Hi there,
and thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists, David Miscavige and whatever you feel is related to that. If you are here to make statements or raise a fuss, you are violating the only rule this blog has. So please, don’t to it.
– Louanne
292 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Scientology Myths Forum 
This comment tread is a little too long, so, as usual, I am closing it and open a new one here:
There’s also the issue of how scientology measures expansion. Being able to purchase buildings does not, necessarily, imply expansion- it implies wealth. And wealth can be gained by any number of means, illicit or valid.
The real indication would be the number of members, and, in this case, the highest results are released from management- all other assessments disagree.
“CCHR has contributed to close down 4000 psychiatric institutions all over the world. How many SofC churches has been closed ? None.
Tell me again who’s expanding?”
Even if what you say is true and CCHR has closed down 4000 psychiatric institutions, this doesn’t imply that Scientology is expanding.
Unfortunately L. Ron Hubbard suffered under the paranoid delusion that there would be some kind of “competiton” between the psychiatric profession and Scientology, only because the APA recognized Dianetics as pseudoscientific, when it was first published in the 50’s.
““Could’ve been worse. I second this blog post here: http://myscientology.blogspot.com/2009/10/scientology-is-here-to-stay.html
You can’t win.”
I have already won. Scientology is dead. The bookmakers are already taking bets on which celebrity blows next, lol.
correction: 4000.
what a bizarre argument.
first, please provide a reference showing that the hate group cchr is truly responsible for closing 3000 offices (or are you just repeating what you’ve been told?)
second, are you talking this year? since the 50’s? today? what’s your time frame here? and how many MORE offices opened in that same time period.
lastly, it’s a disturbing look into the deep hatred held by scientologists, that they would celebrate 3000 offices worth of people losing their job… families going hungry…how deep does this hatred run?
CCHR has contributed to close down 4000 psychiatric institutions all over the world. How many SofC churches has been closed ? None.
Tell me again who’s expanding?
What did you do to a coke bottle?
France is a secular nation, and hold religions to a very high standard. Many, such as scientology, are, to be frank, unwelcome. Once they begin harming citizens, or the appearance therein exists, France takes a very hard line approach. But, I would suspect that your tone would be far different if France had ruled in your favor.
Where did I make the statement that you agreed with?
Also, when there was legal action taken against the Catholic Church, after the sex abuse scandals- did you make the same accusations, that it was motivated by religious bias?
Yeah, I almost a whole coke bottle too.
France is notorious for anti-religious activity and I find it hard to take them serious. Their allegations fail the moment you take a honest look at reality.
I agree with you that it is dangerous to let such politically motivated court decisions slip by. So that’s why I am happy that they announced plans to appeal it.
– L
correction: “passed” quietly. geez, late night :)
Point is that being WANTED in a country is one thing, forcing your way in by exploiting legal loopholes is quite another. What’s more, it was established in the case that scientology is considered dangerous, according to the French legal system- that’s hard to see in positive light.
Yes, and like in Russia- not for lack of trying, but because of a legal loophole. And, in this case, one quietly shortly before the trial.
The point is that the country would most likely have done it, if legally allowed. But they changed the law, for next time.
I certainly can follow this logic. They wanted to “ban Scientology” and failed.
End of story. The Church of Scientology France moves on.
– L
From Washington Post:
“When the hearing opened, there were expectations that the court could order the group to be banned in France but due to a mix-up over a law that passed in parliament just before the start of the trial in May, that option was ruled out.
The legislation has since been changed back to allow the dissolution of an organization found guilty of fraud but because of the timing of the case, there was no question of forcing the Church of Scientology to be wound up.
“It is very regrettable that the law quietly changed before the trial,” Georges Fenech, head of the Inter-ministerial Unit to Monitor and Fight Cults, told television station France 24.
ad_icon
“The system has now been put in place by parliament and it is certain that in the future, if new offences are committed, a ban could eventually be pronounced,” he said. “
Here’s another one (ok, half of one, the other half is about sex…):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33498755/ns/entertainment-gossip/
French decision ‘all bark and no bite’
A Paris court on Tuesday convicted the Church of Scientology’s French branch of fraud and fined it more than half a million euros, but it did not ban the group, as prosecutors had requested.
“(The decision) is all bark and no bite in reality,” said Davis. “We’ll absolutely appeal and emerge victorious, even if it requires us to go the European Court of Human Rights.”
The fraud conviction originated more than 10 years ago with a complaint by a woman who said she took out loans and spent the equivalent of $31,000 on books, courses and “purification packages” after being recruited in 1998. When she sought reimbursement and to leave the group, according to the complaint, its leadership refused.
“Essentially what the court is attempting to do is to state that Scientologists are guilty of practicing their own religion,” said Davis. “People have donated to their own church, received services in their own church, and the people who are being convicted of fraud have themselves donated money to the church, and far more than the woman that made the complaint. She only did church services for five months.”
This case could be a matter of France not understanding the Church of Scientology’s structure, which can involve services where parishioners may be asked to make fixed donations and to purchase materials. Or there’s this: there are more than 8,000 Scientology churches, missions and groups in 164 countries. In the case of the church in France, France makes the rules, and can decide which practices, Scientology and otherwise, are acceptable there.
Regardless, Davis feels this case shouldn’t have made it this far.
“In 2006 the prosecutor recommended that the case be dismissed because there wasn’t enough evidence,” said Davis. “Because of (the) anti-sect movement, it got turned into a howling heresy trial and shaking of their pitchforks.”
In 1996, the French government published a list of 173 “dangerous sects” that included the Church of Scientology Paris, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and evangelical churches connected to Baptists in the United States. The list received widespread international criticism for restricting religious freedom.
But the way Davis sees it, Scientology is already winning. It continues to grow — the group just opened a church in Rome, another in Sweden, and are about to open a church in Berlin.
And when it comes to the French decision, he’s positive. “We ended up with fines and a suspended sentence,” said Davis. “What they started with, was ‘let’s dissolve the church.’”
For one, Lou, my criticism was not on the fact that it was a press release, only that it was presented here seemingly as an authoritative source, but the snippet that identified it as a press release was intentionally left out. Why was that part left out?
Regarding the content, I question its neutrality, as it is clearly pro-scientology, and reads much like a sales pitch. Furthermore, it makes no mention of the fraud conviction, and fails to mention that the only reason that the activities were not curtailed was because of a recent change in law, not because the court rejected the prosecution proposal.
So, in short, it’s not very accurate reporting, but great sales copy.
“Could’ve been worse. I second this blog post here: http://myscientology.blogspot.com/2009/10/scientology-is-here-to-stay.html
You can’t win.
– L”
That’s the old argument, isn’t it? “Scientology does such wonderful things, anyone that is against it is against those wonderful things”.
That’s a very simple “strawman argument”, and borderline ad hom. More so, it fails to truly address the criticisms themselves.
Especially since the only thing that saved scientology in france from an outright ban was a very timely change in the law, that no one can seem to explain. Not a smoking gun, but highly suspicious, at least.
I posted the link, didn’t I?
Questionable though if this is an official press release. The normal sites don’t carry it (scientologytoday.org and twitter.com/scientologynews).
Any comment about its content?
– L
You left off the part on the bottom: “Press release courtesy Church of Scientology International”
That was a press release, not a news article.
Hmm, nice one: http://www.westender.com.au/news/693
Scientology cleared in Paris
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY DEFEATS ATTEMPT TO CURTAIL FREEDOM TO PRACTICE THE RELIGION IN FRANCE
The Paris Correctional Court has rejected the recommendations of prosecutors in a case against a Paris Scientology Church, a Scientology bookstore and six individual Church members. The Court cited the absence of any complainants coming forward despite the intense media surrounding the trial and that the defendants had acted out of sincere religious conviction as reasons for refusing the draconian sanctions sought by the government. The Court imposed no restrictions on the Church’s activities.
Throughout the month-long trial held in May and June 2009, the Church decried the case as a heresy trial and an example of the discriminatory treatment to which new religious movements are treated in France—treatment that has been condemned by international human rights bodies. In its annual International Religious Freedom Report issued on October 26, 2009 the United States State Department said that “discriminatory treatment” of Scientologists in France “remained a concern.”
The case arose out of the five-month participation in Scientology religious practices in 1998 by the main civil party. This included studying Scientology Scriptures and receiving spiritual counseling. The donations made by the plaintiffs were returned to them in full well before any case was heard. In 2006, the prosecutor recommended the case be dismissed because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing and because all donations had been returned.
Instead, the court succumbed to pressure from anti-religious extremists in government and turned it into a heresy trial in violation of the rights of the Scientologists under French law and under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is in marked contrast to the treatment of Scientology in other countries where Scientology is formally recognized as a religion. The European Court of Human Rights has on two recent occasions found that Churches of Scientology in Russia are entitled to the protection of religious freedom guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Today’s decision means that Scientologists remain free to practice their religion in France, despite the best efforts to the contrary by anti-religious extremists. While the fines and suspended sentences issued by the Court will be appealed, they will have no effect on Church activities and the rapid expansion the Church is experiencing will continue.
The Church of Scientology has grown from one Church in 1954 to more than 8,000 Churches, Missions and groups in 165 countries today. The Church sponsors an international human rights education initiative as well as the world’s largest non-governmental drug education program. Four new Churches have opened in 2009, most recently the Church of Scientology of Rome on October 24, with a new Church opening in Washington, DC, on October 31. In April, three new Churches were dedicated: in Malmo, Sweden; Dallas, Texas; and Nashville, Tennessee. The Scientology religion has expanded more in the past year than in the past five years combined and more in the past five years than in the past five decades combined.
Scientology was convicted of organized fraud in france! HA!
Could’ve been worse. I second this blog post here: http://myscientology.blogspot.com/2009/10/scientology-is-here-to-stay.html
You can’t win.
– L
Why don’t you change the sentence
“Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the core beliefs of Scientology’”
TO
“Xenu is mentioned in OTIII, but this is not a core belief of Scientology”
?
Holly good luck. They have been trained to not make sense. They’ll defend even if you were to show 100% proof of something.
Fact of the matter is orgs are dying. Even with the amount of donations they are getting for the Ideal Org they are still dying. NY org has been “Ideal” for a couple years now and they still struggle.
“The whole bridge and the basics ARE core”
If “The Bridge to Total Freedom” is core to scientology, and OTIII is essential to ‘The Bridge” then OTIII is part of the core of scientology.
Holly,
You missed the “central” and “most” as in “most essential part of anything”.
OT III is one of many steps. It is not core. There is no core, since as you were so gracious to provide the grade chart, it is part of a series of steps. Everything on the Gradation Chart is essential, because without the earlier ones you don’t get the results higher.
Louanne used the term “core beliefs” as part of her statement because that was what the critics were saying. She’s responding in their terms. Again, OT III is not a core belief (it’s a level of doing) and is not core to Scientology. The whole bridge and the basics ARE core.
Pat
Pat/Louanne –
“‘Core belief’ is not a scientology term”
I used the term ‘core belief’ because Louanne did earlier and has done so on the scientologymyths.info website under the section ‘what is xenu/xemu/zenu’.
I’m going to drop the word ‘belief’ from my question because it does not really apply to scientology as an applied philosophy.
I’m going to use the word ‘core’ as you’ve defined it as “[a] central innermost or most essential part of anything.”
I found OTIII when looking at the ‘Bridge to Total Freedom – Scientology classification gradation and awareness chart’ over at whatisscientology.com. OTIII is right there between OT’s II and IV – with up arrows indicating forward progress from II to III then on to IV.
Scientology.org describes this chart as “a guide for the individual from his first awareness of Scientology to each higher state. Man has never before had such a map. It is the Bridge to Total Freedom. It is the route. It is exact and has a standard progression. One walks it and one becomes free.”
Scientology.org explains the goal of scientology as “.. making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows… [and] placing him at knowing cause over matter, energy, space, time, form, thought and life.” and describes the ‘Bridge to Total Freedom” as the path to accomplish that goal.
‘The Bridge to Total Freedom’ is a core part of scientology because it is the means to accomplish the goal of scientology, which is total freedom.
OTIII is an essential part of the Bridge, thus OTIII is an essential part of scientology.
Change the sentence:
Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the core beliefs of Scientology’
to:
‘Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the basic beliefs of Scientology’
if you want to avoid misleading your readers any further.
Holly,
“Core belief” is not a scientology term.
“Core”
“the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything”
There are MANY teachings in Scientology. All of them knowledge that can change lives when applied in life. Scientology is something you DO or apply.
These are covered in the 18 BASIC books of Dianetics and Scientology, which are available in all the public libraries in over 50 languages.
Scientology is about us as spiritual beings and the study of and application of those basics toward helping us put more order into those parts of our lives that are needing help, including our world and mankind. That is core. In order to get a true idea of the scope of this and how we go about achieving this, you’d need to read what is in the books.
OT III is one of many levels that one DOES in attaining this state. It is not core.
Does that clarify it for you?
Pat
The whole copy right argument is a total joke anyways. Groups already use what Scientology prints OUTSIDE of Scientology to practice. Scientology calls them squirrels.
But in reality no one else gives a crap about copying the Scientology books.
Plus you can get them from your local library sale for a couple bucks each.
Looking forward to ABC’s Nightline about Scientology tomorrow. The ship leaks again from another hole.
# Comment by Anon on October 21, 2009 5:25 pm
“Yes, you DO get rid of the body thetans.”
Poor show, Anon. Talking about the Basics now. What’s that got to do with anything?
– L
Yes, you DO get rid of the body thetans.
#Comment by Holly on October 21, 2009 10:47 am
“If OTIII isnt a core belief, how do you advance up the bridge without passing it?”
You got a false concept what OT III is. Or what Scientology Grades and OT Levels are. They are things you DO not the reading of stories.
– L
If OTIII isnt a core belief, how do you advance up the bridge without passing it?
wouldn’t core belief be something for the individual? or do all scientologists agree with you?
#Comment by Holly on October 19, 2009 3:55 pm
“Is OTIII considered a scientology core belief?”
By Scientologists: no.
By some idiots that try to fluff up the story to practice being intolerant jerks: yes.
– L
#Comment by Anon on October 21, 2009 8:03 am
“Why did you also delete my other post about “fair game”?”
Why did you also delete my other post about “fair game”?
yes, pat, you do. normal people look at sources from both sides, if they really want to learn about a subject.
but, hey, only seeing one side works, too. who needs the full picture?
anywho, calling “copyright” is a cop out. they were, allegedy, copywritten in the first place to keep them from being spread out of cos control. and let’s be honest, even some of the nony cw work is an embarassment, such as the racist comments and war record.
@ Comment by Anon on October 20, 2009 3:29 pm
“RTFM. ”
Read the fucking manual? I don’t need a manual to see that Scientology doesn’t work with the internet exposing its confidential scriptures.
No intelligent person would want to join a cult and pay $300.000 for something that he can have for free on the internet.
There is a reason why the CoS has tried so hard to erase these materials from the net.
Silly Anon. It’s called copyright. LOL
I agree with Louanne. RTFM.
Don’t get it? If you want to learn about Judaism, do you ask the Nazis?
If you want to know what Scientology really is do you ask the critics?
RTFM
Again, silly, Anon.
Pat
Ah, another deleted post…. [two, actually. Soap-box monologues, to be exact. L.]
Pat and Lou aren’t allowed to look at Anonymous with anything other than absolute hate and dread. That’s what Scientology wants of them. Any criticism is bad criticism. And anyone criticizing Scientology either doesn’t know the “truth” or they are big bad SP’s out to get people.
All too familiar.
Ignore the fact Scientology has actually done something to cause these attacks! They could take responsibility for causing many critics to be critics in the first place if they could do as they themselves preach.
is this how scientologists deal with criticism? is this the “advanced communication abilities” that the tech gives? I see a lot of cursing and hate speech… and louanne- you’re still anonymous youself, hypocrite.
In case you did not get it: https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/faq/
Read.
– L
“RTFM. ”
Read the fucking manual? I don’t need a manual to see that Scientology doesn’t work with the internet exposing its confidential scriptures.
No intelligent person would want to join a cult and pay $300.000 for something that he can have for free on the internet.
There is a reason why the CoS has tried so hard to erase these materials from the net.
Blind, hate-filled, arrogant, Anonymous. Yes, quite a logical sequence.
https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/faq/
#Comment by Holly on October 19, 2009 3:55 pm
“Is OTIII considered a scientology core belief?”
By Scientologists: no.
By some idiots that try to fluff up the story to practice being intolerant jerks: yes.
– L
#Comment by Anon on October 19, 2009 5:27 pm
“Scientology is UNWORKABLE, because of the internet exposing Scientology’s confidential scriptures :-P.”
RTFM.
– L
Regarding Xenu, I don’t think it matters if it’s a level or a lecture or whatever- if it’s a belief or not depends on the person. I’ve met some that do believe the “xenu story”. I’ve met some that call it “truth” because they believe it so very strongly (“I’ve personally experienced…”). Some consider it a core belief, some don’t. It is rather confusing, unfortunately.
But Xenu, to me, is a small matter. Maybe they do believe in alien overlords and psych infiltration. But if they do, that’s a right they have. I mean, many religions have elements that sound fantastic if looked at by themselves. Yes, it is a valid point of contention IF it is true that they hide this belief from adherents, but of course that fact is up for debate.
It’s the management that I believe to be the real problem. Religion in and of itself is rarely the problem- it’s the organization behind it. Look at the Crusades- it wasn’t Christianity/Catholicism, it was the men that controlled it that had ulterior motives. Same standard for Pol Pot’s religious purges and Hitler’s (please don’t call Godwin’s law on me!) appeals to religion- religion wasn’t the real motivating factor- it was the organization.
Same, in my opinion, with scientology. They can believe what they want, and whether or not I agree is irrelevant. However, I stand with my scientolgist brethren, lake, who calls foul on the leadership. That’s where the problems lie.
Pat,
I AM NOT asking about your OT level or what is contained in them. I wanted to make that clear up front.
Allegedly, the Xenu story is in OTIII- are you in a position to have personal knowledge of that particular subject?
Mark
Comment by Holly on October 19, 2009 3:55 pm
Is OTIII considered a scientology core belief?
No. OT III is a level, not a belief. Belief is accepting some data on faith like, “the sky is blue” or 1 + 1 = 2. It’s faith in that something without proof. In Scientology, it is a core belief that what is true is only true for you if you have personally observed it to be true. So how could someone saying it’s a core belief make it true if you’ve never done the level and found out for yourself? That’s why it’s so amusing to see comments that show that assertion is full of holes. LOL
I KNOW that it’s not a core belief because I’ve experienced the truth personally.
So we have charachters who sit around and try to assert their false data to others that what is true for me is that this story is what Scientology is all about and that’s bs, because they have never done the level. Your believing that makes no difference to what Scientologists know to be true, so how could it affect Scientology? LOL
Scientology is what is true because you read one of the 18 basic books that are the core beliefs and found that something there was true for you. Scientology is NOT what others say is true for us. OT III is not a core belief.
Here are some of the core beliefs of Scientology in summary:
http://www.scientology.org
Pat
Anon,
I’m a scientologist and I wanted to mention that I can agree with you about Xenu being mentioned by LRH in one of his lectures. LRH mentioned Xenu, its nothing Louanne or anyone can disagree on. I know it to be true, as you seem to do to. But if Xenu is a core belief of scientology is up to the OT levels to show. I couldnt care less about Xenu/Xemu, it’s not something I’m going to care more about in the future either. What I care about is what I use the findings in scientology to improve my life.
bear in mind that scientologists are real keen on “personal truth”. if she hasn’t read OTIII, then she can’t speak to it.
also, she’s not denying that the story exists, just that it’s core, and that really depends on what one considers to be core.
That’s not a yes or no answer.
No it isn’t a core belief because it’s confidential to any Scientologist that hasn’t done OTIII. But it is a core beliefe of OTs because Hubbard said it. Anything Hubbard said is a core belief for a Scientologists.
OT levels data isn’t for the general Scientologist because they have yet to know about the data. As silly as it is.
And yet how many have died from reading the OTIII data?!
Is OTIII considered a scientology core belief?
Anon, none of the core beliefs in Scientology make mention of Xenu or anything similar. There are lots of wild stories in Scientology but none of that is part of its core beliefs. It is slime bags like various Anons who try to ridicule Scientology who tell you that Xenu would be important for Scientologists. The usual intolerance and dumb-mindedness of the anti-Scientology crowd got onto you. Try to shake it off.
– L
Under the entry “aliens” you write:
“Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the core beliefs of Scientology. Nope.”
That’s also not true. Xenu IS mentioned in OTIII.
Lake,
That was my (poorly articulated) point, and I thank you for better illustrating :)
Mark: “Lake, if you showed up on the doorstep- would you be allowed to enjoy those benefits?”
Mark, your point is well taken. But actually, just about anyone that wants to, can take courses and get auditing at the Celebrity Center. It’s not just for celebrities, but for professionals in any field. And anyone can call themselves an “artist”. When I’ve been in the LA area for long periods of time, this is actually the Church that I’ve taken courses and gotten auditing. And I’m just a business owner. I’ve done courses alongside some of the lesser-known celebrities, and have had the same auditors as some of the guys/girls I’ve seen on tv shows.
With that said, there are “exclusive celebrity course rooms”, a “special celebrity entrance” and “special lounges” just for the most successful celebrities and the big Scientology names, at Celebrity Center. But probably what is the most disturbing, is that when you get put into the “true celebrity” category in Scientology, you (and your family and friends) do get treated completely differently on a day-to-day basis than your average Scientologist … exceptions are made for you, hand-holding and “hands-off reg’ing” are the norm, and you and your family and friends are treated like royalty above and beyond the average Scientologist.
I honestly don’t know if that will ever *completely* go away … I mean even the Dalai Lama treats Richard Gere with a bit more “importance” than the average Buddhist. And I’m sure it happens to some degree in all religions. There are also privacy concerns that celebrities have to deal with, more than the average.
But in any event, the philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of Scientology don’t consider “celebrities” to be any more important than anyone else. But in the interest of “expansion”, the current policies of the Church do give celebrities blatant preferential treatment and too often create a double-standard that I think needs to be eliminated. The policies of the Church could certainly be improved in this area as well.
case in point, Lake:
Take a look at this link:
http://www.scientology.cc/en_US/about/tour/index.html
This is inside the celebrity center, from the CoS celebrity center website. I mean, look at the gardens, private restaurant, pavilion, private theater, exercise rooms, guest rooms, etc… It’s downright beautiful.
Lake, if you showed up on the doorstep- would you be allowed to enjoy those benefits?
Well, and Lake, not to mention the potential for legitimacy! Let’s be blunt, there are those that believe that scientology leadership is more of a “good ‘ol boys” club, in which the next leader is chosen with a wink and a nod, and management is far removed from the affairs and concerns of the everyday man. You’re entirely correct- transparency is exactly what is needed, and would actually silence a great deal of criticism.
For example: let’s say, for the sake of argument, that scientology works. (the tech, the alleged power increases, etc) If that were independently verified, two things would happen: the rate of conversion would increase at an exponential rate, and the researchers (within scientology) would have an opportunity to refine the tech without having to do so in secret, or to simply rely on previous research.
But, most importantly, as I mentioned, the connection between leadership and parishioner would be increased (something I feel to be critical, in my opinion). For example: Lake, have you ever been inside any of the celebrity centers? As a celebrity, I mean, not as staff. Leadership has- DM certainly has. But is it open to you? Is it open to the average scientologist? Can they go inside, relax, and be thought of as equal? Or is there special privilege given to those who happen to be celebrities (or CoS leadership)? What makes then more deserving that the other scientologists?
Honestly, Lake, from a religious standpoint, I would say that you’re JUST as important as Tom Cruise or DM- and that wall should be broken down.
big daddy: “lakes point is that no scientologist was able to choose.”
I would certainly be in favor of allowing Scientologists, maybe even just the OT VIIs and OT VIIIs, to elect amongst themselves the next leadership of the church. It could even be a Council of some sort, setting the goals, and making the long-term policy decisions for the Church. It could begin an era of transparency that the church sorely needs.
Pat: “L. Ron Hubbard did.”
Pat, DM has become an abusive individual, suppressing those around him, causing them to become cowed, ill and accident prone. As DM befriended Tom Cruise, we saw what happened. Tom ended up making mistake after mistake in the PR world … beginning first with firing his longtime (and successful) publicist, Pat Kingsley. This ultimately led to huge PR misteps which led to Scientology’s current scorched earth public image, and Tom’s becoming cowed and regretful.
These are the “products” of David Miscavige. And that’s only the most visible one. The more invisible ones are the way Miscavige treats his staff, which is physically and psychologically abusive and vindictive. And as more and more people who worked closely with DM are now coming forward publically, the truth of his behavior is becoming known. And this is all on top of the endless reg’ing of public Scientologists that Miscavige orders with his “straight up and vertical” insanity.
Tommy Davis is the latest guy trying to jump through hoops to do the impossible of “damage control”.
But the truth is already known. Mike Rinder now publically admits that Miscavige physically assaulted him dozens of times. And Jeff Hawkins. And Marty Rathbun. And a dozen others, all first-hand recipients or first-hand observers of DM’s physical abuse.
Do you really think that this is what LRH had in mind when he allowed DM to grab the reigns of Scientology?
The funny thing is that DM is the one who chose DM. Ron did not. If he did, where is the hand written promotion from Ron?
No one has seen one. Because it doesn’t exist.
ah, pat, lovely to see you.
your facts are correct, and reinforce lake’s point. he didn’t choose dm… nor did you. nor any group of members. it was a single man who chose for you. which forces you, as a scientologist, to either accwpt hubbards choice as perfect, or to believe that hubbard is not without flaw. tough choice. but lakes point is that no scientologist was able to choose.
lake, interesting point, but Jesus was very clear, in the Bible, as to where his miracles were from, and they were decidedly non-scientology.
“My history is a little rusty- who “chose” DVM to take over after Hubbard”
L. Ron Hubbard did.
This site must be being ignored. I’m super surprised these posts still remain.
Maybe Lou and Pat are finding the truth?? One can only hope.
Mark: “I believe in a zombie carpenter …”
Hardly a “zombie”, Mark. I can’t think of a more demonstrably OT individual than that particular carpenter you believe in.
Yes, I saw that report of Mary Jo Leavitt (OT VIII). There was another OT VIII (Sherry Katz) who also just announced her refusal to support current management. She was very involved in a new “ideal org” in Pasadena, CA.
This is all great news! There also appears to be a “well known person” about to make a public announcement about his/her opposition to church management in the next week or so … I have no idea who it is. The latest letter at Marty Rathbun’s site might be the same person (but either way, the contents of the letter about human rights for gay people is also excellent … long overdue).
The more publicity and coverage about all of these disaffections with management, the better.
Actually, in a bit of serendipity (the concept, not the movie), Geir Isene, of whom you speak so fondly, wrote in his blog today of Mary Jo Leavitt, OT VIII and the OT ambassador for all of Latin America, who is the latest high-level OT to publicly leave the CoS.
According to Isene, she was a very stabilizing influence within the organization, and her keen eye for policy and documentation was a very positive asset. Rather than link (as that appears to delay postings), I encourage you, especially you, Lake, who first introduced me to this author, to check out the post, in which he links Leavitt’s report, which lists “major systemic outpoints within the Church of Scientology” and is “easily the most detailed and thorough report (he’s) ever seen”.
Reading it, it’s a definite call to action / plea for help (on behalf of the entire organization)
Good point, Truth. In all honesty, I would think NOTHING at all of seeing scientology thrive and prosper. Simply because I don’t hold the same beliefs doesn’t mean that I would like to see them change their own. But, I do agree that reformation is possible, healthy and necessary for survival, and would support that (and those that partake, such as Lake) in any way possible.
My history is a little rusty- who “chose” DVM to take over after Hubbard? Did the average scientologist even have a say in who led their church?
It’s already happening Lake. More and more OT’s are coming out. There are also OT’s that are still in that have quietly walked away.
And that’s the nail on the head, Lake. We clearly ‘disagree’ as to the gains from studying scientology, but I think that we both respect the beliefs of the other. That’s dandy. That’s great. And, it very well could be true, that scientology helped Me. Swann, for example, to increase (or, perhaps even discover) his ‘powers’.
That is your belief, and I would fight to the death for your right to believe so, and hope to bever be so arrogant as to feel that you don’t have a right to your beliefs and that I, myself, have the right to try and take that from you.
I mean, who am I to judge? I believe in a zombie carpenter, so I know that it takes faith to accept things that cannot be seen.
But, the scientology beliefs aren’t necessarily dangerous to the person- should they choose to believe that they’re a thetan or can exteriorize, or even in alien beings. It’s when others exploit those beliefs for power or gain. And, side by side, I support your call.
The above results of Scientology, in my view, make it even more imperative that we work hard to remove Miscavige from his position of power within Scientology. Miscavige’s violent and abusive behavior of his staff — and the abusive environment which he has engendered in the Sea Org for the last 30 years — must be brought to an end.
I call on all Scientologists, and Scientology opinion leaders, to denounce Miscavige and call for his immediate resignation and removal. Further, the Church needs to adopt workable policy that won’t allow for that type of abuse to re-occur.
There were some earlier questions on whether Ingo Swann considered that Scientology helped him develop his OT abilities. At least through the period that he was being tested successfully and involved in Scientology (the 1960s & 70s), this appeared to be his position.
Ingo Swann was interviewed in “Advance!” magazine, published by the Church of Scientology. He was described as Scientology “Clear #2331, Full OT VII and Class VI auditor”, on at least three occasions between 1973 and 1978. In “Advance!” issue 21 (Oct/Nov 1973, UK edition), he was asked by the magazine: “How did these abilities develop with relationship to your auditing on the OT Levels?” to which he answered: “They are solely the result of auditing. Not particularly even the OT Levels. I had extremely good gains from the lower grades. And some had developed certainly by the time Power Processing took place. But steady good control over them, the control I have now — which is not perfect by the way — occurred after the completion of OT III Expanded, and is even better than ever now that I have finished OT VII. So they are solely the result of auditing.” In the introduction to the interview, it states that he started in Scientology in 1966.
In the magazine “Advance!” issue 44 (Jan/Feb 1977, US edition), Ingo Swann was a member of a five-person “OT Symposium”, discussing, among other things, the scientific testing of paranormal research at Stanford Research Institute (SRI).
Finally, in “Advance!” issue #53 (Jul/Aug 1978, US edition), Ingo Swann was interviewed. Swann was asked by this US edition of “Advance!”: “How did your psychic abilities develop in relationship to your auditing on the Advanced Courses?” Swann’s response was: “They are totally the result of auditing. The point of going Clear and attaining the OT Sections is to rid oneself of reactivity and to enable one to confront life better, more completely, more productively. And I view psychic abilities as only a part of that.”
On Swann’s website, he states: “What mattered to me, as in all things I’ve studied, was what I got from Hubbard’s ideas, concepts and theories — and which was considerable, and none of which I’m ashamed of or regret in anyway.” (REMOTE VIEWING: THE REAL STORY, Ingo Swann, 1996).
biomindsuperpowers dot com / Pages / RealStoryCh24 dot html
Regarding some of the questions on science and Scientology …
“Science” is the result of an applied philosophy known as “the scientific method”. The “sciences” are the resultant bodies of knowledge: chemistry, biology, physics, etc. These “sciences” could also be called “objective truth”.
Because “the scientific method” breaks down when applied to “subjective or personal truth”, a better method was necessary to help an individual determine his own “personal truth”. Thus, Scientology: an applied philosophy, using ideas and techniques from the scientific method, which allows one to achieve personal truth.
Scientology is an applied religious philosophy using methods and techniques from both the scientific method as well as eastern and western philosophies.
Has the scientific method confirmed the workability of Scientology? Yes. I would point readers, once again, to the research of SRI, Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, etc.
Nothing?
I have another question.
NY org was an “Ideal Org” as of a couple years ago. What makes you think these ideal orgs are going to boom if NY org can’t get out of struggle mode even after two years?
“It was tested and shown to work. It improved conditions. That’s already documented.”
where, pat? where is t documented? anywhere outside of hubbard’s writings?
where are hubbard’s notes? where is all of this research that he claims to have done? that information would certainly quiet all criticism, I would think.
do you believe that hubbard did the research that he clamed to have done, solely because he claims to have done it?
Pat,
Hadn’t I challenged you, once before, to pursue psychiatric care for the same reasons your challenging NW? You’re telling him (her?) to try something that they may or may not have done, but you didn’t do the same.
Now, science is far more complicated than “to know”. Consider this more accurate definition: “Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) refers in its broadest sense to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome… In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research”
Do you believe that scientology is actually based on actual, verifiable science? Did, or did not, Mr. Hubbard claim that his discoveries were scientific ones backed up be research “in the lab”?
“Both Dianetics and Scientology (the study of knowledge) are sciences. Dianetics for the mind and Scientology for you, the spirit. ”
You BELIEVE that you are a thetan, who at some point voluntarily forgot his true nature, because he was bored and wanted to play a game here on earth. Or don’t you?
@Comment by nameless wonder on October 3, 2009 11:56 am
Here’s my challenge to you then.
Attend a Dianetics seminar, and get some Dianetics.
Come back and tell us what happened. That will be scientific, but don’t be surprised if someone here tells you that you have to prove your personal reality to be believed.
Pat
@ Comment by mark tomles on October 3, 2009 10:03 am
Let me ask you this, Pat, and perhaps you’ll answer this question. Do you believe that Scientology IS science, in line with modern definition, and do you believe that Hubbard did indeed verify much of scientology “in the lab”, as he claimed?
Modern definition as in “to know”? Of course. Isn’t that what this is all about? It was tested and shown to work. It improved conditions. That’s already documented.
Both Dianetics and Scientology (the study of knowledge) are sciences. Dianetics for the mind and Scientology for you, the spirit.
Pat
Mayhaps we could find a common understanding point for discussion.
Do you believe that the claims of Hubbard regarding scientology could stand up to verifiable and legitimate scientific vigor?
To add, I never claimed that scientology and dianetics are alike- you may have misread what I had typed. I believe I used the word “related”. very different meaning.
So, if I may ask, how many of your questions must I answer before you begin answering the ones of mine that you had ignored?
Let me ask you this, Pat, and perhaps you’ll answer this question. Do you believe that Scientology IS science, in line with modern definition, and do you believe that Hubbard did indeed verify much of scientology “in the lab”, as he claimed?
Comment by mark tomles on October 1, 2009 10:01 pm
Ah, Pat, it’s out of love that I keep answering your questions while you ignore mine :)
Well, let’s start with Dianetics (yes, I know the difference). Hubbard said, ““There is something new coming up in April called Dianetics. A new science which works with the invariability of physical science in the field of the human mind.”
I believe he also called Dianetics the “Modern Science of Mental Health”.
Dianetics and Scientology are NOT alike. You’ve missed something in your research if you think that. All you have to do is read Dianetics and Fundamentals of Thought to see that to be true.
The only reference I see as answering my question is Fundamentals of Thought.
LRH was a very literate man. Science comes from Latin SCIO “to know”. Greek LOGOS means “study of”. Scientology itself means “knowing how to know” or the “study of knowledge”. When Scientology is referred to as a science that’s how it’s used.
When I asked for where LRH said it, I was hoping for you to look at what he wrote or said in a book or lecture and not what others say it is.
Do you have a problem with it being a Science in the truest sense of the word?
Pat
marks always handled challenges pretty well; aside from that, I don’t think pat is the intebded audience ;)
Ah, Pat, it’s out of love that I keep answering your questions while you ignore mine :)
Well, let’s start with Dianetics (yes, I know the difference). Hubbard said, ““There is something new coming up in April called Dianetics. A new science which works with the invariability of physical science in the field of the human mind.”
I believe he also called Dianetics the “Modern Science of Mental Health”.
Regarding scientology (but, let’s be honest, the two are very much related in many ways), recall that one of the three churches that Hubbard incorporated as part of the evolutionary process was the “Church of American Science”. Furthermore, in ‘Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America’ Authors Cowen and Bromley reach the conclusion that “Scientology claims that its beliefs and practices are based on rigorous research”.
And there’s also the legal affidavit from Hubbard jr saying ” My father has always held out Scientology and auditing to be based purely on science and not on religious “belief” or faith. We regularly promised and distributed publications with “scientific guarantees”. This was and has always been common practice.”
According to Hubbard himself, scientology is “It is the science of human affairs which treats the livingness and beingness of man, and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom. ” (Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary). In his writing “Modern Management Technology Defined”, Hubbard also described it as “a very broad and an amazing science”
According to the scientology site bonafidescientology, “Claims to the truth of some of Scientology’s doctrines are beyond empirical test, but the efficacy of auditing is said to be provable pragmatically. The goals of Scientology depend on faith in the metaphysical aspects of the doctrine, however, even if the means are claimed to be susceptible to empirical test.”
The same site claims scientology to be a religion in saying “In a work, Ceremonies of the Founding Church of Scientology, 1966, it was explained that “in a Scientology church service, we do not use prayers, attitudes of piety, or threats of damnation. We use the facts, the truths, the understandings that have been discovered in the science of Scientology”
According to the same site, hubbard is quoted as saying “I have to face up to the fact that we have come to the point where science and religion meet, and from now on we should stop pretending to have exclusively material aims. We cannot treat the human soul if we close our eyes to this fact.”
More on Hubbard himself, he also said ““science” infers an organization of knowledge: and if this is the case, then this material concerning the human soul, being based on critically observational knowledge and being organized, certainly meets the criteria of “scientific” knowledge. Being then, based on observable, measurable truth or knowledge and being organized, we assigned to this body of information about the human soul, the word Scientology, which is to say, the “knowledge of knowledge” or “knowing how to know” or “study of truth,” thus and thereby, with the word, taking sides with the “ologies.””
In ‘Scientology Fundamentals’, Hubbard claimed ” Scientology, used by the trained and untrained person, improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people. It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences. ” Those are also very specific claims.
Regardless, Mr Hubbard made a great number of claims which -could- be verified via scientific research… it’s just never been done.
Hey guys. Where did LRH say Scientology is a science? Last book I read where he defines it, is Fundamentals of Thought.
Reference please.
Pat
Comment by Louanne on September 28, 2009 9:54 pm
” Comment by Maria on September 28, 2009 9:47 am
Can a person be forced or coerced to have auditing? Have you ever encountered anything like this when you were taking courses?”
Again: No, never. Auditing is not possible without the will and participation of the audited.
– L
If you really want to discuss the tech why don’t we bring up the definition of “Clear” and “OT”.There are far too many to post here but we know these people are supposed to have certain abilities.
Why are so many clears needing glasses, sick or over weight? I’m expecting you to go right for the “those are generalities” excuse.
Why are OT’s getting cancer and other ilnesses at all?
Remember the tech covers all humans. It works for everyone….lol.
“The tech works” is such a common line amonst Scientologists that it has become something one has to believe just to be a Scientologist. And it has to encompass all. A great example of this is you can’t complete a course or an auditing action without having a “huge” win. In fact you wont be allowed to finish a course or an auditing action till you write a Success Story. Well of course you had a win, how silly of you, this is Scientology. And if you didn’t have a win, you must retread your material till you have a win on it. PERIOD.
It’s group think in itself. You can’t question it because Hubbard knows all. If you question it what are you refered to?? MORE HUBBARD! Well of course.
Scientology is like a bee hive. You have to be just like the rest of the bees or you get ousted.
Now why don’t we talk about the abuses!
Maria,
Scientology has what is called Security checking. This is basically a form of interrogation. The auditor tells you they are not auditing you. Although everything is exactly the same but the auditor has permission to do what is needed to get you to confess to your crimes.
This is used for those people who question the “faith” of Scientology and it’s management. And also used when someone wants to leave. Scientologists believe if someone wants to leave that they have committed crimes and those crimes make them want to leave. Thus the security checking.
Hi, Maria!
I can’t speak as to whether or not that’s happened, but I can say that I sincerely doubt that would be in any way affective.
The e-meter, physically speaking, works very much like a lie detector. And much like a lie detector, if you’re agitated or resistant, it will skew the results.
When I asked if auditing can be enforced or coerced, I wasn’t speaking of pressure from others to have auditing or buy auditing. I get that kind of pressure to buy all kinds of things and don’t have any problem saying no if I don’t what to buy something. What I wanted to know was if auditing worked if a person was somehow getting the auditing against their will — i.e. because their mom wanted them to get the auditing or somebody made it a condition of being employed or they wouldn’t let you leave until you had auditing. Stated differently, does auditing require your cooperation and participation to be beneficial or is it something that someone can just do to or for you?
case in point regarding the concept of scientology as science:
(from the cos website)
“(hubbard was) the first to apply Western scientific methods to the study of spiritual matters.”
“His searches continued through the Second World War, where he tested his first Dianetics techniques”
“(scientology is) A new science which works with the invariability of physical science in the field of the human mind.”
you are forgetting that mr hubbard claimed that scientology was a science. he also claimed to prove many elements in the lab. that has to be reconciled.
now, you are right that auditing is not medical, hence the fda warning saying as much. however, modern mental health deals with the same issues. how much does one pay for a session of auditing?
now, you ask me to accept an event that I did not witness, about your friend. but it is fact that psychosomatic issues result in physical issues. that is well known and understood, and only repeated, not originated, by mr hubbard.
Remember we’re not talking about scientific issues, we’re talking about spiritual awareness, how do you measure that?
You cant say that auditing is a medical science because it has accurred that people get psychosomatic ills removed. My friend hit a spot in auditing concerning a wound he had while he was younger, and one day after the auditing session his back had started to produce water into the original wound. It disappeared after a few days after a lot of pain. This happened last week actually, so what do you think about that happening right after an auditing session, that a previous wound started showing itself again psysically?
but that is the difference, death. you don’t have to merely take a scientist’s word at face value, because the core of science includes documentation, peer review and able to be validated.
what would you think if a scientist claimed to have found a cure for cancer, but wouldn’t produce his notes and wouldn’t produce a subject that could be shown to be cancer free?
instead, we would be left with the word of those who say they “feel” better, but refuse to demonstrate their health.
“death, you say that scientology will remain subjective and cannot be proven, but did not mr hubbard frequently claim that he had verified and validated most elements in the lab? what exactly did he prove, and wh can his research not be repeated?”
I suppose he did observations and experiments in the lab, but I dont think there is possible to find any spesific proof of the functionality of his work. I dont think it matters if a scientist tells me that a monkey can stand on one leg by inducing hydrochoride into his testicles, you would still need to observe it work, otherwise it would be belief in an authority. Proof for me is own observation, its all it is. Thats why I like subjectivity.
Well, when I was in, there was a lot of pressure to continue auditing. It was very constant and had little concern for the person. Of course, maybe those were just at the orgz that I visited, but I never saw an exeption. As long as they made their stats, no one seemed to see it as a problem. I’ve been free for a few years now, and I STILL get calls!!
Correction, last: “note everybody” should be “not everybody”
Maria,
Forced? Probably not. Coerced? By a de facto standard, yes.
Having studied both, I can tell you that auditing is basically a form of counseling. In fact, scientology sites refer to it as such many times. During counseling, or auditing, one of the affects is that painful thoughts, memories or emotions are aroused, with the intent of addressing past traumas or ‘barriers’ in one’s life.
When you are in the middle of healing, you’re in a very vulnerable state, and are left with the paradox of simultaneously wanting to continue to confront past hurts and heal from them, but also from the vulnerability of revealing them- pulling of the scabs and bleeding clean, so to speak.
So, when you open up to someone, be it a doctor or an auditor, it is unavoidable that one would trust them a great deal. Just look at the concept of transference, in which one naturally transfers certain emotions to their “guide”- especially common with parent issues.
So what happens when that trusted individual recommends additional sessions?
I enjoy reading the work of Joesph Campbell- you may enjoy his work. From his writings, we can see that the auditor is a sort of spiritual guide, and must be trusted by the subject.
On a personal note, my sister felt quite compelled to take additional auditing. She would often try to raise funds saying “my auditor says I’m so close to a break through” or “I”m almost clear, I can feel it!” That’s her, of course, and note everybody- but she certainly felt compelled, and at no time was that discouraged from within the org.
” Comment by Maria on September 28, 2009 9:47 am
Can a person be forced or coerced to have auditing? Have you ever encountered anything like this when you were taking courses?”
No, never. Auditing is not possible without the with of the audited for self-improvement, it would not work. The goal of auditing is improve self-determinism.
– L
death, you say that scientology will remain subjective and cannot be proven, but did not mr hubbard frequently claim that he had verified and validated most elements in the lab? what exactly did he prove, and wh can his research not be repeated?
Can a person be forced or coerced to have auditing? Have you ever encountered anything like this when you were taking courses?
Yes I understand that it is subjective. Its hard to prove, but try to look at a person before and after scientology, how was he able to solve his problems before and after, lets say how does he communicate? And yes it’s still subjective, just because someone did the TR’s doesnit mean it brainwashes a guy to communicate correctly, he might still use it for other purposes than others again. Not everyone has cognitions to apply the tech or even cognitions enough to actually write up success stories. You see some of them go “Oh I had this amazing win on the communication course today, I feel I really understand everything”. But then you see that he can’t stand still while talking to you, he itches his hair, he mumbles, he cant hold eye contact whatsoever. So what happened? He didnt really HAVE A COGNITION!
I’m saying simply OBSERVE, and use logic sense, if a person who has just taken a communication cource, and he doesnt communicate better, it doesnt have to mean that the course didnt work, it might simply mean that the person didnt really observe what he was observing.
I think you’d probably disagree, but in my opinion thats why you see scientologists that misuse the tech. They just THINK they got it, while in reality its easy for us on the outside to see that he cant communicate any better. Its amazing to see, really, some of those coming out of a communication cource communicates like robots and doesnt really pay attention to what you’re saying, they’re all too busy acknowledging what you are saying:”Good, I understand, oh yeah I totally get that”. But others actually can communicate better. Its a fascinating phenomena,
I would just like to mention it. It’s subjective, and it always will be. Scientology will never be scientific, but you can observe phenomenas happening without a doubt.
If you had in mind more organisational issues I could mention sales tactics, hard sell for instance. It didnt work on me, but I can see how others could fall for it. If you cant afford 5000 dollars for an e-meter, dont buy one, thats my point. I would use the tech on the organisation, lets say they insisted I should buy a e-meter RIGHT NOW, and always EVERYTHING AT ONCE, I would say: “No, I need money for rent, I cant afford it. My rent is more important than buying an e-meter at this moment”. And thats the end of it.
I hope this answered some of your questions. If here is anything else you would like my opinion on, just fire ahead.
My spelling was terrible. I meant “hearsay” and “second-hand”.
My bad.
But, still, DX, the only evidence that you offer is subjective. In court, they call it heresay, where one tries to use subjective evidence (such as second had information) as evidence.
For example, “I know that he’s guilty of the crime, because Bob told me that he told him so”.
So when you say that scientology can do “magical things”, the rest of us have a problem. We don’t find that to be true, and no scientologist has been able to demonstrate it- except to themselves.
Now, I’m glad it works for you- very very glad that it works for you. And no one wants to take that from you. But you do agree that there are flaws and problems- those need to be addressed, at least internally. May I ask what problems you have discovered?
I dont see it like as if he’s the founder of all the materials he accumulated, I’m saying first of all that what I’ve read so far has been possible to apply effectively.
Quote: “What you’re saying is that we shouldn’t be critical of scientology because it works, but your only point of reference to its effectiveness is your own experience.”
Actually not only my own experience, also two of my best friends who also study scientology.
I’m not saying that you should not be critical, I have done my homework on scientology aswell, and even before I started moving up the bridge, I actually made conclutions that the organisation had flaws that should be investigated. I am currently becoming a class 5 auditor and going clear at the same time. That is my goal, and so far its made wonderful results in my life.
Yes, I do want to help, is there anything I can help you with? I can assure you that I’m a scientologist of a different brand than many scientologists I’ve come across.
Clarification:
I had meant that not all current scientologists find the program and the organization to be completely beneficial?
Your logic is circular, Dx.
What you’re saying is that we shouldn’t be critical of scientology because it works, but your only point of reference to its effectiveness is your own experience.
For your information, most of it, myself included, have tried the tech. And we have not found it to be worth the tradeoff. The problem is that critics of scientology are notoriously well educated, so we are aware of the elements of the tech that were taken from other sources, and would rather use the original, more effective sources.
For example, I use Hubbard’s “Study tech” every day. However, I use the methods that were established many years before hubbard was born. He just used bits and pieces and called it his own.
But the logic itself is flawed, referring to your charge about trying the tech!
When was the last time you used cocaine? When was the last time you received psychiatric care? Perhaps never… but then how can you speak against those things if you never apply them? Solely because someone told you to do so? Do you see the pattern here?
Lastly, many people claim that the things they enjoy are universally “good”. Many users of LCD claim the same. Many alcoholics do as well. It may work for you, but it certainly didn’t for us, and it doesn’t for all current scientologists.
I do believe that you want to help, DX. Are you?
Scientology can be used to do magical things, so spend so much time on this forum complaining when you have so much LRH tech you can USE, instead of DISCUSS. Scientology was made to be APPLIED.
Have anyone of you ever tried applying any of the tech or are you guys too busy discussing whether the e-meter is too expensive..?
I wouldnt be the same without scientology, its not an illution or an euphoria, it’s the truth, and one of the most amazing things I do now is giving other people solutions that they so desperately need.
I now see how these solutions have given a shed of light into those who have come to me for advise.. That IS help, its LRH, and its ME at the same time. I would be greatful to be able to help anyone, it’s one of the things that drive me most.
But will they? I have not met a single one, aside from Lake, that can even admit that there’s a problem of any magnitude, even in an anonymous forum such as this. It seems that most scientologists that notice issues, problems or injustices are more likely to just “blow” (claiming to fear internal persecution or retribution), rather than try to affect change from within.
I can’t say I blame them, either, it can be intimidating to go against the grain while still inside.
But, unless there are more like Lake that are willing to stand up while inside, there will be no improvement- no change.
And, the irony is that Lake’s attitude- open and honest- would largely eliminiate the mass criticism, if widely adopted.
Agreed, now Scientologists have to step up to the plate to get things fixed.
Truth: “And I hope you and other Scientologists fix what needs to be fixed before DM ruins it for good.”
Well, DM doesn’t seem to be able to get his own ethics in by himself. And since there doesn’t seem to be any way to “impeach” the guy, massive public outcry seems to be the only way. More Scientology celebrities need to be made aware of whats going on, and then (hopefully) speak out. And this probably needs to hit the national airwaves in a big way.
And in the event that we are successful in removing DM, in my view, any new Church leadership needs to also take steps to stop the high-pressure stat-pushing of income and recruiting. This one is at the top of my list in needed changes. Second is the elimination of declaring SP any former staff and SO who don’t route out properly. Third is eliminating forced disconnection.
You get rid of DM and make those changes, and that’d likely resolve 90%+ of the Church’s problems.
I must agree. Lake that is very very refreshing to see. We may not agree 100% but at least you see some of the realities that Scientology has come to.
Being able to confront what’s happening in Scientology is the only way it’s going to remain in a real existance.
Scientologists just don’t want to confront that DM could be a real SP. Look what happened to David Mayo. He was discovered yet he was also at the top management of Scientology. Plus the fact Scientology was never meant to be run by only one person after Ron died.
I commend you Lake. And I hope you and other Scientologists fix what needs to be fixed before DM ruins it for good.
lake, my friend, I hope you are using a proxy on this site!!
that being said… I like you, and you represent the hope of scientology.
consider this: there are about a half dozen or so regular pro-scientology posters on the net. there’s you, pat, louanne, terryeo, and a few less active ones. half of the defense is on this site!
however, you are the only one that is honest, open to discussion and knowledgable, and is not crude, insulting or blind to certain facts.
honestly, at first, I thought you were high level osa with new tactics. that’s a compliment.
if more scientologists become like you, criticism would halt. ironic.
A bit more information …
It turns out that one of the individuals (Jeff Hawkins) that Miscavige physically assaulted on numerous occasions, was in fact the individual who was personally responsible for doing the research and advertising which put Dianetics back on the NY Times best seller list in the mid and late 80s. This accomplishment tripled the Church’s international stats through 1990. Shortly thereafter, Miscavige pulled Jeff off of this project (allowing it to dwindle to nothing), and by 2000 the international stats had fallen by 50%.
Jeff Hawkins — normally a person who would be considered a hero in the eyes of most Scientologists — was never recognized or given an award for this incredible feat. Instead, Miscavige called Jeff Hawkins to the Int Base, where he harangued, tormented and physically assaulted Jeff for 15 years. This stuff isn’t made up. Several people witnessed it. Seeing the abuse of Jeff was the last straw for Marty Rathbun, and ultimately what drove Rathbun to leave.
By 2005, Jeff was a cowed and defeated being, and he was not able to recover emotionally until disconnecting from Miscavige. Needless to say, Jeff had no interest in Scientology after that.
What is so disgusting is that Miscavige’s behavior is the exact opposite of what Scientology is about.
Louanne and Pat, you cannot pretend that these things aren’t real. I don’t know who you are or what your situation in Scientology is, but these things *are* happening. THIS is the evil that we have to confront — not some external critic, with questions and misunderstandings. The guy running our church either always was, or has become, an SP.
At this point, it’s impossible to ignore the allegations that David Miscavige has been physically abusive to Sea Org staff.
If one, two or even three individuals came forward with these allegations, one *might* be able to chalk it up to tales from “disgruntled former employees”. Unfortunately, we now have 14 individuals who worked directly under and around Miscavige, and they have all come forward with these allegations. All these people either personally witnessed David Miscavige being physically abusive, or were at the receiving end of it. And this has apparently been going on for over 25 years.
This type of abuse needs to be stopped.
Miscavige is hoping that we will ignore this behavior, by re-releasing the big “‘War is Over!’ — IRS win” (on video) and trying to remind us how much of a hero he is. But it’s not going to work.
No matter how many “wars” you end Miscavige, it doesn’t change the fact that you have been cruel, deceptive and have caused untold damage to Scientology with your behavior.
Pat: “Which PLs are those, Lake?”
With regard to policies that requires that the Church declare someone an SP when they’ve blown, and then also requires that Scientologists disconnect from them once declared, the primary one is:
“SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS” (HCO PL 23-DEC-1965RB , in OEC Vol 1).
With regard to “stat pushing”, this problem is primarily due to a collection of policies which require individuals and Churches to focus all of their stats on WEEKLY time periods, and then assign conditions based on the weekly trend (or three week trend). If staff were allowed to concentrate on products on a QUARTERLY basis (i.e. every three months), and if Orgs were allowed to conctrate on stats on an ANNUAL basis, the staff and Orgs would then have time to breathe and make meaningful, long-term decisions and plans for ongoing growth.
While LRH wrote an explicit policy which frowns on the “stat push” (i.e. concentrating on the stat, instead of the actual thing that the stat measures), the time-frames chosen for stat management and condition assignment have not proven workable.
Here comes Pat to “rescue” the Scientology PR. Not that it matters, no one comes to this site for real answers anyways. They know it’s all PR BS, which it is.
KSW is what is not being applied for one. Tech degrades. Claims of how fast a person is getting through bridge actions. Now challenge me to who is saying this!!
PTS tech, I already explained that. Disconnection is now being used as a handle instead of communication. Scientology is in defend mode. There’s nothing to defend if you’re an honest group.
Pat, can you also admit like Lake did that orgs are stuggling or are you in denial of that as well? Donations aren’t org income so try to stay away from that. Org income comes from people doing Scientology courses and auditing. Not from donations.
I went into my local org a while back and there was one person in the theory course room, no one in the Practical course room and no one in the Div 6 course room. Four out of 10 auditing rooms were being used.
I had time to check out the stats as well. They were not doing well at all.
It doesn’t take long to formulate a doubt formula with things like this going on.
Please enter your denial here…
word was supposed to be significant ;)
pat, do you believe that there are ANY flaws or problems with current management?
thank you, pat, for that insightful input :)
(good natured ribbing)
to bring up a more current subject, is it significalt that mr travolta is acknowledging that his (sweet and much loved) son, jett, had autism, which is listed in the dsmIII?
and also that his wife (a dear woman who is in my praters) acknowledgied that he received scientology treatments, but that he still passed?
Comment by Lake on September 23, 2009 1:57 pm
“The point is, certain policies exist that create stat-pushing and inappropriate SP declares. They are currently being applied, and they are causing trouble for the church. If the church would stop applying these policies, many problems for the church would be eliminated.”
Which PLs are those, Lake?
Pat
Comment by Truth on September 23, 2009 12:30 pm
“Lake, the problem right now with Scientology is it is NOT applying Source. Modifying is not the answer. Just not applying some policies is.
The reason orgs are small and failing is because Scientology is not making better people. If it were, the orgs would be packed. Which means they are out tech.
If management knew who you were, you’d be forced into sec checking for saying what you’re saying.
PTS tech is not being applied. But there is a problem with it. PTS tech is pointless if the organization is creating abuses. People see those abuses now and that is another reason Scientology is shrinking.”
Which PTS tech is not being applied?
Pat
@Comment by Truth on September 23, 2009 4:20 pm
“Agreed. But the problem there is it’s no longer Scientology. And who get’s to choose what policies to apply and which to not apply?
This is exactly what’s going on currently with management. They’ve now got many Scientologists convinced that applying policy doesn’t always work. ”
What Scientologists? What policy specifically is it that we’ve been convinced doesn’t work?
“But yet they aren’t applying policy. And the ones they are applying are being done destructively.”
Which policies are those?
“Spiritually Scientology is dying. ”
Hardly. Better than ever and growing.
Pat
Agreed. But the problem there is it’s no longer Scientology. And who get’s to choose what policies to apply and which to not apply?
This is exactly what’s going on currently with management. They’ve now got many Scientologists convinced that applying policy doesn’t always work. But yet they aren’t applying policy. And the ones they are applying are being done destructively.
We are now seeing this more and more.
Spiritually Scientology is dying. But the scam business side of it lives on with donations. That is the ONLY reason Scientology carries on.
Truth: “Modifying is not the answer. Just not applying some policies is.”
Sure, however it’s accomplished is fine by me. But if you don’t make a formal statement that “this policy is no longer to be applied”, then it will continue to be referenced and applied.
The point is, certain policies exist that create stat-pushing and inappropriate SP declares. They are currently being applied, and they are causing trouble for the church. If the church would stop applying these policies, many problems for the church would be eliminated.
Lake, the problem right now with Scientology is it is NOT applying Source. Modifying is not the answer. Just not applying some policies is.
The reason orgs are small and failing is because Scientology is not making better people. If it were, the orgs would be packed. Which means they are out tech.
If management knew who you were, you’d be forced into sec checking for saying what you’re saying.
PTS tech is not being applied. But there is a problem with it. PTS tech is pointless if the organization is creating abuses. People see those abuses now and that is another reason Scientology is shrinking.
bigdaddy: “(correct if wrong, lake) he’s not an sp”
Nope, still in good standing.
Guys, these things are obvious to most Scientologists … particularly once they’ve been both on staff and public.
The fundamental problem is that while both stat-pushing and improper declaring/disconnecting were discouraged by LRH … he also wrote policies which allow, enable and/or require them. They were written in the interest of making “big booming orgs”, in a different time and under different circumstances. And today, the Church is trying to remain true to LRH. But in my view, some of these policies simply are no longer applicable and not working. And if the Church really wants to survive and grow … it needs to re-think and modify these policies, IMHO.
Truth: “The Scientology PTS tech is simply ineffective 99% of the time.”
Actually, the core of PTS tech is to get the person into communication and more at cause over the situation. Disconnecting, if done as a very last resort (as per the tech), should only be done on a self-determined basis. I believe that the incidence of disconnecting would be much much lower, if the above-mentioned staff/SO blow-declare-disconnection policies were changed.
But the SP declare-disconnection issue, in my view, is secondary to an even more fundamental policy area that the Church should address. Stats. If registrars, recruiters and staff in general were not under constant pressure to increase their stats on a weekly basis, but were actually thinking long-term and about actual products, the number of external complaints about the Church would likely drop 90% or more. LRH called what is going on now “stat pushing”, and while he warned against and made it Church policy not to do it, it unfortunately is a huge problem. So other Church policies which bring about this stat-pushing, in my view, would also need to be looked at and changed.
And in light of that, Truth, I do understand your concerns about the “Ideal Org” strategy. The strategy will only work, in my view, if the Church now dips into its reserves to pull it off … and also addresses the above.
lake, here, is actually shattering some of the scion stereotypes.
his openness and frankness is refreshing. he is actually the first scientologist I have talked to who was independent enough to actually acknowledge that there may be room for improvement.
what’s more, (correct if wrong, lake) he’s not an sp. the fact that there is at least one scientologist that can stand up and criticize certain elements gives a lot of hope.
Louanne wrote on scientologymyths.info:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/disconnection/what-is-disconnection.php
“In practice, an SP is a status of a member of Scientology. Someone who intentionally messed things up repeatedly or really badly violated internal rules gets “declared a Suppressive Person”. ”
However, as Lake said: If a member of CoS LEAVES CoS without going through the proper steps, he is going to be declared SP, although he isn’t a member of CoS anymore and the other CoS members have to disconnect from him.
So SP is NOT a status of Scientology members, it is a status of Scientology EX members.
I can add to what Lake said (although I’m not in any way defending Scientology).
It’s actually HCO’s job to find replacements for personel. But because they are so lacking personnel and WAY over worked they can’t replace people for the life of them.
Even telling anyone you’re leaving is reason to declare someone. It’s in “Leaving and Leaves”.
Now JF brings up a great point. The Scientology PTS tech is simply ineffective 99% of the time. There just aren’t that many SP’s (if you believe in them at all). Disconnection has become something Scientology uses to control it’s members. Instead of putting the work into showing the antagonistic person what’s really happening they just have the Scientologists (usually staff member) disconnect. Creating a huge PR flap time and time again.
Now this also goes into the fact Scientology is no longer on the level. If it was, staff members would be hauled into ethics for not staying in communication with their families (even the antagonistic ones) . And people wouldn’t have such a problem with Scientology.
Not letting staff go on leaves regularly and having days off is a huge mistake. Let alone the other abuses that are currently happening in Scientology.
The other side of the PTS tech coin is SP’s. Scientology can’t have Scientologists having their own opinion and speaking it. Specially when it comes to the tech. You suck it up and accept it or you get in serious trouble. Many times these people have to pay thousands of dollars for sec checks because management wants them to shut up. Instead of handle their origination.
And if the person keeps on talking and questioning management, they get declared. Even if you have the policy in hand.
This is why I say DM and crew are CREATING enemies.
Where’s the two way comm? It reaks of out tech. Instead of two way comming about it and showing the person a correct reference, it’s now easier to make them just shut up. Because DM and crew know there’s out tech!
I’d also like to add Hubbard says if someone wants to leave, to get them out of there and out of there FAST! I know people who have had to wait a year (that’s not a joke) to get their routing out Sec Check. That’s just wrong!
John Friedman: “Why are so many people declared suppressive by the church?”
It is because there is a Church policy that says if a person joins staff or the Sea Org, and then leaves without going through the proper steps, he must then be declared a “suppressive person” independent of whether he meets the actual definition of “suppressive person” or not. The “proper steps” include finding a replacement for oneself in the position that one held, and this can sometimes take weeks or months.
Personally, I think it’s an unworkable Church policy and has led to a tremendous amount of difficulty in and out of the Church and, frankly, has made the actual use of the term “suppressive person” less meaningful. Also, because Scientologists in good standing are then required to disconnect from (i.e. not communicate with) any formally declared “suppressive individual or group”, it magnifies the problem.
The declaring of a former staff or Sea Org member as “suppressive” for simply leaving church employment improperly … and then requiring disconnection of family and friends … are policies that, personally, I wish the Church would change.
Why are so many people declared suppressive by the church. It seems like a large fraction of senior management (rathbun, vaughn young, binder, mayo, many others) are declared suppressive at some point. Also, a huge fraction of the earlier members of the CoS have been declared suppressive. Of the first 100 clears, it appears that 33 were declared suppressive, even the fist clear (John McMaster). Why is that? Isn’t that suspicious?
Which leads me to my next question. If all those people really were suppressive, then why weren’t they detected earlier by other church officials? Presumably, they were suppressive all along. How could they have been promoted up the ranks to sernior management without anyone noticing they were suppressive? Doesn’t the church offer a PTS/SP course that allows them to detect SPs easily? Does it work?
Many of the people on posts at old St. Hill had been put in their positions by Ron. Later, they were declared suppressive. Hadn’t they been suppressive all along? Was Ron unable to detect that they were suppressive when he appointed them to their posts?
Thanks for your time.
-jf
It’s not about having the last word…it’s about the truth.
Alright Truth, you can have the last word. Have a nice weekend!
Lake,
And both are ED’s. Oh my god!! Oh this is good stuff! Now one LRH reference is “less validy” because it has an experation (what reference says such?). I see it really has gotten worse in Scientology with the justifications.
Well thank you for your opinion but even when Ron was alive they were using the Birthday Game and not Ideal orgs. Do you think he didn’t know that?
CC Int had low production pre 1990. So that’s not saying a whole lot. Plus it’s still lower than what Old ST Hill was producing. Twice as big…it should be 5.4X as big. So what’s to say for that? Since they were deemed ST Hill size in what 1993?
Yes yes of course ASHO and AO are “huge” now…if you believe what Management is telling you.
So what you’re trying to tell me is AO, ASHO and Flag have standard tech, but the orgs don’t.
I do like the fact that you are now adding in the completions from the basics. How convienient you use an anti Scientologist then jump right over to not. Whatever fits your view.
Fact of the matter is even if Flag was producing three times what they were, it’s not in tech. And that’s with the basics added in.
Does 5.4X mean anything to you? If the tech was truely in ALL orgs would be doing extremely well. That’s just not the case.
I expect you to say that about your fellow Scientologists. I said the same thing for many years till I got to the truth. You will too one day. But something happened for you to not still be there. If it were that great, you’de still be there. It’s alright, you have to cover for Scientology. I understand that.
You are incorrect my friend. ST Hill wasn’t booming? DC wasn’t booming? Have you seen for instance stats from Boston in the 70’s? They were booming. So were several other orgs. But frankly many were pretty new and hadn’t had a chance to get off the ground, then DM took over and dismantled the Mission network. So that says alot about DM doesn’t it.
Lake, you’re ignoring the fact that when people win with Scientology, they ALWAYS come back. That’s standard tech. You can go on all day about how to start a business. And yes I have my own business and you work with what you have. Not build a huge empty building in hopes you can fill it one day like the “Ideal” orgs are doing. But this isn’t like building a business. If you are truely helping people, they will be there and stay there for the org. That’s just not happening. But it’s convienient for you to ignore what Hubbard himself said about how to make an org boom.
What’s naive is to think that DM is doing such a great job while orgs are failing.
Well of course Scientology isn’t as solvent as it was 10 20 or 30 years ago….BECAUSE RON WASN’T ASKING SCIENTOLOGISTS FOR DONATIONS. Like DM is now. That doesn’t speak for standard tech though does it.
The “Ideal Orgs” is just another brilliant move to gather donations from Scientologists that forget what standard tech is.
Donations are building the Super Power building. Why is that incomplete? It’s been an incomplete cycle for 6 years.
Truth: “So one reference trumps another?”
Yes, actually, LRH EDs have a built-in expiration … HCO PLs do not.
But just in terms of overall policies, depending on the situation, sure — some are more valuable/important than others. Do you consider them all equal in value/information/importance, completely separate from a person’s judgement? In my book, the “Ideal Orgs” reference provides a better description of an “ideal org” than the “Birthday Game/St Hill Size” reference. They both have value, but the “Ideal Orgs” reference has always been a more valuable guide in understanding LRH’s vision for “ideal orgs”, IMHO.
“You’re EXACTLY explaining HAVE.”
Re-read what I wrote, Truth. Be, do and have go in that order, yes, but they also expand and grow. The orgs are already there, yes. If they want to expand their HAVE (the products), then they need to expand their BE and their DO. That’s what the orgs are doing. The building is not a HAVE as the DM-bashers want you to believe, it’s an expansion of BE. The products are the HAVE.
CC Int is twice as large … in terms of production … than it was before the renovations (pre-1990). So is AO. Flag is three times as large today (production wise) as it was in the mid-80s. And those stats are “number of people completing services” each year. ASHO appears to have peaked after the renovations until 2004 (nearly doubled since mid-80s), and now appears to be back to it’s mid-80s level. (Our critic stat-keeper doesn’t seem to have updated her stats of ASHO, so it’s hard to know.)
“So why aren’t you on staff still? Too many hours of work? Too little pay?”
Hours were fine — about 40. But pay, as I knew going in, was meager. I was in college part of the time, and also had to have a “day job”. I loved my seniors — I’m still friends with many to this day. I was never treated poorly — in fact, in retrospect they were probably the best boss-worker relationships I’ve ever had. And the experience was invaluable to me.
You seem to be very hung-up on “why aren’t things booming like LRH said”. Truth, the local orgs have NEVER, EVER boomed. There were occasional exceptions. But asking “why aren’t all orgs booming like LRH said they would?” is just naive. Have you ever successfully built an organization/business before?
Using the “Ideal Orgs” reference as a “stable datum” to begin building orgs is a brilliant move by church management and I hope they follow through by actively getting in place the remaining points. They should have done this years ago, but I doubt the Church was as solvent 10, 20, 30 years ago, as it is today.
Oops, just noticed that “Ideal Orgs” is an LRH ED also. Not sure it changes the essence of the argument too much, but just thought I’d point it out.
Lake,
Excuse me! The Birthday Game ED doesn’t tell one how to make a St Hill size org?? How do you explain the few orgs that were St Hill sized then? It does say what a ST Hill size org is. THE SIZE OF ST HILL for gods sake. Read the reference. And why have all the orgs been participating in the Birthday Game for so many years!
So one reference trumps another? Amazing what Scientologists are willing to justify these days. If a Scientologists said that 12 years ago, you’ll likely have been declared.
You’re EXACTLY explaining HAVE. It’s BE then DO then HAVE.
The orgs already exist. You do not need a huge pretty space to deliver Scientology. If people are actually winning they’re willing to do Scientology in a space that isn’t perfect. The same goes for a business. The client doesn’t care where or how you make your product, just that it’s a product they want and get.
CC INT…it was made St Hill size by ripping off staff from around SO orgs in LA. And when it was deemed ST Hill size the stats weren’t even what was required of a ST Hill size org.
Do you really look at ASHO as a Scientology expansion point….LMFAO! The renovations at ASHO didn’t boom the org. The staff were still eating beans and rice in 2003. And still are depending on the GI. That’s not an expanding org…
You don’t see that if Scientology were being applied 100% standard that it would be booming and so would the orgs. It’s not. The orgs are still stuggling and they will continue to stuggle after they become “ideal”. Because it’s not 100% standard tech. LRH says so!
So why aren’t you on staff still? Too many hours of work? Too little pay? Seniors being too “unreasonable”? Other fish to fry? You weren’t going up the bridge? You were treated poorly? All of the above and more?
Christianity doesn’t charge for their services like Scientology does to begin with. They rely SOLEY on donations.
How many times did you hear Ron ask Scientologists for donations?? He didn’t because an on Source Scientology is a money making Scientology….without donations. You know it. Yet you keep justifying it.
Cognitive dissonance . That fits any and all Scientologists these days.
Thanks for your answer, Lake.
Anoymous: “Do you know if Hubbard ever explained WHY … we .. lost our OT abilities?”
Yes, the summation of this can be found in “The Factors” available in the relatively short book “Scientology: 8-8008”. These take a great deal of chewing, and so I would first suggest building up to them by reading the following books:
Dianetics 55!
The Phoenix Lectures
Scientology 0-8
These are also all relatively short, summation-style books, so they don’t take much time to read. But they do give one a good foundation before jumping into an advanced book like “Scientology: 8-8008”. Also, The Phoenix Lectures is now only available in its original lectures form on CD, but it used to be printed as a book (basically a transcript of the lectures).
You might be able to find any of these on ebay.
Good luck!
Truth: “Ron never says call it an ideal org. A St Hill size org IS an Ideal org.”
Truth, “St. Hill Size Orgs” is a reference from an LRH ED. “Ideal Orgs” is a reference from an HCO PL. Which is the more appropriate one for an Org to be using? Which one doesn’t have an expiration built-in, and perhaps more importantly, which one actually TELLS you what and how an org should be operating? Answer: The “Ideal Orgs” policy.
Putting the actual physical presence of the org there helps to establish its identity … it’s beingness. That is what successful orgs like Flag, CC Int and ASHO did. They raised donations from their fields, renovated and/or built their spaces, and they physically put their org there. They improved/expanded/established the BEINGNESS of those churches. At the same time and/or commensurately, the actual steps of expanding/establishing the delivery … the lines, the staff, the admin, the courseroom, the auditing, etc. were put in place. They then actually promoted and delivered … that was the DOINGNESS. Then they had the actual product … the trained auditors, the Releases/Clears, spiritual freedom, a better society, an active field and solvency. That is the HAVINGNESS. Havingness = the final products.
You’ve bought into this “DM is only interested in MEST” theory. For sure, the church is interested in being solvent, and having plenty of reserves. That was LRH’s goal for churches too. It’s also a goal of ANY successful religion and non-profit organization.
The for-profits out there also have the additional goal of enriching owners and shareholders. Yet, the leadership of Scientology makes less than the leaders of most major religions, and far far less than the most successful private Scientologists.
If you can’t see this, take it out of the realm of Scientology. If you were a dentist or a “life coach” or a Christian community … and wanted to establish or improve your local presence (perhaps as a franchise or branch of some larger organization), these are the steps you would go through. Put the name/space/building/sign/staff there (BE) (if you’re a church, you probably have parishioners who help/donate on the acquisitions and/or renovations). Then you DO the steps which lead to the products. In Christianity, this would be Sunday sermons, donation plates, Sunday school, various social functions and good works in the community. Then ultimately you HAVE the products. In Christian churches, the products are (hopefully) better/stronger-faithed Christians, an improved community, solvency. With dentists, it’s people with better teeth and nicer smiles. And well-compensated dentists and owners. One then, if interested in expanding/growing, circles back around by expanding ones beingness, ones doingness and one’s havingness.
With Scientology, the local staff and field, along with assistance from Int Mgmt, are the ones that are determining what they need in terms of location, space and design. Yes, we’d all like it to be done yesterday. Is it “thinking too big”? Well, in my book, when you think small, you end up with small. When you think big, you end up with big. There are a dozen completed Ideal Orgs (mest-wise) … there are dozens more in the pipeline. They’re all cycling through BE-DO-HAVE in an effort to expand.
I was on staff for 2.5 years.
I later went on to finish college and help establish and build an incredibly successful company … a billion dollars in annual sales. We didn’t do it by thinking small.
@Lake:
Do you know if Hubbard ever explained WHY we forget that we are thetans and lost our OT abilities, so that we have to relearn them through Scientology?
Lake,
“It’s a good start.” DM has been in charge since the 80’s.
You keep forgetting. In tech orgs are fully viable money making orgs. If GAOT was really the proper tech Ron wanted, the orgs would be absolutely raking in the cash. Make sense yet? I’m going to keep nailing that because that’s what Ron says.
GOAT has been out for nine years. Then why are orgs still struggling as you yourself admit?
You’re missing connections. DM doesn’t give these orgs a damned dime. That’s why many of the buildings have been purchased years ago and sit waiting for renovations. While the staff starve.
Why do you think management changed from “St. Hill Size” over to “Ideal Orgs”? Ron never says call it an ideal org. A St Hill size or IS an Ideal org.
Have you read BE DO HAVE? If orgs were BEING and DOING, the HAVE is automatic. But that’s not what’s going on. HAVE is all and after the orgs HAVE then they can BE and DO. Is that right?
Yes bravo, let’s keep those orgs paying one way or another. I’m glad you guys were excited about your new building. Too bad it will remain small (membership) and stuggling.
Oh yes the demonizing. Have you ever been on staff Lake? Maybe in the Sea Org?
If you have, no one needs to demonize management. They do it all by themselves. The whole “if you don’t agree, then you are an ethics partical” has taken its course. That is another reason orgs are struggling and getting smaller. As opposed to expanding like Ron said they would if they were standard tech.
Why did we forget that we are thetans?
Why did we forget our thetan abilities?
Why do we create our own reactive minds?
Truth … I think it’s pretty obvious to one and all that just “prettying up the buildings” is not going to solve all problems. But combined with GAT, Basics courses, national advertising and church lobbies that actually explain the general philosophy … it’s a good start. And a pretty good one at that.
I know there’s plenty of work to go. I think everyone else does too. The “Ideal Org” PL has a long list of points that go in to making up an “ideal org”. But I can tell you that the folks that contributed to buying the new building in my (former) local area were pretty excited when they/we got enough together to actually purchase the building.
Regarding “renting the buildings from Mgmt” … I’ve read that accusation online. I have a hard time believing it. It’s possible that management has “loaned” some local churches money to pay off the mortgage and/or do the designs/upgrades/ renovations, and there’s a “payment” associated with that … maybe even a “rent payment” for 30 years or something. And if so, bravo. I’d rather have the local church paying to church mgmt, than to a bank. I’m sure they would too.
But I suspect with the rumor coming from those that are trying to demonize mgmt, that the whole truth of these supposed “rent payments” is not being discussed. Just like GAT and the Basics books being called “squirrel”. Dig deeper, and you find it’s just the opposite.
Lake, That is exactly the program I’m talking about. The Ideal Org program is a joke. It’s using donations to buy building that Orgs still have to pay Int Landlord for. Yes Rent.
Let alone the fact that the Ideal Org program has ZERO to do with why Orgs are actually failing.
Making an org all pretty and new doesn’t bring in public.
People that get spiritually better don’t need to do it in a pretty space.
DM and his boys think that renovating orgs is somehow going to fix the horrible PR Scientology currently has.
The rest you can keep ignoring because you know I hit the nail on the head. Out tech is killing Orgs.
Last I heard, ASHO was on beans and rice…and has been off and on for years.
And just so you know, DM is trying to route more Scientologists to Flag not to outter orgs. The promo says all.
I also love the way the promo violates KSW. Tech degrades and saying how fast people are getting through actions. The ship is sinking my friend.
No, I think you got it. Just thought you might be interested, since we left our conversation on the subject agreeing that … “sure would love to see OT abilities be validated today…”
Here’s a possible opportunity, if nothing else, to better understand a person experiencing the abilities, willing to discuss them and also believing their validation is possible.
While it was a little bit tl/dr, I did find references to him saying “yes”, when asked if he thought they can be validated, but no more than that. Did I miss something?
Mark: “the rest of the conversation was boring me”
Hey, speaking of OT abilities :) … have you been following the blog on Geir Isene’s website? (He’s a recent OT 8 … loves Scientology but has disagreements with mgmt.) There were a couple of threads about whether he achieved any OT abilities, verified past lives and if so whether he thought they could be scientifically validated. He said yes, and thinks they can. (The threads are in the “General Comments and Questions…” section.)
Check it out and let me know what you think…
Truth: “Why are orgs struggling?”
Why have orgs always struggled? Flag, ASHO and CC Int seem to be doing pretty good. Sounds like it’s now the lower level orgs turn. Sure wish church management would encourage something like … I dunno .. an “ideal org” program? Do some national church advertising? Might even get the LA Times to write: “I kind of love these ads.”
Truth, you’re getting into ad hominem and that’s not very productive. Plus, we’re going in circles. Not sure I can provide more than what I’ve given.
Lake, are you formulating your justifications or are you sitting in a heap of denial?
Why are orgs struggling? You admitted it yourself. If DM is doing such a great job why is this happening?
Hello Louanne. Removing my comment, because i pointed out a lie on your website?
“Learn to live with the truth”
– the way to happiness
Lake,
You continue to ignore the fact that an FN is no longer the same as it used to be and you have not refered me to the original LRH hand written change that you keep saying has made the change management has reverted to. You are giving me old references. Where is the proof of the 2000 change thatmanagment has been using?
On the stats…why don’t we just say that the completions peaked in the 80’s and have a serious Emergency condition that’s easily turned into a Non existance condition. Or you can just ignore that and look at the 70’s. Thanks for the links.
But now that brings up another point. Why are there only 6000 completions in 2004 (five years old as well…) when DM and his boys claim there are 10,000,000 Scientologists?
“Orgs have always struggled. Don’t kid yourself.” Lake Sept 9th 2009
There it is! So why are the orgs stuggling Lake? Ron says it himself. There is only one answer. But can you come to PT and admit it. Or are you afraid you might be sec checked for saying the truth? OW write ups and ethics conditions for saying the truth. I’ve seen it time and time again. Till Scientologists just follow what management tells them. Now most are robots that let management think for them. It’s very sad to see.
I’ll also point out that the 70’s and 80’s was a huge boom from the first two decades. Then in the 90’s the stats have continued to fall. No wonder why DM didn’t talk about many stats the last few events.
I realise I’m talking to a wall of indoctination (you). I was the same exact way. No one could kill the justifications I had for what DM and managment were doing. I had to come to the conclusions on my own. It took years but I did eventually see the truth. And it wasn’t good. I hope one day Scientology gets cleaned up and stops playing games with people. OSA doesn’t need to exist like it does. If Scientology were on the level, it wouldn’t have many enemies at all.
At the cost of what Scientology currently charges, it has no hope of clearing this planet. Let alone what is going on internally.
Have tou ever been on staff or in the Sea Org Lake?
“Well then, point them to this site to see the other side of the coin.”
Isn’t that a little like asking the cat who ate the fish? :)
Couldn’t resist- the rest of the conversation was boring me, lol
Gabby: “Right now when my friends think of Scientology…”
Well then, point them to this site to see the other side of the coin.
Truth: “Who’s arguing?”
You are, Truth. I’ve provided abundant evidence showing your GAT and F/N squirreling theories to be full of holes — and yet instead of responding with references or documented evidence, you resort to ad hominem.
I’ll let you re-read what I wrote about struggling orgs, since you don’t seem to have gotten it the first two times.
My claim for the stats of the Church have nothing to do with management’s claims. Go count up the actual number of course/auditing completions from the 70s to today. It’s public information — right down to each person’s name. This data was compiled by a church critic … and lo and behold, the annual numbers of Clear and OT levels being completed today are triple what they were in the 70s and early 80s.
www . truthaboutscientology . com / stats / source / 2004 /
www . truthaboutscientology . com / stats / advance / 2004 /
www . truthaboutscientology . com / stats / freewinds / 2004 /
And of course, those stats don’t yet count the Basics courses … which in your world view apparently don’t matter, despite the fact that its the first time in Church history that Scientology staff/SO/public are actually reading these books enmasse that actually teach them what Scientology is all about.
“Lack of ARC and KRC in current management will be Scientology’s downfall.”
Let’s hope not. I think both are getting better.
Right now when my friends think of Scientology they do not think of ethical more-able people they think of violence, private investigators, disconnection, and the youtube video’s of scientologists shouting crazy.
If DM was more interested in improving conditions and less interested in empire-building we wouldnt have so many enemies.
Who’s arguing? I’m pointing out facts that you’ve accepted from management.
Don’t fool yourself. You haven’t shown the new FN is Hubbards at all. All you’ve confirmed is that it is different than what Scientology was using for a very long time. Outpoint!
You admit orgs are struggling yet you can’t admit they are empty? You don’t see the missing logic there? An empty org is a struggling org. An in tech org is not a struggling org. So why are they struggling?
Scientology is more solvent than ever before because it’s regged the crap out of current Scientologists for donations for things the orgs should be able to easily pay for if they were really in tech and producing on source exchange #4 services. Because orgs are so out tech right now and poor, DM and gang has no choice but to ask for donations. That is the ONLY reason Scientology is solvent.
Now go into your local org and look don’t listen and you’ll find over worked under paid staff because they are far too busy implementing programs from Int management that don’t work. And those programs are based on incorrect evals that are incorrect because if you use logic and reality about the real reason the orgs are stuggling, you’ll likely be declared. So they continue to stuggle.
It sure makes it easy when you don’t want to define “Scientologist”. So basically anyone that has heard about Scientology is considered a Scientologist. That’s the only way that number is real.
You have no fact behind your assumtion that there are more Scientologists now than there were in the 70’s. But to be a current Scientologist you have to believe those things you hear at events. I learned early on the stats are pushed. Not real.
Sure makes it easy that there are more course/auditing completions stats now that DM added a bunch of small courses from the basics that he’s made Scientologists finish before they can progress with the rest of their training. But that still doesn’t show expansion. It just means less Scientologists are doing other coures and are doing the shorter basics courses. You are showed stats at events. They’re real and accurate because you trust management! Not because they are real and accurate.
Stats are only worth following if one is honest about them. You’re trying to tell me that orgs are struggling yet there are more Scientologists than ever and there are more course/auditing completions than ever. Do I really have to point out the outpoint there?
Scientology is not expanding because WOGS (as Scientology calls them) and RAW MEAT (as Hubbard defined them) have Scientology figured out. Confidential material that they have to pay thousands on dollars to hear. No evidence OT’s are really OT. Tommy Davis outright lying about disconnection. The abuses that have and do go on at orgs all around the US. The list goes on and on. All the truth!
So you keep accepting from management that Scientology is expanding like never before. In the mean time the ship is slowly sinking. And only Scientologists can save it. OSA and DM have done more damage to Scientology than may ever be able to be repaired.
Many Americans now know the truth about Scientology. And that’s why they are staying away. People knowing about Scientology is not important. It’s about quality of what they hear. A simple internet search brings up way way more negative things (much of it being true) about Scientology than positive things.
DM and OSA have CREATED more enemies than you can shake a stick at. And way more people have been declared than should ever have been declared as well. Lack of ARC and KRC in current management will be Scientology’s downfall. And it’s already happening.
I really hope you and your fellow Scientologists can save Scientology from the complete destruction of it that is happening from inside it. Or you can go on ignoring it.
Truth, I don’t see any value in getting into an argument with you about the definition of “Scientologist” so that we can figure out “how many Scientologists there are”. I hope whatever the definition and number is that you want to use, the number increases. Scientology is a good thing to study and use.
Taking your KR argument to the logical end, no matter who runs the Church (whether it’s Truth’s favorite leader[s] or someone elses), if the leader(s) disagree with your conclusion that “something is not Hubbard”, there is very little chance that you will be happy. I’ve given the evidence that the change’s follow LRH’s wishes. I’m sorry you can’t accept it.
I never said Missions and Orgs are empty. I said they’ve ALWAYS struggled. The Church is more solvent and accepted as a religion in the world today than ever in its history. There are far more people in the world that know that Scientology even exists, and there are plenty more “Scientologists” today (however you want to define it) than ever. The evidence is that the Church’s annual course/auditing completions stats — according to the church’s own critics — are triple what they were in the 70s. And that’s not even counting the Basics courses of today.
Yes exactly Lake, you do not have a choice. If you want to remain a Scientoplogist, you have to agree. And I did notice you didn’t answer my question about writing a KR or to who you’d send that KR.
You trust DM and crew to the end of Scientology. And that is exactly where he is leading Scientology. To it’s end. I’ll just disagree with most of what you say. Specially since all you can do is read what is handed to you by DM and crew.
You already admitted orgs are struggling. Then you ignored the rest.
Why do you think orgs are struggling while DM and crew claim that Scientology now has 10 million members. Where could they all be? And let’s no forget the claim of Scientology is expanding like never before.
Let’s do some math shall we.
10,000,000 Scientologists.
Let’s say there are 2 million outside of the US (as if!!).
That leaves 8,000,000 here in the states.
There are less than 130 orgs total in the US.
Let’s do 140 just for shits and giggles.
That ends up being 57,142 Scientologists per org.
Does that even make sense! With that many Scientologists per org they would be absolutely flooded.
You can try claiming the whole “groups” claim that Scientology has done as well be groups don’t deliver services. Orgs and Missions do. Missions are also empty. So where are all these Scientologists? An why are the orgs empty as you also admit?
Truth: “No Lake you do not have a choice.”
Truth, you, I and everyone else makes choices everyday. I actively and knowingly remain a Scientologist everyday, and I do it by constantly evaluating LRH, the tech, the Church and the world around me. I am open to new ideas and facts (particularly if they are based on raw data), I look with my own eyes and I come to my own conclusions.
The fact is, when one really looks at the “changes in the tech” and does the research — and doesn’t have pre-conceived notions about DM — one will find that they are based on LRH’s wishes. When one talks to the guys who work (or worked) in the current Church mgmt’s tech compilations unit (whether now in the church or out), one will find that they approached these changes with the highest degree of care and respect in trying to remain true to LRH’s wishes and to the spirit in what LRH was requesting and saying.
While it is true that there were debates sometimes in the upper echelon of DM’s Church about some minor changes — or not-so minor ones — there *were* debates and these changes were carefully vetted. In fact, this is the hallmark of what set the Church under DM apart from the other power pushes that were going on with Mayo and others. The Church under DM truly and honestly tried to remain true to LRH’s wishes and the spirit of LRH’s policy and tech. Mayo and others didn’t. And this is even before one considers that DM and team had the blessing of LRH in his final years.
My opinion of “floating needles” is pretty much summed up in my original post on Sep. 13 above. We both agree that the definition of F/N is not all there is to know about F/Ns. We also agree that F/Ns do not always look the exact same from time to time and session to session. One needs to take the entirety of LRH references on F/Ns to really understand them, and also has to get sufficient “time in the chair” to fully recognize them when they appear.
So what do you say to CoS proposal to the Australian Government to censor sites, which organize protests against CoS, like whyweprotest.net ?
http://www.inquisitr.com/36336/scientology-calls-for-internet-and-media-censorship-in-australia/
No Lake you do not have a choice. If DM and the current management says that something is Hubbard, you have to buy it and accept it as such or you do what?? Write a KR? To who?
You’d be in ethics lickity split. And you know it. So you accept it regardless.
Ron brought the definition “more in line” with what his earlier definitions were? Then why is a FN different now than when it was when he was alive? In real life, not by definition?
A FN isn’t something you can explain and expect a person to understand on that alone. That’s why Ron actually trained auditors. And showed them what an FN was. And corrected them over and over. That was passed down to auditors and supervisors and eventually students.
Then DM and management claim that Ron changed it yet again…but he was already gone. So it must have been some policy he left behind right…or a memo. Yeah a memo. That’s it. That sounds special.
Have you seen the LRH hand written Policy on FN’s? Have you watched his original film on FN’s?
I’m not talking about defitions as much as I am real world on the meter. Definitions (in writing) can be interpreted and changed far too much.
I’m talking about how you have to sit and wait for an FN now. Which is not the way Scientology has done it for many many years.
Truth: “Of course you don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a choice.”
Of course I have a choice. To be perfectly honest, I thought the 1978 definition allowed far too much interpretation (particularly by the inexperienced). And I was pleased when I saw that LRH had brought the definition more in line with his earlier definitions and observations.
The earlier LRH Tech Film seemed, to me, closer to this newer definition than the 1978 definition. But it was many years ago when I saw it. I haven’t seen the new film, but understand that it’s been digitized.
“a floating needle is different today than it was when Ron was alive.”
Do you have a copy of the “E-Meter Essentials” book re-published prior to 1986?
When you say “LRH tech film”, are you refering to the newer tech films that were redone? Not Ron’s originals? You don’t find it at all interesting that those newer films match the changed definition of a floating needle? It’s really not hard to figure out.
The point you have justified so hardcore is that a floating needle is no longer the same as when Ron was alive. And you’re okay with that because “it works”.
Of course you don’t have a problem with it, you don’t have a choice. And if you did, you’d be hauled into ethics for it.
Where’s Ron’s request of the HCOB of 1978 on floating needles? And why did it take them till 2000 to do so? An how do you know it’s correct.
You can justify it till the end of the eath, a floating needle is different today than it was when Ron was alive. That change was not done by the request of Ron.
Have you seen the original LRH film on floating needles?
mark: ““if it’s true for you, it’s true for you”
Actually, the saying is: “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
unless you have observed it. And it is true according to your observation. That is all.” – LRH
So the Church is big on standard and by-the-book *application* in auditing and training, but whether you believe the theories or the hows and whys is entirely up to you. The goal is that by applying the data (or getting the auditing), one will eventually make up his own mind as to the validity of the theories/ideas.
Mark: “did he ever release his lab notes?”
We have his running research record in the various lectures, technical bulletins and books. When a particular theory was developed or tests were done or methods discovered, he would discuss them in these lectures or materials.
I’ve been reading up on some of his early research and observations on the meter and the reads. He was well aware that the body and its systems can produce needle movements. But he would continually find that, while taking PCs through particular incidents during auditing, sweat, hand pressure and body systems were not able to explain the increase in electrical resistance (or “body density”, as he would call it), that the meter was clearly showing.
While using the meter, he became increasingly convinced that past life memories are real and that beings can exteriorize. The meter would react in very unique ways when either or both of these phenomena arose. And from this research, he became convinced that the “being plus mental energy” were playing a role in meter and needle movements.
Is “floating needle” one of those things that’s supposed to be true to the individual? I know that’s a big thing in scientology, “if it’s true for you, it’s true for you”.
Regarding FDA, the original order was that the meters provide this warning, at a minimum: “The E-Meter is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone”
And that is to be used only for religious purposes. Is there a religious purpose in the free stress test? I suppose religious recruiting, for lack of a better word, might fit the bill…
Mark: “Do the emeters still display the FDA warning?”
There is mention on a metal plate on the bottom that it’s a religious artifact and that it’s not meant to cure any illness, etc. So I’d say the answer is yes.
Regarding “floating needles” ….
First, a bit of background. Ron first started categorizing the various needle/meter reactions in the early 1950s, most notably in a Jun-1952 handbook he wrote called “Electropsychometric Auditing, Operator’s Manual” (the handbook is now available in Tech Vol 1). At that time, he had categorized five primary needle reactions. One of these was the early vestige of what we now call the “floating needle”. Through the 1950s, as the meter was used and investigated intensively in auditing, LRH refined the descriptions of these various needle manifestations.
The first place we find a formal definition of “floating needle” — called a “free needle” at the time — is in the booklet “E-Meter Essentials” written by LRH in early 1960. It was announced on 14-Apr-1960 (Tech Vol 5).
LRH, in 30-Apr-1960, drew on this booklet when he wrote an HCOB where he re-iterated the definition of “Free Needle” (Tech Vol 5).
LRH then wrote an HCOB titled “Floating Needle” in Oct 1968 (Tech Vol 8). One paragraph gives a fuller definition of a “floating needle”. (This HCOB was later re-issued/revised in May-1969.)
LRH then refined this definition again in an HCOB from Jun-1970 (Tech Vol 9).
The booklet “E-Meter Essentials” was re-published during this time, to keep up with these and other meter-related updates.
LRH then refined the definition of “floating needle” again in a Jul-1978 HCOB (Tech Vol 11).
Finally, while updating the book “E-Meter Essentials” in Feb-1979, LRH augmented the definition of “floating needle”, requesting the tech compilations team also update the earlier Jul-1978 HCOB. However, that final update to the HCOB did not take place until Nov-2000. And there-in lies the controversy. While the “E-Meter Essentials” book was updated in the 80s, the HCOB was not updated till 2000.
My view is this….
1. In addition to the current definition of “floating needle”, the two earlier definitions still exist in HCOBs from the earlier and mid-70s.
2. The earlier HCOB(s) titled “Floating Needle” still exist.
3. There are six additional HCOBs with “Floating Needle” in the title.
4. There are 71 HCOBs that discuss the whens/hows/whys of floating needles in various auditing and PC situations.
5. There’s a Tech Film which *shows* what a floating needle looks like.
Basically, it’s a moderately large subject.
The auditor’s job — ultimately — is to assimilate all of that information and end up with a concept of “floating needle”. While it is true that the final definition is now considered the only correct definition of floating needle, all of these earlier references still exist and there is also the LRH tech film which shows it. In my view — and I think the Church’s view — to fully appreciate and understand meter reactions, one needs to audit for a while and get a sense of them, in addition to understanding any related references.
But the bottom line … the definition of “floating needle” was developed, augmented and tweaked by Ron several times, over many years. The final written definition, to me, is very, very recognizable when compared to earlier definitions (and HCOBs which mention F/Ns). I personally don’t have a problem with it.
Oh yes, Scientologists also think anyone that doesn’t like or even questions Scientology and it’s management is from Anonymous. I’m busting up laughing right now.
Now I’ll repeat the auditing command. Why was a floating needle changed?
DX, what’s going on here? You used to be so pleasant and open to discussion. I liked that about you. Now you show up after a disappearance with insults that add nothing to the conversation? At least those you call “trolls” are making points.
What’s changed? First time I read something from you, on Feb 20, 2009, you said “There’s no way you’d go a long way in scientology without knowing what area you are going into: past lives, how to move objects without touching them. I think a lot of people want to find out about these things as the church actually says that this is possible to accomplish, and sooner or later I think you will know if it was all a fraud or not.”
You even said at one point that you were prepared to pay over a quarter million dollars ($360,000) on scientology, so you’re clearly passionate.
Have you recently taken some new courses?
It’s just awesome listening to the daily troll comments from our anonymous professors LOL
I remember when DeathereX used to be able to form an intelligent argument without vulgarities.
is this the tech at work? what happened d?
Ah oh an upset Scientologist.
Scientology works…so shut up….LMFAO.
Funny how when people point out the serious outpoints with current management Scientologists get all panty twisted.
Any answer to the floating needle tech degrade?
Auditing and the e-meter works, so who the fuck cares. Why has this become a troll forum?
You’ve been auditing since the 70’s and you aren’t aware that a floating needle is now different to read than it was when Ron was alive?
Sounds more like you want to ignore it.
“I don’t know if there’s an experiment to prove or disprove this … I’d love to find one.”
Hubbard had indicated that he had conducted experiments to prove such things- did he ever release his lab notes? It would be fascinating to see his techniques.
Here then, is where you have the debate of science vs faith.
It is very un-scientific to say that we have an viable hypothesis that explains the observed phenomenon and is testable and repeatable, but it “just can’t be right” because we would imagine that PC’s aren’t able to observe a single piece of information at a particular time. This, of course, would have to ignore the possibility that the PC may have done it before, or, like most people, they are able to subtly hone in on the cues given by an interested party. We all give them off- even auditors- be it eye movements, body language, etc.
Regardless of “most instances”, one simply can’t ignore the possibility that this single theory would explain the phenomenon, and the rationalization required to explain it away has to be very specific and very dependent on multiple factors.
I’m off to bed, but I wonder if we could find the FDA test results for the emeter? If they’re released, that is. Do the emeters still display the FDA warning?
Mark: “I wonder if you consider my position to be possible?”
Well, it’s one or the other. :)
I’ve thought long and hard about sweat and hand pressure. I just don’t see those as being in the running at this point. And so I think the nervous system *alone* (with its electrical field) could be causing the needle reactions … but it doesn’t explain the increase in electrical resistance. (BTW, increasing hand pressure decreases electrical resistance … but during stressful moments in auditing, the electrical resistance almost universally increases.)
LRH’s theory is that the mental energy in the mind (which he believed was an actual physical universe energy, albeit finer than other energy forms) builds up during these stressful moments, and that’s what increases the electrical resistance.
I don’t know if there’s an experiment to prove or disprove this … I’d love to find one.
Mark: “I would actually say that the biofeedback effect would explain all of the observed needle behavior.”
But the problem is, it just doesn’t. Once you’re aware of just how completely independent and unfamiliar the PC often is with regard to needle movements during a session, you’d understand how the theory just doesn’t hold up.
The person who invented that theory is not very familiar with auditing, when and how the needle moves, and how biofeedback couldn’t play a role in most instances.
ah, I see. I must say, though, that they certainly offer a compelling argument, in their calculations and demonstrations.
That was addressed previously- we are assuming that the subject will sweat more as the session progresses. That could be influenced by multiple factors. Is the room cold? Is the subject growing more relaxed?
Note that there are multiple factors that would increase the resistance as related to the “cans”. For instance, if you bring up a painful or frightening subject, the individual may tense up, making greater contact with the conductors. If they relax, they may release their grip.
But sweat and pressure alone, in varying amounts, could result in any measurable resistance within the range of the meter.
Now I’m no scientist- I look terrible in white coats- but it seems to me that if there is a measurable charge on the skin that’s varied by the brain… Isn’t that still physiological? either way, I do consider your position, although I find no possible scientific explaination that would support it. I wonder if you consider my position to be possible?
Mark: “Are you directing that towards me?”
No no. Was directed at the author of the cmu.edu article.
Mark: “I would consider physiological effects to be the simplest explanation”
Fair enough, but I just haven’t seen a theory based only on physiology which explains all the phenomena.
Which theory out there explains increased electrical resistance, at a time when physiology (sweat and greater hand pressure) should be decreasing that resistance? And then reverses that resistance when emotional relief is felt? All at a time when the PC has no idea what/how/when to make the needle move and when.
It seems to me that while perhaps physiology-only is the simpler theory … it doesn’t explain the actual real world events. Particularly the sweat and hand pressure ideas.
However, we do know that the nervous system creates an electrical field in and along the body. So it could be conceivable, scientifically, that the nervous system’s electrical field on the skin is affecting the emeter’s current. And since the brain is part of the nervous system, then perhaps the brain is causing disturbances on the body’s electrical field, which in turn affect the meter’s current, which create the needle movements.
However, even that theory doesn’t appear to explain how the electrical resistance increases and then decreases, during many auditing sessions.
I must go back to a previous statement. We have two theories
1. The emeter needle movements are caused by physiological reactions that may be controlled, which is supported by your statements (to some degree), youtube videos and is repeatable using biofeedback techniques (common results include body temperature control, muscle movement control and perspiration control)
2. The emeter needle movements are caused by thetans responding to auditing
Both would have the same result, but only one is scientifically demonstrative and reliably repeatable.
Lake,
“It’s a silly, brush-off theory from a critic who hasn’t really looked.”
Are you directing that towards me?
I would actually say that the biofeedback effect would explain all of the observed needle behavior. Each movement could be replicated through regulation of biological functions, and a sufficient number of auditing events, one would began to note the desired effects. And as they are able to correlate their physical reactions with the observed response.
Your comment is uncharacteristically dismissive, and ignores viable theory.
Mark: “It’s not that it’s oversimplified”
I’m saying it’s oversimplified because it doesn’t explain all (or even most of) the observable phenomena. Half the PCs don’t even have any idea what the meter is supposed to “do” … or what an F/N, or Instant Read or Blow down even look like, letalone somehow magically learn how to unconsciously create them.
It’s a silly, brush-off theory from a critic who hasn’t really looked.
I wouldn’t say occam’s razor would apply in that format, Lake. As you recall, Occam’s Razor states “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.” your statement implies different predictions.
Properly applied, it would be “variations in emeter results are either the result of physiological functions or latent emotional charges powered by thetans”.
In this case, I would consider physiological effects to be the simplest explanation, particularly given the precedent given by biofeedback experimentation.
Mark: “was the hubbard training better or ‘less better’ than the training today?”
The way LRH trained auditors was less better in 1965 than it was in 1975 and less better in 1975 than it was in 1985. He kept refining and tweaking things right up to his death. The orgs have been trying to keep up ever since. I think we’re finally approaching how LRH, at the time of his death, hoped churches would be training auditors.
I wouldn’t say that- it’s not very complicated to believe that repeated drilling (as per current and past policy) with observable results would result in an ability to control certain responses that are controllable, to some degree, anyhow.
Consider this definition of biofeedback:
“Biofeedback is a non-medical process that involves measuring a subject’s specific and quantifiable bodily functions such as blood pressure, heart rate, skin temperature, sweat gland activity, and muscle tension, conveying the information to the patient in real-time. This raises the patient’s awareness and therefore the possibility of conscious control of those functions.”
Many of those would impact the result of the e-meter readings, and it’s a scientifically valid concept. It’s not that it’s oversimplified, it’s rather well accepted in the scientific and medical community.
mark: “physiological reactions … seems more probable”
Harder to make that conclusion when you’ve watched the resistance increase when the occam explanation would have it decrease.
Mark: “[needle movements] can be falsified by natural means”
Oh yes, of course. The real question is … do they get created by those same natural means unconsciously, when one is not trying to? In my view, sweat and biofeedback is just too over-simplified of a theory that doesn’t explain the observable phenomena.
Lake-
it begs the question… was the hubbard training better or “less better” than the training today?
Problem is, there’s too many variables to discuss in this forum, with our limited understanding of such things :)
we might be at a point of uncertaintly, in which we can’t say when the individual sweats or does not, or perhaps twitches or anything similar. There are multiple possible explainations; but when applying occam’s razor, physiological reactions (twitches, relaxing and contracting, etc) seems more probable than the official explanation of a device that is capable of measuring “the mental state or change of state of a person”.
Have we ever seen the actual FDA test results, as referenced at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKETS/dailys/08/jan08/010308/010308.htm?
Hi Truth, Yes, I’ve been giving and receiving auditing since the 70s.
There definitely can be sweat during auditing (particularly in ones palms). But I’ve noticed a couple inconsistencies. While the sweat is building up, one would expect the resistance to be decreasing (electricity passes across wet skin more easily than across dry skin). But the exact opposite happens, i.e. there is more electrical resistance during stressful (and presumably sweat-inducing) memories in a session.
Also, small and sudden needle movements can happen during a session — and they don’t seem to correspond to any sudden physical change in pressure or body movement. And when sweat builds up, it builds up gradualy over time … and then kind of languishes or slowly evaporates. Doesn’t seem to correlate to the sometimes twitching needle movements.
I can see you don’t want to make the connection to Hubbard training auditors and why GOAT is now used when it wasn’t when Ron was around. Yet he was producing the best auditors around.
If you have several meters then I have to assume you’ve been an auditor for at least a few years. Were you an auditor before GOAT?
And that is truly the question, I suppose.
I believe that we may be able to agree that most of the telltale signs (thetan bop, floating needle, etc) can be falsified by natural means, hence the reason for the FDA warning. (Do they still show the warning?)
Yeah, I’ve read that website before. The author’s theory feels like a stretch to me — a bit too simplistic. Scientologists don’t argue that the meter can read body movements and, in fact, prior to each session … the auditor adjusts the sensitivity of the meter to adjust for changes in pressure to the cans, by having the PC do a can squeeze.
I’ve played with the meter quite a bit. And I’ve been on both sides of the meter during auditing many many times. There are some needle movements during auditing that just don’t follow a pattern that can be explained away by biofeedback.
I guess the general conundrum is … we know that both an energy/magnetic field *and* physiological changes can cause reactions in the needle. Both can be demonstrated scientifically.
So how do we prove that one is happening where the other is not?
A person far smarter than me did some research on the physiology and psychology of the emeter. A selection:
(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/biophysics.html)
===========================
Now for the psychology
The crux of my theory is that a scientologist learns through feedback during auditing and feedback from the E-meter to exert control over the semi-automatic mechanisms that control enough membrane bound ion channels to change their body resistance enough to provoke a measurable response in the E-meter.
It is biofeedback in its most basic sense.
The stimulus for the scientologist to develop this control is the “Wins” (warm fuzzy feelings) that they develop during auditing sessions when they obtain the approval of their auditor and when they obtain E-meter responses which Hubbard said were correct responses which move them closer towards god-hood.
Hubbard’s writings are laced with statements like: (From the OT III materials)
I have lately been C/Sing a number of failed OT cases and have found them all running well on solo now. The errors are made as follows:
(1) The solo auditor cannot audit, needs more training.
(2) Cases are not well prepared with Dianetics.
Here Hubbard states very clearly, if you can’t produce the proper E-meter responses then you have to go back and work with an auditor to train yourself until you can.
Now, scientologists have told me that it doesn’t matter, that if the E-meter is reacting to their emotions then they don’t care that they are controlling it.
I respond: If you control the E-meter, then the E-meter can not tell you anything that you don’t already know. Using an E-meter to tell how you feel is just silly, but the real self delusion comes in when you use the E-meter to “verify” the many bizarre statements Hubbard made about ancient evil space emperors, evil spirits crawling all over you and past lives where you spent all your time wandering around biting things (I’m not joking) or polishing bricks (again, no joke).
Other scientologists have told me that if you connect any person off the street to an E-meter you can obtain reproducible meter responses.
I respond: Yes, that is the basis of a police “lie detector”, that if you provoke strong emotions within a person that body resistance is one of the physiological indicators that can be used to detect the stress. It is important to note that lie detectors which include galvanic skin response meters are not accepted as legal evidence in many (all?) courts because they are too unreliable.
Also, this does not invalidate anything I have said, it simply demonstrates that untrained people change their body resistance due to stress. I would also add that my experiences with the “Pinch test” led me to conclude that at least this one test was not nearly as reproducible as scientologists would have me believe.
Phew.
Just as a possible theory-
If the pinch test (remembering a phsyically painful sensation) is more accurate than merely thinking about certain situations, is it possible that you are having a physical reaction (tightening ones grip, perspiration, etc), increasing the impedance through the Wheatstone bridge?
In other words, this would seem to support the theory of physical influences on the meter reading. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I can’t find it, but I recall mythbusters doing a very similar experiment with a lie detector and a plant- I’ll see if I can find it.
bigdaddy “I hope u can believe that I am not hostile to u.”
No, I don’t think you’re hostile to me.
“have u tried to replicate the experiments in which one can control the needle by altering their grip?”
Oh yeah definitely. It’s a little easier to do when you’re watching the needle … tougher to regulate it when you’re not. But yeah, the needle is extremely sensitive … I’ve heard people say they can “think” the needle to react. That’s sometimes worked when I’ve tried it, but not consistently. The pinch test is pretty good. I’ve done that a few times and am always surprised at the consistency of it.
I also hooked up a meter to a living plant once and tried yelling at the plant (without physically moving it). I did notice a little blip on the meter … but didn’t do it enough times and with enough plants to really get a sense if the blip was a fluke or if the plant was somehow reacting to the anger.
The experiment that LRH suggests one do in “Understanding the E-Meter” with magnets (i.e. a magnetic field) really gives a good example of LRH’s theory of how thought can influence the meter.
I was merely curious as to ur familiarity. I hope u can believe that I am not hostile to u.
have u tried to replicate the experiments in which one can control the needle by altering their grip?
Several. Why?
is to bad we cannot see!! all we have then are the reports of some former members reporting (which scis do not trust) and those of current members (who critics do not trust). what a pickle!
do u have an emeter, lake?
Haven’t had a chance to dig into the F/N question. This one may have to wait awhile.
Also, since there is a tech film which demonstrates it, I’m not sure how complete we’ll be able to be by just covering the written definition. The film helps to balance it out. Since the films aren’t for sale, it’s not too likely we’ll see it on the net anytime soon. (Hope that answers your earlier question on this too, Mark.)
bigdaddy: “that’s not a criticism, I am only asking how that did happen.”
Because staff aren’t perfect, and LRH couldn’t be everywhere at once. I do think that in the 70s, there was a lot of internal “squirreling” going on. Not just with policies, but with tech as well. This came to a head in the early 80s, and a pretty massive “change in the guard” took place. The fundamental goal was to get churches and missions adhering more closely to LRH policy and tech.
While I wouldn’t call things perfect today, I do think there is a much closer adherence to LRH’s wishes than ever before, particularly with tech.
So if Hubbard trained auditors are the best out there then why do we need GOAT training for auditors? If the tech was exactly the way it was left when Hubbard died then all auditors should be as good as an auditor directly trained from Hubbard. And he wasn’t using the GOAT drills!
So why GOAT drills again?
Did you have a chance to look into why a floating needle was changed? Can you explain that to me.
I am not being glib. pls do not misunderstand. but if the orgs were to look to hubbard for direction, why were they squirreling even while he was alive?
that’s not a criticism, I am only asking how that did happen.
that begs the question:
dm did make changes (call it degredation or improvement)…
did the changes make better or worse auditors than those trained under hubbard?
Truth wrote: “Lake, do you think LRH trained auditors are good auditors?”
Sure, if they remained auditors after the training, did their internships, remained active over the years as auditors, kept themselves updated on new LRH releases and ultimately went on to become Class XII auditors under Ron, one could even argue that they are the best around.
Ray Mithoff was one of those, and he was in charge of the tech compilations team. He also held the senior tech post in the church during LRH’s final years.
seems then like the cch letter supports the argument against introducing new drills…
Trained…sorry.
Lake, do you think LRH drained auditors are good auditors?
(Oops, sorry, that last one was me … girlfriend had been using the laptop.)
Mark, it’s not on the net. Do you have the Tech Vols? If not, then the gist is, LRH was finding that some orgs (back in ’65) were actually taking processes and making drills out of them. For example, they were taking a process called “CCHs” that are meant to be done between an auditor and a PC … and they were actually doing them as a drill in the course room. Apparently, because CCHs are a bit similar to TRs (TRs being actual drills) … some orgs started treating these CCH processes as drills. So LRH wrote the PL “DRILLS, ALLOWED” to specifically prevent this type of thing from happening. And in this PL (written about a month later, called “CCHs”) he gives his rationale for writing DRILLS, ALLOWED.
Again, this doesn’t fully resolve all the issues, but it does give a bit more perspective on the specific reasons that LRH wrote “DRILLS, ALLOWED”.
Having some difficulty finding that text, Lake- can you point me in the right direction?
Some additional data on Drills…
I just found a PL which helps put HCOPL 16-Apr-65 “DRILLS, ALLOWED” into context. It’s not in the OEC vols, but is in the Tech Vols. It’s HCOPL 17-May-65 “CCHs” and it gives a bit more background on why “DRILLS, ALLOWED” was written. I’m not saying it’s going to completely resolve the issue we’re having over this, but I think you’ll find that it does give a bit of background on why DRILLS, ALLOWED was written, and the general problem that LRH was trying to solve.
Can we?
“How does that sound?”
Sounds like we need to get the tech film which actually shows it! ;)
I tell you what- we’re all reasonable people here, Lake.
How about you come up with a good/current scientology definition of floating needle- something for the auditors, not the “for everyone” 10000ft view, and perhaps we can look at it that way.
How does that sound?
we all agree!! additional drilling (frequency of) is fine. the new drills created against lrh wishes are the problem.
similar would be if catholic pope said it was now ok to change money in the temple, even tho Jesus said it was ot.
regardless who came up with it, dm approved changes and drill additions (new drills) in DIRECT opposition to hubbard policy.
how can that be ok with current members?
Guys, I don’t think adding additional drilling to training is a “tech degrade” or a “massive turn left”. It’s simply more of what was already there, it’s using the exact model of drilling that LRH used, and it improves auditor proficiency. It gives auditors more practice, and thereby confidence. It’s a good thing.
But anyway, I’m not sure there’s more I can say on this one.
Truth: on the F/N definition change, I haven’t finished researching this one. I do agree that changing the definition of F/N has a huge impact on auditing, and needs to have strong evidence that it’s based on LRH. I don’t know if this one will come down to a “trust in mgmt” but will post here in the future what I’m able to find out.
One quick note: it seems like there’s this rush to attack DM as though he’s the only one doing all this research and making all these changes. DM may be the final signatory on various proposed changes, but the research and much of the judgement of what goes into the changes and the proposals, goes through scores of individuals and ultimately (if Tech related) has to get approval by Ray Mithoff first before it ever hits DM.
Some things to consider regarding drills- past and present.
Hubbard said: “The standard drills as listed above have proven sufficient for years…”
DM came along, and said in Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-1’, 1 May 96, ”
“The NEW (empahsis mine) Standard Tech Drills for auditors are only the beginning. Many MORE (mine again) technical drills covering more auditing procedures will appear in the future … . When an auditor has passed all the drills on the basic techniques of auditing, there will be drills he can do for all manner of special rundowns and tech action …
… The basic principles upon which the drills for auditors are built apply to the actions and procedures for any technical post in Scientology. And so drills are also planned for Case Supervisors, Ds of P* (how to do interviews, give tech estimates, etc.), Cramming Officers, Examiners, De-PTSers, Debuggers, Qual Consultants/Interviewers and others!”
I see nowhere where these NEW drills were authorized by Hubbard. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Furthermore, the Golden Age of Tech brochure claims “LRH says ‘the key to professionalism is DRILL’”. No source. Can’t find it in any lecture or LRH writing. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen it.
Now, you correctly mention the “why finding”. But do you know who completed the why finding? None other than David Miscavige (‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’, 10 May 96). The very same individual that made the later additions/alterations. Essentially, DM used a report that he wrote as the justification for actions that he would later take!
I’m not attacking anyone here, but I think it’s worth exploring- 10 years after LRH passed on, scientology took a very massive left turn.
lake- you’re arguing with the same sincerity as we are. It’s a perfectly friendly debate.
It’s actually quite a simple thought- with the policy and justification for certain drills never repealed, and hubbard never advocating NEW drills (only more drilling), we must ask- are there now, since hubbard’s death, any drills other than:
Modified Comm Course for PE.
Original Comm Course TRs 0-4.
Original Upper Indoc TRs.
E-Meter Drills contained in Book of E-Meter Drills.
Dissemination Drills when I write and release them.
And I think you are justifying a tech degrade.
“Based on”. Scientology is supposed to be 100% Hubbard.
Changing the definition of a floating needle isn’t changing the tech??
Guys, we’re not talking about mgmt coming up with “a new process” or Axioms 1001-1025 or “DMSMH: The Sequel”. We’re talking about having trainees receive more practice (i.e. drills) as part of their training. It’s sensible. It doesn’t alter tech in any way and simply gives trainees more practice before they go out into the real world.
Further, it’s based on LRH references.
I think you’re trying to make much more of this than is there.
Here’s my point of view:
Hubbard issued two very specific directives:
1. only do the routines authorized in the specific policy issued by Hubbard
2. do #1, but do moar
Come 1996, DM (against the direct policy) adds more drills in many different categories.
Here’s what we know:
Hubbard created many drills. Specifically “OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104 (see ‘Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB). Then we have the E-Meter drills, in 1965 there were 27 of them (EM 1-27), 1971 added 3 more.”
According to an inspector general newsletter (#22), DM began researching the GAOT in 1995, and released it in 1996.
40 volumes of drills, spanning 3,600 pages. What’s more, it broke the drills into the following categories:
Introduction to The Standard Tech Drills
Study Tech Drills
E-Meter Theory Drills
Word Clearing Tech Drills
Course Supervision Drills
Basic Rudiments Drills
Buttons Drills
Cleaning a Read Drills
O/W Tech Drills
Full Rudiment Drills
Technical Procedure Drills
Prepared List Drills
Tech Training Films
A subset of the above was the addition of “theory drills”, which involved rote memorization and, sadly, led to allegations BY SOME of indoctrination.
Adding that “As additional drills become available the list will be updated and reissued.”
He also added drills by hat: “… The basic principles upon which the drills for auditors are built apply to the actions and procedures for any technical post in Scientology. And so drills are also planned for Case Supervisors, Ds of P* (how to do interviews, give tech estimates, etc.), Cramming Officers, Examiners, De-PTSers, Debuggers, Qual Consultants/Interviewers and others!”
Surely we can’t imagine that hubbard wrote all 3,600 of those pages, nor are all of the gaot drills on his “approved” list.
In other words what you’re saying is…if Hubbard said somewhere that there should be a book for training Commanding Officers of orgs but yet Hubbard never put that book together. Then years later Scientology management came by and compiled a book that Commanding officers could use to run orgs…that would be 100% Scientology and Hubbbard?
Then why didn’t Hubbard train auditors that way?
as an aside, hubbard was in the navy. he knew, as do all servicemembers that a reg is valid until superceeded. it matters not how old it is.
asking again- are ALL drills currently in use the same ones authorizedby hubbard? remember he wated MORE drillin, not DIFFERENT drilling.
Truth: “You’re admitting Hubbard trained auditors are failures…”
No, Truth, I’m admitting that when LRH died, there were plenty of requests that LRH had made in writing and in lectures that had still not been put in place. And so no matter who was left in charge of the Church, they would have been negligent if they hadn’t followed through on these.
bigdaddy: “sure hubbard wanted more drilling.”
Yes, and that’s exactly what we now have with the GAT drills.
Guys, the LRH references backup what the church is doing. The church isn’t going off in to some weird tangent and calling it “the Tech”. The GAT drilling is very much in line with what LRH’s intentions were for training auditors.
truth hit the nail on the head. sure hubbard wanted more drilling. did the same thing in the military. more in terms of frequency. no where did lrh say “I was wrong, lets make up some new drills” or “forget what I said before, we can add new types of drills”
Lake, you’re missing the point. Why aren’t auditors doing the drills Hubbard already set out? Instead of GOAT drills that were made by current management?
You’re admitting Hubbard trained auditors are failures…
So then it doesn’t matter if they are LRH drills or not…got it.
That’s called Squirrel!
You admit orgs are struggling…do you know that Hubbard said if Scientology is applied correctly that orgs would be flourishing and prospering?
Have you ever wondered why the orgs are struggling? Why would that be so?
I should also say that it would certainly have been clearer if the 16-Apr-65 PL had been changed or cancelled, but given that it wasn’t and given that the additional references clearly show LRH’s wishes for drilling, a judgement call was made and I believe it was the correct one.
Further, a “Why” finding investigation had been done prior to GAT to determine why many auditors were flubbing or making errors after training, and it was determined that “lack of drilling” was a key “Why”.
But irrespecitve of that, I think the LRH references which I cited back up the introduction of GAT. And personally, I think it’s pretty ridiculous not to expect auditors to practice and drill auditing before sitting down with a live PC — if only on the basis of using a gradient approach to learning how to audit.
No, I’m saying that lots of drilling has been added via GAT because the LRH references – written after the 16-Apr-65 one you mentioned – made it clear that LRH’s intentions were that auditor training included plenty of drilling.
so are u saying that they have not added any new drills above the following?
Modified Comm Course for PE.
Original Comm Course TRs 0-4.
Original Upper Indoc TRs.
E-Meter Drills contained in Book of E-Meter Drills.
Dissemination Drills when I write and release them.
In the new HCOB and KSW26, LRH was specifically talking about auditor training generally, which is what the GAT drills largely address.
reading again what u wrote, hubard did say to drill and drill and drill. but he defined the drills previously. who came up with the other drills / etc not listed by hubbard?
is my point!
u seem to agree that ur examples do not authorize gaot additions. I would agree that ur examples to not exclude them.
so we have nothing concrete in ur examples.
I refer again to my example, in which hubbard gave a very specific list and directive.
doing the math, it is very clear.
bear in mind, u are slightly off topic. I thonk drilling and training is fine… no talking about that. I am talking about adding new drills contrary to lrh warnings and aftr his death. if lrh is source, why not use his guidance?
bigdaddy wrote: “and what of what u wrote authorizes gaot?”
What of what I wrote *doesn’t* authorize it? Clearly LRH, after writing the PL you quoted, wanted auditors to be drilled. He gave specific examples in followup lectures and an HCOB. He re-issued the above KSW#26 in 1981.
These were all done *after* the PL you mentioned — while LRH was alive. I’d sincerely like to know how you could think that having auditors drill/practice before setting them lose upon an actual PC is going against LRH’s wishes, letalone a bad thing.
and what of what u wrote authorizes gaot? or allows future leadership to ignore hubbards very direct orders?
bigdaddy wrote: “did hubbard ever repeal this?? [HCOPL 16-Apr-‘65, Issue 2]”
No, it was never repealed. However KSW 26 “OUT-TECH AND HOW TO GET IT IN” was written in 13-Sep-65 and revised in 16-Feb-81. It’s a 4.5 page PL, but the gist is summed up at the end of the first section and the end of the PL in which LRH says:
“Alter-is and poor results do not really come from not-know. They come from can’t-apply.
“Drills, drills, drills and the continual repetition of the *important* data handle this condition of can’t-apply. If you drill auditors hard and repeat often enough basic auditing facts, they eventually disentangle themselves and begin to do a job of application.”
…
“Until you have an auditor familiar with his tools, cases and results, you don’t have an auditor. You have a collected confusion of hope and despair rampant amongst unstable data.
“Study, drill and familiariaty overcome these things. A skilled technician knows what gets results and gets them.
“So drill them.”
Truth wrote: “First you say Hubbard left behind instructions as to what to do with the books now you’re saying that data wasn’t known about till all the LRH archives missions had all the materials gathered. So which is it?”
It’s both.
“You’re still admitting Scientology KSW was out till 2007!”
Yes, the first point of KSW was out. And since *everything* has not been fully restored in the way the books and congresses have been (including many ACC lectures and the R&D Vol project), then in fact, the first point of KSW is still technically out.
“It’s all verbal from DM.”
If you want to pin it all on DM, that’s your choice. The reality is, many many individuals have been involved in the project over the years and a sincere effort is being made to get it right.
“Take a look at the majority of orgs. They are struggling like crazy.”
Orgs have always struggled. Don’t kid yourself. The fact is, Scientology overall is much much more solvent than ever in its history.
“Scientology has absolutely terrible PR in the ‘wog’ world.”
More people in the world know that Scientology exists — whether good or bad — than ever before. Additionally, there is far more that the church can factually point to today, that is positive PR, than ever in its history.
The negative PR struggle has both internal causes and external causes.
the dates are important. it wasn’t hbbard didn’t release gaot, dm did. ten yrs after hubbard died and 32 yrs after hubbard forbade such changes.
did hubbard ever repeal this??
it is far more specifics and relevant than other vage references…
HCO PL of 16 April ’65, Issue 2
TECH & QUAL DIVISION POLICY DRILLS, ALLOWED
The only allowed Practical drills on any Scientology Course including PE are:
Modified Comm Course for PE.
Original Comm Course TRs 0-4.
Original Upper Indoc TRs.
E-Meter Drills contained in Book of E-Meter Drills.
Dissemination Drills when I write and release them.
NO other practical drills of any kind will be permitted.
Other Practical Drills are abolished. Reasons: They consume time uselessly, suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases. I did not develop or authorize these drills and have now seen that they teach alter-is of easy processes. They are not needed.
They make poor auditors. I have just reviewed this matter thoroughly and have traced several training failures to these Wild cat Drills. Further, I traced several failed cases on course to them.
Somewhere along the line somebody went mad inventing “drills” and “TRs”. If this is permitted to continue, we will no longer turn out good auditors. The standard drills as listed above have proven sufficient for years…
End of policy
Okay so now you’re saying that even Hubbard wasn’t using his own drills to train auditors!! Do you realise how silly that sounds.
Hubbard has tape after tape going over how to audit. What the auditor was doing wrong, what he should have done etc.
The tape you’re refering to only talks about it. It doesn’t list the drills. So who make these drills and where are they from? Your second tape is about Dianetics auditing. That’s not even metered auditing…
What those drills effectively do is say that any Hubbard trained auditor is an incorrectly trained auditor. So you’re admitting Hubbard doesn’t list out the drills and that they were made up by people in management. Hubbard would be rolling in his grave if he saw what was going on.
First you say Hubbard left behind instructions as to what to do with the books now you’re saying that data wasn’t known about till all the LRH archives missions had all the materials gathered. So which is it? You’re still admitting Scientology KSW was out till 2007!
There’s no need to guess what happened. As a Scientologist you should know what happened. And that’s where Scientologists fail to look don’t listen anymore. It’s all verbal from DM. “Show me!” is what Scientologists should be saying.
Take a look at the majority of orgs. They are struggling like crazy. I’m not talking about the donations that DM is squeezing out of current Scientologists. That doesn’t spell expansion. New membership does.
I hope you keep track of what is going on with Scientology from outside of the little box DM has tried to squeeze Scientologists into.And it’s not because Scientology is expanding because the only expansion is from donations from current Scientologists. Scientologists need to do something about it before you all go down with the sinking ship DM is going down on.
Scientology has absolutely terrible PR in the “wog” world. Why do you think that would be?? No it’s not from SP’s, it’s from the actions of Scientology itself.
At what point are Scientologists going to wake up and save their religion?!
Regarding the auditor drills and GAT, on 5-Sep-71 Ron gave a lecture called “A Talk on a Basic Qual.” In it, he talked about preparation of a book of drills that took every auditing action and turned it into a drill that could be used to train auditors to do auditing actions correctly. In 1970, LRH had written an HCOB called “Dianetic Command Training Drills”. This contained a series of four different drills that took the student through a gradient of learning how to audit Dianetics. First he learned the different commands by reciting them to a wall until he knew them. Then, he’d recite them with the meter and his auditing set up, then with a coach giving answers and finally in a mock session with a preclear and meter responding as it might in a session. Also around that same time, LRH was training auditors to deliver the Ls and in a lecture to Class XIIs, he talked about another drill where a coach would present a situation and ask, “What do you do?” and the student would have to give the correct response.
Those three references were the primary ones for the development of GAT, and if you’re familiar with the GAT drills, you will recognize them in the above references.
Regarding the Basic books and lectures, yes there were a couple attempts in the 80s and 90s to repackage/correct the books and lectures. What happened during this period was that it became clear that not all the original documents/transcripts/etc. had been gathered up and used in the earlier attempts. Original manuscripts, notes, etc. kept being discovered in old offices and buildings where LRH worked and lived. And so a huge project was undertaken to gather up every last original lecture, transcript, advice, note, etc. from every last attic, closet, etc. from far flung places (London, DC, etc.) where LRH had lived and worked. The result was the updated Basic books and Congress lectures that we now have today.
While one could rightly ask “why wasn’t this done the first time?”, you’re right, it should have been. My guess is that after the IRS decision in 1993, many of the Church’s financial and staff resources were finally freed up and so the project could actually be concentrated on in a big way.
Regarding LRH’s wishes for handling lectures, one reference is HCOPL 5-Oct-59 “Tape and Record Production Hat” in which LRH says to edit out “all snaps, pops, coughs of audience (where possible) and LRH coughs (where possible)” and to cut out “any phrases which might in some way downgrade Scientology, Scientologists” or organizations. You can find the reference in OEC Vol 2.
Lake,
You’re not talking to someone you can make an arguement with that will swallow what you say.
What references are you refering to about Hubbard leaving behind for Scientology management to fix?
Now I’m going to poke holes in your ideas about this. Because they are ideas, not facts.
Hubbard died in 1986.
Why did DM wait till 2007 to fix and release the books if Hubbard actually left behind instructions of what to fix?
Why were several of the books edited in the 90’s if they were wrong to begin with. Instead of just done right.
So it’s okay that “99%” of the Scientology tech was correct but not the books. The one thing that really is the basics of Scientology.
“1. Having the correct technology.
2. Knowing the technology.
3. Knowing it is correct.
4. Teaching correctly the correct technology.
5. Applying the correct technology.
6. Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.
7. Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
8. Knocking out incorrect applications.
9. Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
10. Closing the door on incorrect application.”
Those are the ten poins of Scientology. Because the books were incorret in ANY way it was simply not Scientology. Hubbard doesn’t say it’s okay if you have “99%” of Scientology correct.
I know of knowhere that Hubbard wrote vertatim what he wrote in the books. It was always a general idea not word for word. As your example of the 2D. There are several ideas of what the 2D is.
I know for a fact DM has never released these “references and memos” that Hubbard apperently wrote to correct the books.
You have got to be kidding me. Show me the reference for the Golden Age of Tech drills!
Show me anything that Hubbard wrote about this whole Golden Age of anything!
Why were all the auditor drills and checksheets changed? Where are the reefereences for those changes?
Why are auditors no longer trained the same way Hubbard trained auditors?
Outpoints abound my friend. It’s up to you to see them. But my experience tells me you will continue to justify these actions even though you and I know you have not seen the references on these changes.
mark wrote: “The point seems to be that it is a matter of faith”
Yes, I would agree that it sometimes does come down to a “faith in the judgement” of those making the changes.
“many, many lists online with hundreds of examples of changes, large and small.”
The overriding LRH policy on this is KSW#1 which states: “There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable — only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”
And I don’t see any evidence that basic principles and successful applications have been altered — in fact, quite the opposite. I think there is strong evidence that exhaustive measures (particularly in the last 25 years) were taken by Mithoff, Miscavige and team to ensure that no stone was left unturned in determining what LRH intended for various newly released — or changes to existing — HCOBs, issues, books and lectures. Those that were there personally — even some who’ve left staff or the church altogether — seem to universally agree that this was the approach taken.
“Out of the many, many changes, where is the errata section of the books?”
I know this was a practice in the 1970s by those doing compilations. I don’t have a really good answer for you other than to say that if there was no LRH policy or directive that this be done, then it was likely seen as an additive to the compilations process that LRH developed and so was dropped.
But I see nothing at all wrong with those making lists of changes and doing before/after comparisons. In fact, I think it’s healthy — particularly for those intimiately familiar with the subject. I think there are some folks out there jumping to conspiracy and machiavellian conclusions that aren’t justified, but that’s just my opinion.
Lake,
The number’s not very important- there’s many, many lists online with hundreds of examples of changes, large and small.
The point seems to be that it is a matter of faith, that the changes are beneficial. You’re right, we really don’t know who made the changes, or what process they used. They were simply changed, and one needs to take it on faith that it was in line with Hubbard’s intentions.
Out of the many, many changes, where is the errata section of the books? (where changes are voluntarily addressed and explained- a staple of most scholarly work)
Agree on the intention of the Church to keep things pure and unaltered, but you also need to be aware that certain aspects of the tech, during the several years prior to LRH’s death, were tweaked/developed by LRH by way of notes, advices and other instructions. Nothing major was changed (when you really understand the fundamentals and how the whole subject is organized), but I would suggest you seek out the observations of those personally who were there during this time period (even including those who now have disagreements with management). Their personal presence and involvement (in the 80s in particular) is the important thing. I think you will find that there is a strong concensus that Miscavige, Mithoff and the entire “tech compiliations team” were *extremely* careful to only make changes based on LRH’s wishes.
With that said, let’s take up your examples …
Regarding definition of the Second Dynamic, LRH defined, redefined and redefined several times (particularly in the 50s and 60s) over the years the second dynamic. It increasingly became a concentration on “creativity” and less a concentration on “only family/sex”. Which makes sense, since the overall subject evolved from a concentration on mind/body issues (dianetics 1947-50) to a concentration on one as a spirit and ones relationship with the universe (scientology 1951+). And we see this in various lectures and references on the second dynamic, particularly through the 50s and 60s. The definitions of many things evolved, including the 2D.
That LRH would add this to the LOC course in 1978 does seem to fall in line with these earlier changes. And also as one would expect, the earlier references to the definitions of the 2D (including the one that you mentioned) can still be found in places like the Tech Vols, lectures and/or many books.
If this new definition does not make sense to someone, then I’d suggest that they simply discard it. Their personal integrity trumps LRH.
I could go on and on about “how it makes more sense to me” but not sure that that would help much. Dianetics and Scientology are personal subjects that are either real to one or not.
But I do think the evidence points to the fact that it was LRH who made the change.
——-
Regarding Logic 4 and the definition of “datum”, this definition also evolved over the years. In a 1955 PAB (Professional Auditors Bulletin) — later re-issued on 5-May-1972 as an HCOB — Ron gave a new definition of “datum” where he began defining it as a “symbol” and a “solidity”. On 11-Nov-79, the definition of “knowledge” was redefined by LRH (though not publicly available and published as an HCOB until 25-Jul-87). That LRH did in fact later issue an instruction, advice or note which included a new Logic 4 and definition of “datum” falls very much in line with the later definition in the references above.
——
Regarding the earlier Axiom 4, the inclusion of “or not” in the earlier version doesn’t make sense (from a Scientological point of view). That is, how could “matter, energy, space and time result from *not* considering or agreeing that they exist”? I mean, one could say that mest, theoretically, could *vanish* if one did *not* consider/agree that it exists. But I don’t see how mest could “result” from “not” postulating/agreeing. It just doesn’t make sense from a Scientological point of view.
In any event, determining whether LRH really meant “or not” was left in the hands of the tech compilations team when they went through the raw originals. I would *love* to know the process that this one went through, particularly since the Axioms are so central to Scientology and upon which the rest of Scientology is built. They were amended in the early years (52-55), but were rarely amended in later years (with the exception of Axiom 28 and 51). I do agree with the change on purely common sense grounds (again from a Scientology view), but getting the specifics on how they discovered this one would be fascinating.
—–
Unfortunately I’ve run out of time … so I’ll continue on the final three later…
(but real quickly … I don’t see that any of the last ones are big deals … they look pretty innocuous to me … but I’ll explain why later.)
^well, i would say David Miscavige improved the text.
Okay, as a starting point (all quotes used under the “fair use” doctrine and owned by the Religious Technology Center):
From the CoS website: “To ensure the purity and orthodoxy of the Scripture, the copyrights on all of its published works, which are owned exclusively by the Church of Scientology(tm) for the benefit of the religion, have been registered in all relevant countries. These registrations ensure that the Scientology Scripture cannot be altered, perverted or taken out of context for improper or harmful ends.”
So we can agree that the intent is that the books are not to be altered (assuming the meaning of which to include alteration in such a way that the meaning is fundamentally altered. We are not including spelling corrections, puncuation, etc)
Examples of changes:
Previously, the second dynamic was defined as the urge towards sexual or bisexual activity, to include sex iteself and the rearing of children. This has been changed to creativity, as defined as making “things” for the future and starting a family unit or any family activity. It can also (per the site) INCIDENTALLY include sex.
LRH defined logic four, in 1952, to be “A datum is a facsimile of states of being, states of not being, actions or inactions, conclusions, or suppositions in the physical or any other universe.”. Currenly, it is defined in the new version as “A datum is a symbol of matter, energy, space or time, or any combination thereof, in any universe, or the matter, energy, space or time itself, or any combination thereof, in any universe.”
Axiom 3, in 1988, was “Space, Energy, Objects, Form and Time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon or not by the static, and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.”. Currently, the “or not” is removed.
The original version of PDC 20 recorded the following: “”Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell’s 1984? Yes,yes, that’s wonderful. That would be——–could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence.” In the current version, which I listened to previously has everything deleted after “produced”.
Look also at the Auditor’s code in HCOPL 14, from 1968. Previously, it said “I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.”. Today, as some of you can attest, it says, ‘I promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects.”
This is a biggie: in LRH PL SEP 1982, Hubbard wrote: “This is called rip off. It is the exchange condition of robbers, tax men, governments and other criminal elements.” In ‘Dynamics of Money’, it is written “This is called rip off. It is the exchange condition of robbers, most tax men, many governments and criminal elements.” This coincides with Mr. Miscavige’s appointment as tax compliance officer.
These are just a few of the many changes. I’m still on the fence, but I’m realizing that there may be more to the story…
I would be curious as well. I’m a good little skeptic, and believe only half of what I see and nothing of what I hear (to paraphrase).
I would submit, respectfully, that your perception may be slanted in favor of defense, while I would expect that truth may be looking for flaws. I would expect that both have some measure of actual truth, and look forward to being educated.
Perhaps I would be well advised to get off my duff and research a bit, myself!
Mark
Mark asked: “Do you have any other examples of changes, other than the one that you’ve quoted multiple times?”
Mark, In the basic books, there are numerous minor editorial changes such as putting listed things in bullet point form, instead of bunched into a single paragraph. Some of the 80s and 90s versions of the books had numerous words per page footnoted (with definitions) at the bottom of each page — this was done to apparently help alleviate misunderstoods. I personally felt this was more a distraction than a help, and the new basic books now largely eliminated these footnotes and instead have excellent glossaries and indices at the back of the books.
There are other changes, mostly editorial in nature and from what I can tell, done in respect of LRH’s wishes in policies and in his hope to make the books more readable by most.
In some of the lectures, there are audience coughs and pops edited out (per LRH’s requests). In a couple of the films of LRH, the camera work wasn’t always the best and sometimes it didn’t keep him in the shot. Some fancy digital work was done to fix these up.
But I’d be curious to actually hear what problems that Truth or others are having with these. I mean, compared to the condition of these books (editorial-wise) back in the 70s, these are a huge improvement. Don’t get me wrong — in the early 80s and 90s, the new versions of the books had lots of improvements (particularly with typos). But these 2007 versions really are quite good, again from an editorial perspective. I just don’t see what Truth is so concerned about.
Lake-
I truly respect and admire the time and dedication reflected by your research.
I do not have the time, personally.
Do you have any other examples of changes, other than the one that you’ve quoted multiple times? I’m sure you’re aware of others, but I would appreciate some info, since we’re having a rather productive conversation!
Mark
Truth wrote: “Hubbard wrote KSW for a reason. So either Hubbard never fixed his own books or DM has squirreled them.”
Truth, Hubbard *did* “fix his own books” by leaving policies and instructions behind on how he wished the books and lectures to be restored, edited and/or corrected. Most (if not all) of those policies and instructions are publicly available in the PL volumes. You don’t need trust as much as personal observation and judgement. Compare the old books/lectures to the new ones, and judge for yourself if those who now are in charge of carrying out LRH’s wishes are doing a good job or not. Personally, as in the example I gave, I think they are.
Do you not agree that the *vast* majority (like 99.9%) of the materials are the same, and most of the changes only correct and/or help to clarify the earlier versions (as LRH requested)?
Which changes/edits/corrections in particular do you object to? Do you think that “half of us” makes more sense than “happiness” in the opening line of the lecture/essay “Is it Possible to Be Happy?”
That actually brings up a decent question, anon. Eventually, DM will, for whatever reason, leave his position. Maybe he’ll retire, maybe there will be “other reasons”, but regardless- he’s not immortal. Assuming the CoS outlasts him, how do they choose a new leader? Is it a “hey you” kind of thing, or is there elections, council of elders, etc?
Is that known?
Who will become the new leader of CoS, when David Miscavige goes to jail?
Any candidates yet?
I copied my question over here because I know you have a hard time justifying the books. Please have a go at it.
So you say by comparing the old books to the new books makes it so you know that the current set of books is correct? That doesn’t answer the question of HOW you know thay are correct?
Did DM release copies of the recordings. any transcripts? No, just books. And everything he said was verbally accepted by every Scientologists that the current set of books is correct, even though the books had been fixed once before.
Hubbard wrote KSW for a reason. So either Hubbard never fixed his own books or DM has squirreled them. If it was Hubbard not fixing his own incorrect books then Scientology has been nonexistant till 2007 if you factor in what KSW says. Either way you look at it, you now have to simply have faith that the books are correct. There’s no “knowingness” that they are correct. And either way you look at it there’s something fundamentally wrong with what’s gone on with the books. I’m happy you have faith that the books are correct. But that is all you have.
Hubbard never fixed his own books then writes KSW….interesting. Why is that?
I’m counting the days to the next release of changed materials.
Louanne-
Anonymous’ link that he posted was very informative and, at least on the first page, supportive of scientology. Why was his comment deleted?
Mark
I’m sorry- not to jest, but I just reread this message:
“Or is this like a team action where one asks and the others come in for the assists? All pre-conceived and planned elsewhere, possibly?”
And I had to “lol” at the image- me and two people (who I’ve never met in real life, and don’t even know which country they’re from) getting together, perhaps in some dark basement- charts on the walls and a dim bulb over the table. “okay, men- here’s our strategy. I’ll ask an insightful question. If she doesn’t answer it, BG, I’ll need you to come in and watch my 6. we all know our mission. Godspeed, men”.
And then I get that panicked call at 3AM: “Mark, it’s BigDaddy! I need help here- log in, man, log in!”
Makes my life seem much more exciting :)
I know that’s not what you were insinuating, but that’s the image that I got, lol.
Pat (is that Pat like Patricia or Pat like Patrick? In other words, is that a boy’s name or a girl’s name?)
But, that kind of leads into my question. You have been asked several times why you choose to stay anonymous on this board. You, in reality, hide behind the mask of your online name.
Why do you do this? Why are you, yourself, anonymous?
Thanks for considering my question.
Truth- do what I do and archive the website periodically. When I have comments deleted, it gives me a reference for things that I had said in the past, and things that are proven to get deleted. Think of it as quality control to help Louanne ;)
Httrack works extremely well for this.
What makes it okay for Hubbard to say generalities are an antisocial trait then go right ahead and say that anyone antiScientology has crimes?
That is a generality.
Oh and I wanted to thank you for deleting my questions yesterday. They were obviously too tough for you to answer. Or even justify.
So you say a very specific statement to a person… saying that they are a critic and that they have crimes, and that it’s true 100% of the time… and somehow that’s figurative?
So, then, perhaps the anonymous cohen blogger was being figurative, too?
Pat, seriously, I don’t even see how the word “you” can be considered figurative in any application. Figurative is “raining cats and dogs” or “starved to death”. You is an absolute phrase.
But, let’s pretend for a moment that you didn’t really direct any of those direct accusations at the person to which you were directing them. That would mean that you would have to accept the same from others towards you- that if someone calls you a name, you must allow the same.
Furthermore, you were almost directly quoting Hubbard when you said that all critics have crimes, and that is true 100% of the time. Do you not agree with him on that point, particularly when you were directing it towards a critic?
Mark,
“You” is figurative. If you had looked at the whole thread on this you’d have seen that.
Pat
@sugarboy,
Hubbard was a decent scifi writer, and it’s worth reading some of his books. “The slaves of sleep” is pretty decent.
Pat,
I decided to help you. I only need to find one, and that wasn’t too hard.
On June 14, 2008 at 7:11 PM, you told ErroneousAssumption:
“I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a critic, therefore you have crimes. That’s a certainty. It is true, 100% of the time. Don’t ask us to tell you how to work that out (if you’re even willing to admit that you have them, which I don’t see.)”
You are accusing EA of having crimes in a factual manner, declaring it to be absolutely true.
According to lawinfo.com, it is defamation per se when you level Charges towards any person of “crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime”
Recap: you said EA had crimes… It is defamation per se to do so.
I rest my case :)
Mark
Pat,
It’s all right- I don’t mind letting others speak. And if I did, I would say so. Your own advice would apply- let me handle my own communications. If you need BG to lay off of you, don’t use me as a justification for asking him.
Now I’ve said my peace. I’ve made my point. And you have not responded to it. You’ve ignored it, and that’s okay- doesn’t bother me none.
You asked for examples, I gave it. You asked for specific posts, dates and times… no. You can count that as a win if you want to, but anyone, including you, can do that simple search and confirm the answer that’s already been given.
At a minimum, you would surely agree that you are, at least, posting anonymously, yes?
Mark
not one person… one scientologist. have u not studied the tech? I can’t talk for fr, who is not even talking with u, so not sure what u mean, but if u need me to, I can back off. note that u have 2 talking to u, me and mark; I have 2 talking to me, u and louanne. I have not had the tech, but don have trouble.
anywho, offer stands. if u need it, I will leave u be.
What bothers me is that it appears that Big Daddy and RF have a great deal of difficulty letting Mark handle his own communications. You answer for him and attack the one in discussion with him frequently. Try letting Mark stand up for himself. Don’t say you’re helping him when you do that. It doesn’t. It just tells him that you don’t think he can, so you’ll do it for him.
Or is this like a team action where one asks and the others come in for the assists? All pre-conceived and planned elsewhere, possibly?
Whatever the game is here, it pretty much comes across as attack. Making statements and it’s time to let Mark be his own person and be responsible for his own communication, good or bad. Same with any of you – unless you feel you need to bring a group in against one person …….
Pat
in who’s opinion, truth?
Has there ever been a cae that was justified against Scientology?
trolling? how?? or is that just how u insult everyone u hate?
what’s cold, louanne, is that others would be so quick to defend scientology and not even consider that it, at least locally, played a role. this blind folded defense is why it keeps happening.
look it up, she killed herself on 21 dec 2006. the RG (french fbi) released a whole report on it, even comparing it to kaja ballo, who killed herself more recently, leaving a suicide note and a horrible scientology personality and iq test. before she took that test, she was reported to be very happy. after the test, she killed herslef.
can you really say that those similar cases have no bearing on the case???
“Is not the suicide of 47-year-old French Scientologist Gloria Lopez significant to the case?”
Trolling, Mark…. You are very able to find out, in seconds, that this is not the case. What you are regurgitating here is the cold-hearted propaganda that is trying to influence the outcome of the case described above.
“Or is that a seperate legal complaint?”
There is none.
– Louanne
Louanne,
Is not the suicide of 47-year-old French Scientologist Gloria Lopez significant to the case?
Or is that a seperate legal complaint?
Mark
@ Comment by Sugarboy on September 2, 2009 12:42 am
@Louanne: While this is not directly related to Scientology, I’d like to know what you think of LRH’s fiction. I noticed that galaxypress.com has released trade paperback versions of his work recently and I’m interested getting some reading material for my daily commute.
They are great fun, especially the audiobooks because they are multi-cast (more than one person) with sound effects. LRH had a great sense of humor.
Pat
#Comment by bigdaddy on September 2, 2009 5:52 pm
I am not judging the case, I am sincerely interested in ur thoughts
u are aware of the circumstances dat prompted the case- a suicide and a few bankruptcies. do u feel those are not relevant?”
Interesting how screwed up public perception can get. Here is what this case is about:
Two women paid money to the Church, did not like what they did there, got their money back and left. This happened in the late 1990s. Now the prosecutor, cringing to find a damage case for political reasons (and not even those two ladies) claims that the two have been “coerced” into paying money, which would be a penal offense. It’s a case of significances and maybes, theoretical damages and sh*tloads of nonsense allegations. The trial was flanked by a concert of well planned but horribly executed PR spins (which did not help to influence the trial, i.e. epic fail for those who tried). Now the same is brewing up for the day the judgment will be announced (some time at the end of next month if I remember right). Get some popcorn and watch the show.
– Louanne
I am not judging the case, I am sincerely interested in ur thoughts
u are aware of the circumstances dat prompted the case- a suicide and a few bankruptcies. do u feel those are not relevant?
#Comment by bigdaddy on September 2, 2009 7:29 am
jack remington aside, how do real scientologists view the trial in france?”
As a concerted anti-scientology campaign that will end like any other past anti-scientology campaigns: in a win for justice. The recent trials were pretty eye-opening: no substance to the allegations just a lot of noise and prejudice.
– Louanne
#Comment by Sugarboy on September 2, 2009 12:42 am
@Louanne: While this is not directly related to Scientology, I’d like to know what you think of LRH’s fiction. I noticed that galaxypress.com has released trade paperback versions of his work recently and I’m interested getting some reading material for my daily commute.”
I would order them through their website or Amazon.com.
– Louanne
jack remington aside, how do real scientologists view the trial in france?
@Louanne: While this is not directly related to Scientology, I’d like to know what you think of LRH’s fiction. I noticed that galaxypress.com has released trade paperback versions of his work recently and I’m interested getting some reading material for my daily commute.
[…] Got Questions? Try this… […]