Why do Scientologists never answer your questions ??

[nexus100]

Funny, but the first time I ever heard the term "acceptable truth" was at a deposition for the Fishman trial. After the deposition I went home and looked it up. I felt like I was the only Scientologist who didn't know........

I did a PR course at Flag where "acceptable truth" was part of the curriculum. I didn't realize until just now that I was using it till very recently. It's taken me about 30 years to discard!

 

[uniquemand]

I still haven't discarded it, and don't see any reason to do so. Do you tell your children, when they are four or five years old, that the history of the world is the history of different barbaric groups murdering each other and trying to kill everyone in the other tribes? Do you tell them that everyone dies, and usually there's a lot of pain involved?

I tell people the truth, but I don't tell them the whole truth, necessarily, because there's such a thing as need to know, and prepared for it, educated to understand, etc.

 

[nexus100]

I still haven't discarded it, and don't see any reason to do so. Do you tell your children, when they are four or five years old, that the history of the world is the history of different barbaric groups murdering each other and trying to kill everyone in the other tribes? Do you tell them that everyone dies, and usually there's a lot of pain involved?

I tell people the truth, but I don't tell them the whole truth, necessarily, because there's such a thing as need to know, and prepared for it, educated to understand, etc.

Communication is about understanding. When you exchange with someone it's a good idea to give them all of your viewpoint possible and be willing to hear theirs. ON THE SUBJECT. A child isn't interested in dying, generally. If he/she was one could talk to them about it. Your idea of death won't necessarily be theirs and you are as likely to learn something as they are. You are more likely to be talking about butterflies and how to hit a baseball. That's their interest.
But it seems likely that communicating on a PR level will cut true understanding well short. I realized that I have been doing that.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I don't think acceptable truth is lying, per se. I mean, if you had gotten into Scn/CofS and their family wanted to know some things, you really wouldn't want to drop all this stuff about space opera (the Incident II story isn't disclosed til OTIII but space opera abounds and is known to most CofS members long before they get to that point) and billion year contracts on them all at once. I remember flouting that with some non Scn friends and it didn't go over so well. I mean, is this really any different than what Christians would do if they were talking to someone who didn't know about their ideology. You wouldn't go into all this stuff, say, about Baptism of Desire and indulgences, etc.

Now, before anyone gets wroth with me, I will say this: that if a CofS member was party to some abuses and illegal acts, which some of them are (party to, I mean) and then fobbed the person off with "we have graffiti paintouts" and "we have a nice mini course about marriage" and deliberately evaded the real issue that they knew about- then the acceptable truth thing would then constitute deceit.

But if they were only doing it as a sort of gradient approach to communication and weren't masking any wrongdoing (well, knowingly anyway. I mean if the CofS member didn't know- as many of them don't) then I think the acceptable truth thing is something that can be found in almost any church, cult or even non ideological organization and isn't by itself deceitful. It depends on what else the person has knowledge of and what they're saying, what they know, and WHY they're saying what they're saying.

To sum it up: It makes a difference why a person does something. IOW, his intent.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

are you sure you're not Alex.....?

the point: Why can't $cilons answer the Q: because they 'handle' everything, we are wogs, SP's, PTs etc etc is ALL coming from this conversation thread

& as Alex is a $cilon still, she canot answer Q's because-see above: ^ ^ ^

not about truthfull, not about attacking Alex, just seeing that world AS IT IS.

if I was in attack mode I really think you'd know, if you are in defend everbody & defend everything: how do you ever let food in???

No, I'm not Alex. It's an established fact that Emma does not allow duplicate accounts and that she can see IP addresses. I'm very much a known quantity in critic-dumb, oops, I mean critic-dom.

I don't have to be another individual to disagree with posting ad homs about that person. Alex and I are both Scn'ists, though Alex appears to still have ties to CofS and I definitely do not.

Your generalizations about Scientologists are duly noted. I could say the same about some non Scn'ists I've known.

I post according to my inclinations, same as you. I imagine no one here has any trouble letting food in.

 

[HCObringOrder?]

The phrase "acceptable truth" as used in Scientology comes from HCO PL 13 August 1950 PR Series 2 The Missing Ingredient:

........
As for Zinc's assertion that "every Scientologist learns" this:

PR Series 2 only ever appeared on the checksheets for PR-related staff courses, as well as the OEC and FE BC comprehensive Hubbard admin courses. I'm sure it also appears in a vetted version in some W.I.S.E. PR courses, but I cannot confirm that. ........

Great post. err, Well Done!, not sure which language I should speak, but that really does not matter.
Really, I like the post.

I believe that referenced document was also applied as a KSW cram for new staff who were KR'd for talking too much in Clearwater.

 

[mickturate]

I don't have to be another individual to disagree with posting ad homs about that person.

< = than?

Your generalizations about $cientologists are duly noted. I could say the same about some non $cn'ists I've known.
QUOTE]

'disagree with posting ad homs' & 'I could say the same about some non $cn'ists I've known' not contradictory statements within the same sentence???

so, YOU can make generalisations but others are not allowed? are you sure your $cilon training is not still in effect?

& as for acceptable truth, how you guys delude yourselves, acceptable truth is not kidding kids that santa, easter bunny exist or that there are other more esoteric aspects of god bothering: it IS about $cilons lying to hide the truth of what $cilontology is about: teh munny, teh ca$h & hiding the truth that it is a space opera & IS about denying medicines for those that need them.

there is truth & there is acceptable truth they are NOT equal

get a grip and then let go of all that $cilon bullshit.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I don't have to be another individual to disagree with posting ad homs about that person.

< = than?

Your generalizations about $cientologists are duly noted. I could say the same about some non $cn'ists I've known.
QUOTE]

'disagree with posting ad homs' & 'I could say the same about some non $cn'ists I've known' not contradictory statements within the same sentence???

so, YOU can make generalisations but others are not allowed? are you sure your $cilon training is not still in effect?

& as for acceptable truth, how you guys delude yourselves, acceptable truth is not kidding kids that santa, easter bunny exist or that there are other more esoteric aspects of god bothering: it IS about $cilons lying to hide the truth of what $cilontology is about: teh munny, teh ca$h & hiding the truth that it is a space opera & IS about denying medicines for those that need them.

there is truth & there is acceptable truth they are NOT equal

get a grip and then let go of all that $cilon bullshit.

I wasn't trained to make generalizations in CofS. Any errors I may make- and since I am human, I do make some- are my own.

I've said what I think about acceptable truths. I've said I don't approve of the cult or its adherents lying about the abuses and that I don't approve of the abuses themselves. Maybe you should reread my post since it seems that you may've missed some things in it. I went into a lot of detail and was specific. I made a lot of distinctions.

Your advice is duly noted.

 

[mickturate]

have a look at the Acientologist answers Q's thread

not many answers there :confused2: are there???

 

[degraded being]

Great post. err, Well Done!, not sure which language I should speak, but that really does not matter.
Really, I like the post.

I believe that referenced document was also applied as a KSW cram for new staff who were KR'd for talking too much in Clearwater.

Can't remember when I first read the "acceptable truth" thing. It may have been on the Reg Hat. But I am wondering if I actually read it on the HQS.
That's a low level course, usually done after the Comm Course. Since it is called Hubbard Qualified Scientologist Course and "hatted" a person as a scientologist, part of the "hatting" was, I think a few bits on dissemination.
I'm not sure if I first read "acceptable truth" there, as a tool for new scientologists to use in dissemination, or if I read it later.

 

[Veda]

The phrase "acceptable truth" as used in Scientology comes from HCO PL 13 August 1950 PR Series 2 The Missing Ingredient:

Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don't have to tell everything you know – that would jam the comm lines too. Tell an acceptable truth. … So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth – and which will attain the desirable result. - Ron Hubbard

IIRC, the specific context was about how a Public Relations Officer's (PRO) lines of communication to a given targeted "public" [demographic group] are already jammed with messages from many other sources.

There was also some warning just preceeding the quote above against using falsehoods in PR, as the discovery of such lies makes the recipients stop listening to the source.

So this particular PL really says to use truth in PR, but only such as the targeted public can accept.

-snip-

Suggest taking a closer look. What you're describing is what Hubbard called "PR of PR." Scientology "PR Tech" is multi-layered, and also has confidential issues, plus it interfaces with Scientology Black PR tech, Scientology Propaganda Tech, Black propaganda Tech, and Scientology Intelligence Tech (both "data collection" and "attack" or "support" Intelligence), and the covert manufacturing of "facts" or "truth."

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

 

[at3ist]

politician do that too, not just scientologist, like come up with shit that wasnt on the question and not giving straigth answers

 

[mickturate]

Scientology "PR Tech" is multi-layered, and also has confidential issues, plus it interfaces with Scientology Black PR tech, Scientology Propaganda Tech, Black propaganda Tech, and Scientology Intelligence Tech (both "data collection" and "attack" or "support" Intelligence), and the covert manufacturing of "facts" or "truth."

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

now isn't that fecking tiresome.....

and they dare to call this a feckin religion.

 

[iaxiloll]

politician do that too, not just scientologist, like come up with shit that wasnt on the question and not giving straigth answers

How right you are, do you know any politicians in Scientology? They are probably the worst kind?

 

[HCObringOrder?]

Lest we forget...

How right you are, do you know any politicians in Scientology? They are probably the worst kind?

The late Sonny Bono.
Palm Springs

But if your in Scientology and your a politician then your tone scale is 1.1 with a 1.1 frozen point, so you would not ever let anyone know (covert). And OSA would have the nerve control implant on you. (disclaimer for uninformed - there are no... oh? ... never mind)

 

[uniquemand]

There could be others. I think, at this point, they would conceal any connection to the Church.