Hey FTS.
What I was hoping is that some brilliant and wise Scientologist Scholars would show how the DA material was taken out of context. Squirreled, corrupted, violated or otherwise contorted.
The Cof$ has become expert in torturing extracts of Hubbard's work to make it say what was wanted out of context. Input was wanted to demonstrate how.
Cop ya later.
Reading the DA material, it started perculating in my mind during the day and I came up with what I believe are some valid critques.
SOFT SALE?
Hubbard distinguished between THREE type of sales, the SOFT SALE, the HARD SALE and the CRUSH SALE! The DA just comes out swinging, calling Debbie Cook an SP for engaging in the Soft Sale. There is no evidence of this. She was the head exec at the Flag Land Base for !7 YEARS!! She presided over a time span when $1.7billion dollars was regged for and obtained!! Obviously, she was not promoting a Soft Sell but rather she was promoting a Hard Sale.
LRH wrote a policy in the Registrars Hat Pack frowning on Crush Reging. This is where lies and tricks are used to get money which a parishioner actually needs to survive. An example might be to get the parishioner to sell his car but by doing so cause him to be unable to get to work thus cause him to lose his job. The DA must prove that Debbie used the soft sale and not just assert it. Until they prove it with concrete data and examples, I would not accept their assertion
WHY ARE SO MANY BIG NAME AND LONG TIME SCIENTOLOGISTS FOUND TO BE SUPPRESIVE?
John McMaster, Otto Roos, David Mayo, Hanna Eltringham, Bill Franks, and more recently Larry Anderson, Mike Rinder, Paul Hagis, Jason Behge and now Debbie Cook - on and on and on the list goes. All these people were once opinion leaders, top names and top producers in the C of S and are all now declared suppressive.
How can this be? Suppressives represent only 2.5% of the population so how can so many of them gravitate into leadership positions in the C of S and remain there undetected for decades. The C of S is the most experienced group, in fact possibly the only group, which is trained to spot and handle suppressive people, so why were all these people able to rise to leadership positions and remain undetected as suppressive persons for decades?
There are several ways that this could happen:
1. The person came into C of S as a non-suppressive person but being in C of S over a period of years caused then to exhibit suppressive tendencies.
2. The person is not suppressive but they have an honest disagreement with C of S who then labels them suppressive even though they are not so.
3. The person was suppressive all the time and yet went undetected by C of S management for years or many decades.
All of these reflect very badly on C of S. It either shows that the PTS/SP tech is ineffective and does not work or that church execs cannot apply it since so many suppressives remain undetected even though having worked closely with C of S's top Management for very long periods of time .
Another question is why all of these people had very high stats for extended periods of time. LRH's tech says that suppressives cannot finish cycles of actions and that they turn out overt products. That being the case, added to the fact they are only 2.5% of the population leads one to believe that point #2 is the correct description of why they have been declared.
INFINITE VALUED LOGIC?
LRH talks about Aristotle teaching two valued logic, either a thing is correct or incorrect. He mention that Western science and math developed 3 valued logic; yes, no or maybe. He then says that the study of Scientology leads to Infinite Valued logic. Eveything has some degree of truth and some degree of a lie within it. There are therefore infinite shades of grey as gradients of how true or how false a particular assertion is.
The DA attacking Debbie Cook exhibits single valued logic; either someone believes 100% in what C of S is saying or else they are a suppressive person. In C of S, infinite valued logic is not allowed. No one is allowed to question anything set down by top Management. Even questioning something in a positive manner is considered a suppressive act. This shows that the Infinite Valued Logic which LRH talked about, as a tenet of Scientology, is not allowed in the church, nor is 3 valued logic, nor even two valued logic. C of S admits only 1 value logic; one must agree with what they say or be cast out as a suppressive person.
There are other specific topics where I have counterarguments against the DA but this post is getting long and the topics I've covered suffice to show the weakness of the DA's arguments.
Lakey