What's new

a question to sneakster

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Thetanic -

It must be my held down 7 regarding all this, but I missed your response to my response to your question to me about disconnection per the 1965 Suppressive Acts PL by L Ron Hoover.

Are we just ignoring that and moving on now?
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Look these over and be the Ethics officer applying this PL with a Scientologist.

If a person is pronounced an SP by HCO, does this policy allow for a scenario where you can work out a handling for a scientologist to stay connected to the SP - even if the handling is successful and yet the sp is still under declare?

Alanzo -- all I can say is that it definitely was the case in situations I knew and observed while I was in, and not just my own.
 
Alanzo -- all I can say is that it definitely was the case in situations I knew and observed while I was in, and not just my own.


I can't speak to your recollections, T, however I know of a case some 20+ years back which involved an individual who has since risen to become a senior exec in the SO. So yes, such things have happened. Things change.


Mark A. Baker
 
All I can say is hell would freeze over before anyone would do that in an org and not get done over by ethics and OSA
unless it was an OP. Was thetanic used by OSA?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
All I can say is hell would freeze over before anyone would do that in an org and not get done over by ethics and OSA
unless it was an OP. Was thetanic used by OSA?

It wouldn't surprise me that they'd want to have someone 'in place' in case they chose to 'take action' later. Regardless of whether they were running her then.

Can't see much reason otherwise to insist that she stay connected.

Zinj
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
All I can say is hell would freeze over before anyone would do that in an org and not get done over by ethics and OSA
unless it was an OP. Was thetanic used by OSA?

Nope. No op. No infiltration. I wouldn't have agreed to that shit.

I'm just saying: times are different now even though the letter of the policy hasn't changed.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Nope. No op. No infiltration. I wouldn't have agreed to that shit.

I'm just saying: times are different now even though the letter of the policy hasn't changed.

Are you saying you assume they would have *told* you that you were part of an 'op' or potential op? Why would they?

Zinj
 

Veda

Sponsor
Nope. No op. No infiltration. I wouldn't have agreed to that shit.

I'm just saying: times are different now even though the letter of the policy hasn't changed.

There are always some variations, but this is so vague...

At least, would it be possible to place a date and location on this?

What year or years?, and if not a specific location, perhaps "Northern Hemisphere," "Southern Hemisphere," etc.
 
Nope. No op. No infiltration. I wouldn't have agreed to that shit.

I'm just saying: times are different now even though the letter of the policy hasn't changed.


No times are not different now. Even if what you say is true in your case, which I completely doubt, you are also trying to put across the idea that this was commonplace.

That is where it starts to sound suspicious to me. Like you are yourself trying to get out disinformation.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
there is so much bloviating from Hubbard apologists about this it just drives me crazy.

In the tech as written by the Tubby One for example - after an S&D is done the PC writes what?

Disconnection letters

The Handling for PTS Type 1 is what?

Handle or Disconnect.

The other Policies

It is a High Crime/ Suppressive Act for someone to remain part of a suppressive group. It is a High crime to refuse to disconnect.

Anyone who seriously tries to blame Miscavige for disconnection and the odious policy that it is doesn't know scientology very well.

You can blame Miscavige for enforcing it of course but that would be to say that Hubbard was wrong - which of course he was.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are always some variations, but this is so vague...

At least, would it be possible to place a date and location on this?

What year or years?, and if not a specific location, perhaps "Northern Hemisphere," "Southern Hemisphere," etc.

Western US. 70s. 80s. Early 90s.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Are you saying you assume they would have *told* you that you were part of an 'op' or potential op? Why would they?

Well, given that I wasn't passing information either way (except for feeling obligated to report my connection's choice of activity, which I didn't inquire further about, but did occasionally hear about), if I were part of an op, it was full of fail.

But then I was one of those people who told E/Os things like "no" after the time when I shouldn't have said yes.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Anyone who seriously tries to blame Miscavige for disconnection and the odious policy that it is doesn't know scientology very well.

You can blame Miscavige for enforcing it of course but that would be to say that Hubbard was wrong - which of course he was.

To be clear: I don't blame Miscavige. The culture I'm hearing about now is different than the time and place where I was in. I may very well have been lucky, but I was quiet, kept to myself, did my job, and mostly kept out of trouble. I was never subject to any justice actions.

Since people where I was didn't talk about their case, I have no idea if the application of that policy was uneven -- or not.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Nope. No op. No infiltration. I wouldn't have agreed to that shit.

I'm just saying: times are different now even though the letter of the policy hasn't changed.

As a "public person" on the 'Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course" at the New York Org in 1971/72, I first observed that when someone was a declared SP, he became persona non grata, very much unwelcome, and not to be communicated with. No doubt, there were some exceptions, even then, but these were in the "handle the SP" category, and the situation was monitored.

But this is so vague.

At least, would it be possible to place a date and location on this?

What year or years?, and if not a specific location, perhaps "Northern Hemisphere," "Southern Hemisphere," etc. AO, local Org, Mission, etc.?

And even with date and (some) location info, without additional detail about the situation, it's almost impossible to evaluate.
 
Quote (Thetanic)

"....Alanzo -- all I can say is that it definitely was the case in situations I knew and observed while I was in, and not just my own..."

What org was it? You say there were situations (plural).
not just your own.

So giving the org name after all this time on such general infomation will not "out" you.
 
snip
To be clear, not only was I permitted contact with members of suppressive groups when I was on staff, I was required to continue those relationships. I was not in a job that would normally require same (e.g. DSA), nor was it within the context of my job. I was asked to disconnect from one person who hadn't committed any suppressive acts per se, but I never disagreed with that disconnection (nor have I sought out my former friend after leaving Scn). Suffice to say there was good reason, and I still agree with those reasons.

I'm not saying that policy wasn't applied differently elsewhere, just that disconnect was not a requirement.

I honestly do not believe you.

I am not saying you are lying, but I think maybe you don't have it right, unless it was some overwhelmed org without a trained EO......

Na, I still don't believe it.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
T

TheSneakster

Guest
That is where it starts to sound suspicious to me. Like you are yourself trying to get out disinformation.

ESMB has it's very own custom debate fallacy and the above is a perfect example.

It's a combination of the Straw Man Fallacy with the Appeal to Motive Fallacy. I think I shall name it Imputing Evil Intent which is exactly what you just did, DB.

Neither mine, nor yours nor Thetanic's nor anyone else's intentions, real or imaginary, determine whether a given statement of fact is or is not true.

Michael A. Hobson
I am *not* anonymous. I *do* forgive.
 
Top