Are SP declares still happening or not? A/o Know?

RogerB

Crusader
You Dunces Missed One!


What about the infamous, earliest, evilist one, The Rockslammer!

Or is that one tooooo bad to be included in polite company?

R
 

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
Not to forget the always popular 'PTS to the Middle Class' for KSW Slackers.
KSW slackering. Well that is now a Suppressive Act according to the 2007 Ethics book. There are now over 60 Suppressive Acts, including all ten KSW one points and the ten Tech Degrades.

Yes, it's true. Not KNOWING the tech is correct is now a Suppressive act.:confused2:

Just imagine the scene. New person, in off the street on a comm course. Seen the Orientation video. Sea Ogre gets on their case and establishes that they are uncertain about the Tech being correct ...
:screwy: :banghead: :violent:

:whatever:
 

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
R/S'ers

What about the infamous, earliest, evilist one, The Rockslammer!

Or is that one tooooo bad to be included in polite company?
Well now, being an R/S'er is not a suppressive act.

Being an R/S'er doesn't make you an illegal pc.

Of course "Jokers and Degraders" fall in to at least one of the four categories:

a) R/S'er
b) Institutional type case
c) NCG
d) Severely PTS

(I am just typing this with the Ethics book open in front of me.:D )

If you are a Joker, a Degrader, or an R/S'er, the C/S'ed program is probably something like ...

Sec check until body is dead or bank account is depleted.

Oh sh*t, there I go, Joking and Degrading again. :duh:

:whocares: :whistling:

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:
 

wpc

New Member
With thanks

Pascal, HCObringOrder, Bea Kiddo and Div 6 thanks for the info. At the time we got nothing in writing, but I now do remember some mention of "....type h", which Div 6 mentioned, and yes my partner has had the odd call from the org since then. Once again thanks for the clarification.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Devil! Satan! Ye Heathen! Arghh!

Pascal, HCObringOrder, Bea Kiddo and Div 6 thanks for the info. At the time we got nothing in writing, but I now do remember some mention of "....type h", which Div 6 mentioned, and yes my partner has had the odd call from the org since then. Once again thanks for the clarification.

No problem. Everyone can be "boxed" in a type "x" or declared "y" in CoS or in any group or society. CoS culture is highly conformist, anyone not conforming will end up ousted by the above mecanism.

I was once declared PTS type J (someone who commits bad acts all the time and doesn't get wins because of that) by an idiotic ethics officer (who ended up Continental Justice Chief). The funny thing is how many people would tell me how much I was changing for the better in the Org. I eventually wrote to RTC about this and they abolished the declare (this was when RTC was more than DM and his dogs). Did I get compensation for this injustice? Nope. But it was an inkling of justice at least.

Nowadays CoS is so undermanned and overdwarfed that justice is a pipe dream.

Best.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Ah, Lesolee, You missed the fun of the early days

Well now, being an R/S'er is not a suppressive act.

Being an R/S'er doesn't make you an illegal pc.

Of course "Jokers and Degraders" fall in to at least one of the four categories:

a) R/S'er
b) Institutional type case
c) NCG
d) Severely PTS

(I am just typing this with the Ethics book open in front of me.:D )

If you are a Joker, a Degrader, or an R/S'er, the C/S'ed program is probably something like ...

Sec check until body is dead or bank account is depleted.

Oh sh*t, there I go, Joking and Degrading again. :duh:

:whocares: :whistling:

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:


Ahhh, as far as labels go . . . note I specify labels, not truth:) being labeled and R/Ser is way earlier than the later ugly labels put on folk.

In 1962, a Scn List One R/Ser was actually put off staff and/or barred from processing if it could not be cleared . . . (Scn List One is a list of all the Scn good items like LRH himself, MSH, HASI etc. And if you R/Sed on any of the items you were deemed to have reactive evil intentions against the goodnes of Scn and its elements).

Of course, those were the days before Eth Conditions and all the other charms of life on staff. And also the days before all the ways the "org" could screw a persons passage up the bridge became codified and printed up in pretty manuals.

Now they do a thoroughly standard and professional job of it:grouch:

Rog
 

HCObringOrder?

Silver Meritorious Patron


Ahhh, as far as labels go . . . note I specify labels, not truth:) being labeled and R/Ser is way earlier than the later ugly labels put on folk.

In 1962, a Scn List One R/Ser was actually put off staff and/or barred from processing if it could not be cleared . . . .....

And in the late 70s I remember R/Ser was listed in one SP Declare as an item indicating the SPness. It was on a major person at Flag, but I cannot remember the who.
Also, I recall that R/S was talked about in one of the lectures, but I am having difficulty narowing down the concept to an SP indicator. :confused2:

Maybe it was one of those lectures that I listened to that were sitting on a tape recorder next to mine when the auditor was late for a session and did not check it back in.
You know, dark class room to save power, with little lights at each table, next to the stage in the main floor ballroom/staff dining area. One tape looks the same as another and I was blowing from my MUs on the Clay Demo which was next on my check sheet. Not to mention the medical problem (unknown at the time) which kept me from getting good sleep.
:duh:
 

Takin Time

Patron with Honors
My partner was declared open minded, and we were informed he would no longer be called or get mail from the org (very sad!!!).....so does that mean there are different types/categories of declare?
"Open minded" is a "Source of Trouble" (not a PTS, Potential Trouble Source). It's one of the "A to J" things Scientology checks for. They are checking for "sources of trouble". Here's a snippet from the reference, showing just source-of-trouble-H which is "open minded".

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MAY 1969
POLICIES ON “SOURCES OF TROUBLE”

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble”. They include:

...

(h) Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them”.

...

To summarize troublesome persons, the policy in general is to cut communication as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know of many cases where they were handled by firm legal stands, by ignoring them until they change their minds, or just turning one’s back.

In applying a policy of cut-communication one must also use judgement as there are exceptions in all things and to fail to handle a person’s momentary upset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to nonScientology persons in the main or persons who appear on the outer fringes and push toward us. When such a person bears any of the above designations we and the many are better off to ignore them.

Scientology works. You don’t have to prove it to everyone. People don’t deserve to have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has been true in every philosophy that sought to better man.

All the above “Sources of Trouble” are also forbidden training and when a person being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings (a) to (j) he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must be paid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus the few may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many. And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better, and the more people you will eventually help.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
 

RogerB

Crusader
And in the late 70s I remember R/Ser was listed in one SP Declare as an item indicating the SPness. It was on a major person at Flag, but I cannot remember the who.
Also, I recall that R/S was talked about in one of the lectures, but I am having difficulty narowing down the concept to an SP indicator. :confused2:
It goes back to the original 1962 LRH view of things. The think being that an R/S is based on an opposing intention. It's not necessarily evil, just violently in opposition . . . indeed we used to use R/S reads to list off items/opposing items on "line plots" or packages of our own case items at one time.

When LRH came up with his Scn List One (not to be confused with the List One (L1) used for upset handlings), the think morphed into becoming that anyone who had opposing intentions to Scn obviously had evil intent, and was evil - - - see the think?

It later, further morphed into R/S equals evil intent . . . which in precise terms, is not actually true. AN R/S is simply reading on the colossal conflict deep in the case on two violently opposed intentions.

Rog
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
The main point here is that these labels are for newbies. LRH says in the SHSBC that you don't declare SP someone who's been onboard for years, etc...

This is were things went wrong in CoS. Failure to take responsability for the troops. And DM's innate cruelty.

When you see auditors declares SPs, class VIIIs and class XIIs... It's just plain stupid. :confused2:

Qual went out, then tech.. And ethics went nuts. :party:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Yep!

The main point here is that these labels are for newbies. LRH says in the SHSBC that you don't declare SP someone who's been onboard for years, etc...

This is were things went wrong in CoS. Failure to take responsability for the troops. And DM's innate cruelty.

When you see auditors declares SPs, class VIIIs and class XIIs... It's just plain stupid. :confused2:

Qual went out, then tech.. And ethics went nuts. :party:
Yep, and Yep again and again.

Brilliantly written.

R
 

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
LRH says in the SHSBC that you don't declare SP someone who's been onboard for years, etc...
Do you have a reference for this? :confused2:

I don't recall hearing this, or seeing it written, and it would be a valuable refernce to have. Since SHSBC covers all tech vols, all books and 450+ tapes, it would be nice to narrow it down a bit. :eyeroll:
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Must find tape...

Do you have a reference for this? :confused2:

I don't recall hearing this, or seeing it written, and it would be a valuable refernce to have. Since SHSBC covers all tech vols, all books and 450+ tapes, it would be nice to narrow it down a bit. :eyeroll:

It's on a PTS/SP related tape. Should be in the tapes that come with the PTS/SP course, though RTC might have edited-out that part in later editions. I'll fish for it in my LRH treasure trove. Arrrrrrr!
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The main point here is that these labels are for newbies. LRH says in the SHSBC that you don't declare SP someone who's been onboard for years, etc...

Don't remember that one from what I did of the course.

And since LRH personally declared David Mayo, the Senior C/S International, and his own auditor for 8 years, sorry, but I don't think he ever said this.
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
Don't remember that one from what I did of the course.

And since LRH personally declared David Mayo, the Senior C/S International, and his own auditor for 8 years, sorry, but I don't think he ever said this.

He says that you don't declare someone who's been "with us for over 2 years", something like that. I've been searching for the tape and will look more later.

How do you know LRH declared Mayo personally? Were you there with him when he did?

One should apply ethics gradients and respect Kha Khans like Mayo was. One day we'll get to the bottom of all this.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
He says that you don't declare someone who's been "with us for over 2 years", something like that. I've been searching for the tape and will look more later.

How do you know LRH declared Mayo personally? Were you there with him when he did?

One should apply ethics gradients and respect Kha Khans like Mayo was. One day we'll get to the bottom of all this.

Read the SOED from 1983 entitled "The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo".
 

Smitty

Silver Meritorious Patron
coment to Axiom142

Yes, but don't forget that Hubbard had been in hiding for about a decade by this time and had a couple of strokes.
Can we be certain that he authorised this, or even knew about it?
Axiom142
How do you know that Hubbard was in hiding for about a decade? Did you witness that? How do you know that he had strokes? Did you witness them or diagnose them?
How do you know that he issued or authorized anything? Did YOU witness him doing so? How can you be certain that he even knew about anything issued in his name?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Yes, but don't forget that Hubbard had been in hiding for about a decade by this time and had a couple of strokes.

Can we be certain that he authorised this, or even knew about it?

Axiom142

I had a friend named Melanie Murray who was a Class 8 and who worked with both Hubbard and Mayo in the late 1970's and early 1980's. She also worked with Ray Mithoff who is named as the author of this.

She never said that Mayo was declared without Hubbard's knowledge, or against Hubbard's will, etc. She was declared at the time of Mayo, as well. But she worked herself back into good graces with the Church and she is a Flag HGC auditor today, last I heard.

But hey - maybe Ron really did say that we should never declare anyone who has been with us for more than 2 years.

What about Otto Roos?

Don Purcell? (although he was not "declared" actually)

Dr Winter?

L Ron Hubbard, Jr? (Nibs)

Hubbard had a very consistent habit of discrediting and jettisoning people who had worked closely with him for many many years, usually in highly placed and trusted positions.

Stalin had the same problem, I hear.

The idea that Hubbard sai that we don't declare people who had been with us for more than two years goes against the very reason for declares in the first place: to weed out those who know too much and who might keep talking.

He might have lied and said we don't do that, though, too.

But he sure did it.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
How do you know that Hubbard was in hiding for about a decade? Did you witness that? How do you know that he had strokes? Did you witness them or diagnose them?
How do you know that he issued or authorized anything? Did YOU witness him doing so? How can you be certain that he even knew about anything issued in his name?

Good points.

I think the correction of "the Basics" has made it abundantly clear that Ron had no clue of anything he published from 1948 on.
 
Top