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.Not to forget the always popular 'PTS to the Middle Class' for KSW Slackers.
Well now, being an R/S'er is not a suppressive act.What about the infamous, earliest, evilist one, The Rockslammer!
Or is that one tooooo bad to be included in polite company?
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.
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. )
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.
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 . . . .....
"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".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?
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
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.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:
Yep, and Yep again and again.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.
Do you have a reference for this? :confused2: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.
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.
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".
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?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
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?