always looking for money for various projects, surely he or she can then
make self-determined decisions about when and how much to donate. Regging
seems to invalidate self-determinism, to me.
> 5. Is there anyone that I can talk with, via e-mail or whatever, that I
> can trust to give true observable facts on some issues with Hubbard in
> his later years (70s and 80s)? I wanted to talk to someone who is not
> paid for working against the church. I heavily considered Vaughn
> Young, as I remember him from his days in the church and think I could
> believe him. But then I thought I read some controversy somewhere
> about Stacy leaving him and going off with this Minton fellow. Whats
> the story there? Credibility wanes with things like that. But then
> again, I admit I do not have any real data or facts either.
Two things: first of all, I hope you will think a bit more about whether
Vaughn's credibility has "waned" with the breakup of his marriage. I don't
think that has anything to do with his knowledge of Scientology or his
experiences with LRH. Can you state, specifically, what might make you
think less of Vaughn's credibility?
Second, I would be happy to talk with you in e-mail or here on the
newsgroup, if you wish. I'm not much of an expert on LRH, but if there are
other subjects that interest you that I might be able to help with, I'd be
happy to try to point you to useful web sites or answer your questions or
suggest additional perspectives on things, if you think that would help.
> I know one last truth that I did learn from Hubbard (1952). High
> ethics is high-toned. Serious is likely to be short on ethics. For
> those of you that know what I'm talking about, go read that quote
> again. And you can apply it in two ways. Look at how truly serious
> the church gets and then also realize how un-serious you need to be.
> The extreme seriousness and solidity is just another one of those out-
> points that I continually spotted about management (and seemingly
> Hubbard in his later years too, though someone refuted this on some web
> site I think) to make me really look for myself. You will be much more
> effective in your efforts if you are at the same time being honest
> through and through.
This is great - I don't recall ever seeing a Scientologist remark on the
importance of not taking things too seriously. (I think there's an
anecdote about Diana Hubbard saying, "If it's not fun, it's not
Scientology," and I have occasionally mentioned that to the Scientologists
picketing my home when they didn't seem to be much enjoying themselves.)
I agree with you, too, that it's important to be honest, and I think
that's one thing that LRH stressed. He even went so far as to say that
dishonest people have no rights. I personally wouldn't go that far - I
think EVERYONE has rights - but I also think honesty's very important, and
I think Scientology has damaged itself by repeatedly and demonstrably
lying. In fact, Scientology has been found to be lying in court - in the
Casey Hill case, in which Scientology was slapped with the biggest libel
fine in Canadian history, and in the Bonnie Woods case, in which
Scientology apologized in court for lying about Bonnie Woods.
> Sorry for going on so long. Not sure my long ramblings will make much
> of a first impression. And I'm sure that I am not saying anything new
> or revelatory here. There is a huge mound of postings and sites, etc.
> and I certainly don't pretend to know all that is out there and said.
> But, I certainly felt like I just needed to say something.
I'm glad you did. And actually, I think you DID say something new, when
you commented about how being overly serious is low-toned.
Welcome to ars - I hope you'll stick around and post whenever you feel
like it.
--
Kristi Wachter
the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)
I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I
want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.
Can you say "Xenu?" ... I knew that you could.
Kristi Wachter
> I want to thank everyone for the response. I didn't take real good
> notes on some of the questions and comments, and just don't have the
> time to do so at this time.
You can view previous responses to your messages at deja.com. Also, if you
start using a real newsreader (as others have suggested), it'll be easy
for you to save messages to yourself and to save messages you wrote
previously.
> No, I am a real person who has no connection to OSA. I thought I might
> get that reaction from someone. LOL! I know that it is very hard to
> discern factual data here sometimes, and I suppose all you can do is
> judge for yourself.
As others have mentioned, being accused of being OSA is part of the ars
initiation process. Congratulations - now you're one of us! ;-)
> But you, and many others, would be surprised at
> how truthful I am being and who I really am.
Okay, now I'm curious - who are you?
David Miscavige? Marty Rathburn? Mike Rinder? Rhea Smith?
<grin>
(In case it's not completely obvious - I don't expect you to answer
this. You'll tell us who you are when you're good and ready, if that day
ever comes.)
> I'm sorry that, at the
> moment, I cannot be more specific. What I told is true - I AM just an
> individual who has been a long-time member of the church - and I did
> just happen to literally stumble onto some of this "anti-church" data
> on the web.
Can you tell us how you did stumble onto xenu.net?
> To answer a question about my children; they are ethical and
> responsible in a manner that is respected by myself, our friends - non-
> scientologists, christians, non-christians, etc. They are just plain
> good kids. You see, it is not all so clearly black and white within
> the ranks of the "public scientologists." I personally know some kids
> that are horribly neglected and unethical (and I've said so to the
> parents) and I know many more kids that are incredibly bright and
> responsible by anyone's definition.
I know kids that fit both definitions, too, outside of the influence of
Scientology.
> What did I think of the Lisa McPherson situation? Shock and surprise.
> I, of course, wanted to read as much about it and get the data after
> that initial surprise to make sure the info was accurate. I am very
> dismayed of that happening within a group that I am a member - it makes
> me want to apologize, though my lonely voice hardly means anything in
> the context of this matter. I do not know ANY scientologist that knows
> about the LM death (or any other deaths for that matter), and I'd
> venture to say that those I know in Clearwater probably do know about
> it, but never mention it to others.
Have you read the logs?
Have you considered discussing Lisa's death with any other Scientologists?
> My comments about "pure rage" stuff was in reference to those that ONLY
> seem to post the silly reactionary comments to most anyone or anything
> relating to the subject(bloated toad, space alien cult, etc.). Hey, I
> believe in freedom of expression so it doesn't bother me. It's just
> that those kind of things accomplish nothing at all in my opinion. I
> am far from an experienced news grouper (my 2nd post in history!) and
> so know that much more has gone on before me entering the scene. I can
> imagine that you get all types in this kind of forum and, considering
> the evident history here, it also becomes hard at first to know who to
> trust, etc.
As some other folks have pointed out, sniping and flame wars happen in
most newsgroups, not just here in ars. I might suggest you check out one
or two other newsgroups, too, to get a little perspective on ars. (My
personal perspective: ars is much busier and rather more contentious than
most other newsgroups, but it's by no means the nastiest newsgroup on the
net.)
> Probably makes some people pretty jaded about anyone and
> anything to do with the subject after awhile. Just remind yourself
> from time to time that there are honest-to-God real and good people
> stumbling into here with real feelings and real confusions and,
> hopefully, real intelligence. I, too, can have a sense of humor about
> most anything, but a newbie doesn't get what's behind certain snide and
> seemingly demeaning comments right away and that just further alienates
> them from your way of thinking. (I can already see someone playing
> with my words such as "space alien-ates them" LOL!)
I hope you've seen that there are welcoming voices, here, too, in addition
to the snide ones. Some of us disagree respectfully, some of us disagree
rudely. (Some of us even agree, but not for long, and never on
Tuesdays. <grin>) I welcome you, with your real feelings and real
confusions and real intelligence and real sense of humor. ESPECIALLY your
sense of humor!
> There is a solid fact of how hard it is to go even this far after 30
> years - the lifetime friends I've made, the appearance of a real
> solution for helping others (I love to help others in their lives), and
> I could go on. Someone made the comment about how slow I am (30
> years) - well, i've already seen that some here have no understanding,
> and as a result no compassion, for those very real people who have been
> so internally involved for so long. Hey, I laugh about it myself
> sometimes and just get on with it - and try not to take myself quite so
> seriously.
I'm glad you try not to take it too personally. I hope you're also seeing
people who DO have compassion for you, and for others in Scientology. I
try to have compassion for everyone, including David Miscavige, including
Mike Rinder, including Lisa's caretakers; including Jesse Helms, including
Bill Gates, including David Duke. We are all of us human.
Here's a wonderful poem I came across last month that makes me think of my
relationship with the Scientologists I know, so many of whom work hard to
demean and discredit me:
He drew a circle that shut me out -
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.
- Edwin Markham
Scientology is very big on "us and them." Me, I think it's all "us."
> And, at this point, it is not my intention to simply join one "side" or
> the other with the only purpose in mind of attacking the other side.
> Whatever choices I make, I still want to help people do better in
> whatever way possible.
Good for you. I feel the same way.
> The honest feeling that maybe I was doing
> something good for people is the only thing that has really kept me
> involved with the church. At the point where I slowly came around to
> my current realizations is where the "safety net" so to speak
> of "helping others" started to disappear. Maybe someone will know what
> I'm talking about.
Although I haven't had your experiences, I think I know exactly what you
mean.
I was only involved in Scientology for about a month - I had one auditing
session and read a few books - but it was the desire to help others, and
the promise that Scientology offered a completely scientific, 100%
workable technology to save the world, that attracted me to it in the
first place.
The evidence I've seen convinces me that Scientology does NOT make the
world a better place, and routinely lies about the "good works" it
allegedly does; but I do believe that individual Scientologists DO
participate in activities to try to improve the world (like Robin in
Mountain View with her toy collection drive), and I believe that they
think that auditing will make the world a better place. I think many
Scientologists sacrifice in order to try to do good works. I think the
organization exploits and abuses their desire to do good, but that doesn't
mean that desire isn't real or sincere.
> So a major factor for someone like myself who is coming to terms with
> certain realities is what would I find that would very honestly replace
> the "philanthropist" inside me. Many of you do not understand, I know,
> while others that have been there will know what I'm talking about.
I think I do understand what you mean, here. I would say this: learn about
charitable organizations that aren't affiliated with Scientology, and try
doing a bit of volunteer work with a few of them. Some places have
"drop-in" days where you can just come in whenever you have time and pack
food for the homeless or whatever. See how you feel about organizations
with a different approach from Scientology's.
I would also say this: take your time. There's no hurry and no
deadline. Feel free to go slow and examine how you feel along the way.
> I don't really have a need to say this, but for the devout church
> members that might question me, here's some truth to know lest you
> accuse me of violating ethics, etc. to even do so much as communicate
> here.
How can it possibly be unethical for you to communicate? Isn't a Grade 0
release someone who can communicate with anyone about anything? (Not to
mention all of Safe's excellent points about maintaining friendly
relations with the environment and being an example of the wisdom of
Scientology and so on. Posting here is a way to demonstrate that SOME
Scientologists, at least, are self-determined, able to confront, and
sociable.)
> But as Hubbard states in his personal integrity article, code of honor
> and elsewhere, I very much believe in having my own understanding of
> things and am entitled to such. "Critical thinking" as some put it
> here, or as I call it, "accurate observation and evaluation" is vital.
> No one should ever depend on someone else telling them what to believe
> or what should be true for them or what data and information they
> should look at. I can see a news report about a tornado in Kansas and
> evaluate for myself whether all of Kansas is devastated as depicted by
> the scenes on TV, or perhaps just two houses were blown down. It is
> important (to me anyway) that I am able to see ALL sides of the story
> and come to my OWN conclusions. Censoring, hiding, etc. information is
> not something that fits the philosophy I have grown to accept.
GOOD FOR YOU. (And the tornado example is apt: when the big quake hit San
Francisco in '89, the country was horrified at the news footage of the
city in ruins; in truth, except for a few pretty specific areas, such as
the Bridge and the Marina, much of the city escaped with just a few extra
cracks. Darn Merchants of Chaos. <grin>)
> The only thing with me is that I happened to see things that do match
> up with some of the distinct out-points that were already evident to
> myself and other current members. Here's just a couple of minor
> examples - How many people do you know in other religions that have a
> separate "private" phone line that is not given to the church staff for
> the very reason of keeping registrars, recruiters, etc. at bay, while
> their "public" number is used for screening calls.
Indeed.
Shouldn't able, self-determined, skilled communicators be able to simply
say "no," firmly, once?
> I know
> several "upstats" of the church that does that very thing. I put no
> significance on it beyond that it is an out-point that ANYONE would
> feel the need to do so in the first place.
I agree.
> Third, and last, is several months ago I was reading at the end of the
> day. I had out a bunch of the "Ron series" type publications, flipping
> through pages and reading different articles. Very surprisingly I
> found the same photograph in two different publications where something
> about the photos caught my eye. I searched backed to find the first
> book I found the picture in, and lo and behold, though the picture was
> the same - one was very different from the other. One has been touched
> up with people added or taken out, heads within the photo changed,
> etc. I actually don't know which one is the original! More than
> likely the earlier one perhaps. This is the photo of Hubbard standing
> by the car talking to a group of people (page 18 of "The Auditor - from
> research to application" and page 6 of "A Profile"). I quietly kept
> flipping back and forth between the books going "WTF??" When I finally
> showed my husband, his comment, after the initial surprise and staring,
> was "Boy, the squirrels would have a field day with this!" We really
> scratched our heads and all we could say was how weird it was and ask
> ourselves why. Then last month I found this exact same photo
> comparison on one of the websites!! LOL!
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing that.
What is your reaction to the doctored photos of the New Year's event? What
is your reaction to other dishonest information distributed by
Scientology?
> Well, as you can see, I like to communicate. Maybe even too much for
> some of you <smile>.
Hey, some of my picket reports run to 5 or 6 sections on deja.com. That's
what newsgroups are FOR - communicating. Ramble all you like. You have my
official permission. ;-)
> Why am I posting here? I had to ask myself this
> too. I just need to put my thoughts into words and talk is all, and
> there is nowhere else to do that except to myself at the moment. And I
> honestsly DO want to know the truth. I certainly am not trying to rile
> the troops or contribute anything new - particularly after you have
> mostly all have been here for so long.
>
> I'm just communicating. Thanks for the outlet!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm glad you want to know the truth, and
I'm glad you're sharing your reactions with us.
Gladly,
Kristi
P.S. I'm not sure why I thought of this (must be my reactive mind!), but
if you'd consider taking a look at an essay I wrote, I'd really like to
get your reaction. It's about Martin Luther King's views, and it can be
found at http://www.scientology-lies.com/drkingandscn.html .
Steve A
<mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:
> In article <86a6vq$bfk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [...]
> >And your fixation on a "Veral" Wallace when responding to postings
> >indicates that you may be suffering from a bipolar schizophrenic
> >personality phobia
> [...]
>
> Holy cow, you sure seem extra upset! Is Vera your grandma or something?
Probably not, but "I hear" that his wife has a very Fat Butt. :-)
Steve A
wrote:
> Neither is being a slave anything to be ashamed of. Former POWs/ex-slaves
> are just as committed to freedom as is everyone else.
Perhaps more so: freedom, like money, is appreciated best in its
absence, and people who've lost their freedom for a while, or lost all
their money, are often the most ardent supporters of freedom and the
most motivated to make their pile again.
Scientology, in deceiving its followers into giving up BOTH freedom
AND money, is going to reap the whirlwind.